Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

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"]

Similar News