Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Extreme Penalty Should Be Imposed In Extreme Cases – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court, comprising Judges Lisa Gill and Archana Puri, pronounced its verdict in the case of multiple murders involving convicts Kanwar Singh and others. The court, after meticulously considering aggravating and mitigating factors, decided to sentence all convicts to life imprisonment, highlighting the importance of reformation and integration of convicts into society.

“Extreme penalty should be imposed in extreme cases,” the court emphasized, citing the principle established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1984). The court weighed factors such as the heinous nature of the crime, individual conduct, age, and family situations of the convicts while determining the sentences.

Taking into account the principle that death penalty should be avoided when chances of reformation exist, the court balanced retribution with rehabilitation. It acknowledged the delay in the trial process due to the COVID-19 pandemic, considering it as a mitigating circumstance.

While the court recognized the gravity of the crime, it ruled that the case did not meet the criteria of being the “rarest of rare.” “Weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this case does not meet the test of ‘rarest of rare’ case,” the judgment read.

Convicts Jai Parkash and Parmod, who were already serving life sentences for another murder, were sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of their lives. The court also imposed fines on the convicts, to be disbursed to the legal heirs of the victims under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

 Date of Decision: August 16, 2023

Sheela  vs Brahamjit and others      

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sheela_vs_Brahamjit_And_Ors_on_16_August_2023_PH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News