Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court stated that it was imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage, in order ‘to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime’.
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.
In petitions challenging the premature release of 13 life convicts by the State Government, the Madras High Court held that there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Special Judge convicting the accused under Section 376 of
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the present appeal preferred by the appellant against judgment dated 09-08-2012 and the
Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant who is a UP Police official, charged under Section 302,
Meghalaya High Court: While disposing off the petition, the division bench comprising of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. set aside
Patiala House Courts: Stating that the crimes for which the convict had been convicted were intended to strike at the heart of
Supreme Court: In a big relief for A.G. Perarivalan, convicted for assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the 3-judge bench of
“Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission.”
Supreme Court: In a case where a man had brutally raped and murdered a 7-year-old girl, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. allowed an appeal against conviction of the Appellant
Supreme Court: In a case where the trial court had convicted the accused and imposed death penalty on the very same day,
“It is no part of any judge’s duty to strain the plain words of a statute, beyond recognition and to the point
“There is a bounden duty cast on the Courts to elicit information of all the relevant factors and consider those regarding the possibility of reformation, even if the accused remains silent.”
Supreme Court: In a case where a death row convict subjected a 5-year-old girl to rape, killed her by strangulation, and then
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was convicted for killing his wife on the suspicion of her infidelity and was
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi*, JJ., dismissed the instant appeal filed against the order of