Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High 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