Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)Om Prakash Alias Parkash And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 26 April, 1994
1561; Sheikh Abdul Ahmed and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 726; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1332; Sheikh Ishaque and others v. State of Bihar, 1995 SCC (Cri) 534; Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 753; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Vithal v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 SCC (Cri) 629 in support of his contention.
Sheikh Ishaque And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 10 March, 1995
1561; Sheikh Abdul Ahmed and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 726; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1332; Sheikh Ishaque and others v. State of Bihar, 1995 SCC (Cri) 534; Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 753; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Vithal v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 SCC (Cri) 629 in support of his contention.
Panchhi And Others, National ... vs State Of Up And Others on 19 August, 1998
10. We have (with reference to the above findings) examined the question of the gravity of the offence. In this connection, Mr. Cheema argued that the number of dead was not always a true indicator in this regard and the more significant factors were the motive which had led to the murders and the actual execution of the murders and if both these aspects were truly reprehensible that it could safely be said that the accused had forfeited his right to life as he was amenace to society, only then was the death penalty called for. He has primarily referred to the observations pf the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allaud-din Mian and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1456; Panchhi and others v. State of U.P., 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.)
Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982
In this view of the matter, the mere fact that the three persons were shot in cold blood, would not bring the case within the category of the rarest of rare case as held by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh's case (supra). We also find from the statement made by the accused, Puran Chand, before the Sessions Judge on 13.5.1999 that he was the father of small children and married to an ailing wife and that he was an ex-serviceman and that his tenure of service had been without blemish. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the reasons recorded above, the award of the death penalty was not called for. We, therefore, decline the reference but sentence Puran Chand accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,0007-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for three years. The fine, if realised, shall be shared equally by the legal representatives of the three deceased.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shamshul Kanwar vs State Of U.P on 4 May, 1995
1561; Sheikh Abdul Ahmed and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1998 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 726; Om Parkash v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1332; Sheikh Ishaque and others v. State of Bihar, 1995 SCC (Cri) 534; Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 753; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 SCC (Cri) 580 and Vithal v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 SCC (Cri) 629 in support of his contention.
1