Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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