Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The crime committed by the convict was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomized and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased. The post-mortem report clearly indicated that death was due to asphyxia by throttling”.
The Court asserted that Judicial discipline requires coordinate benches to follow earlier decisions or refer the matter to a larger bench if there is disagreement.
The present case is the most brutal, barbaric, and gruesome murder of a 60-year-old mother by her son on 28-08-2017 at Makadwala Vasahat, Kolhapur, where her body parts, i.e., liver, intestine, heart, rib and breast were eviscerated outside
The power conferred in the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is a residuary power and to be exercised only when no alternative remedy is available.
When the question of National security and safety arises, it is quite serious than the cases of gruesome murder and in the present circumstances, the Court is not prepared to risk the National security and safety.
The Court opined that the prosecution did not place any material or evidence to conclude that reformation, rehabilitation, and social re-integration of the accused into society was not possible.
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
“The Court is mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provides that the contact between the accused and the victim should be prevented to minimise the trauma experienced by the child.”
“The main object of sentencing a convicted person is to bring in him certain character reformation and to keep him away from the society so as to see that the impact of his criminal character does not put any adverse impact on any other person.”
A convict has to keep in contact with the civil society although sporadically, so that his societal roots do not dry up when he languishes in the jail.
The Supreme Court viewed that after the introduction of Section 54A in CrPC, an accused is under an obligation to stand for Test identification parade.
It is time to ensure that a convict who leaves the correction home/prison is restored to the society as a law-abiding citizen who has repented his past conduct. This can be achieved only if the mental health issues of the convicts in prisons are recognized and attended to, rejecting the notion that this view is too idealistic.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
As there was no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address the legitimate grievances and prayers for being compensated for work related injuries sustained by a convict-inmate while serving sentence, the Delhi High Court laid down certain guidelines that would be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life-threatening injury, arising out of work-related injury, sustained by the convict.
Supreme Court held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, it set aside the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court's judgment and order and acquitted the convicts.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by two convicts (‘petitioners’) challenging an order dated 09-07-2021 passed by Home Department,
Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.
Madras High Court: Expressing that, a convict cannot enjoy all the liberties as are available to a common person, otherwise there would
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ was called upon to decide whether it
Patna High Court: Noticing discrepancies in the Trial the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Sinha, JJ., acquitted a