Red-Fort Attack Case – Death penalty to Lakshar-e-Toiba militant – Affirmed –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. ARIF @ ASHFAQ — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and…
Illegal solitary confinement -HELD the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to death sentence to life – Ends of justice would be met if while commuting the death sentence awarded to the appellant,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.A. UMESH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…
HELD The High Court was justified in exercising its appellate jurisdiction in reversing the order of acquittal as there were certain glaring mistakes, and distorted conclusions in the decision of the Trial Court. The High Court was duty-bound to reverse the decision as there existed very substantial and compelling reasons to do so, failing which it would have caused a grave miscarriage of justice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…
Death Sentence – Rape and murder of a housewife – Held, impact of solitary confinement were obviously evident in the instant case, as would be clear from the letter given by the medical professional on 6.11.2011 and the communication emanating from the jail on 8.11.2011. The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being of the appellant. In the backdrop of these features of the matter, the appellant is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to death sentence to life
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH B.A. UMESH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…
HELD the High Court is justified in reversing the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court- the motive is treated secondary in view of the fact that this is a case of direct evidence of injured eye-witnesses- the facts narrated in the FIR are fully corroborated by much of the documentary evidence and are fully in consonance with the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. the only question related to the persons involved and the manner of commission of the offence. Finding of trial Court that the arrest and recovery were doubtful were glaring mistakes. H C completely justified. Dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Pamidighantam…
(IPC) – S 302, 376A, 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) – POCSO Act, 2012 – Ss 5 (i) and 5(m) 6 – HELD modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences – Petition allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. FIROZ — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M.…
There is no rule to the effect that a dying declaration is inadmissible when it is recorded by a police officer instead of a Magistrate. HELD The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity
The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test must not be conducted – It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes…
Extra Judicial Confession Of A Co-Acccused Cannot Be Relied On As Substantive Evidence ; It’s Only A Corroborative Piece Of Evidence
Extra Judicial Confession Of A Co-Acccused Cannot Be Relied On As Substantive Evidence ; It’s Only A Corroborative Piece Of Evidence To come to the ratio, we find that the…
HELD modify the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC and for the offence under Section 5 (i) and 5 (m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, so as to commensurate the said sentences with the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 376(A) of IPC, and accordingly imposes sentence directing the appellant/petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a period of twenty years instead of life imprisonment for the said offences.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MOHD. FIROZ — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M.…
(IPC) – Sections 302 and 149 – Murder – Non-recovery of the weapons cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of the injured eye witnesses -HELD in order to make culpable homicide as murder the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of clauses firstly to fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURMAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…