Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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