Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

“Imprisonment for Life in 28-Year-Old Case: ‘Awarding Death Sentence Would Not Be Appropriate,’ Rules Supreme Court”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today overturned the acquittal of respondent no.2, convicting him under Section 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court stated, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case... awarding death sentence would not be appropriate,” settling for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment of seven years.

The Bench, comprising Justices SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ABHAY S. OKA, and VIKRAM NATH, highlighted the age of the case, stating it dated back to the year 1995. They deemed a death sentence to be disproportionate given the case’s age, thereby sentencing the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and a fine of Rs. 20 lacs. For the offense under Section 307 IPC, the Court ordered a 7-year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5 lacs.

The Court took a unique stance on the fine distribution, mentioning that “the fine has been awarded considering the shocking facts and circumstances of the case.” It used Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to direct that the fine be utilized for compensating the victim’s family and the legal heirs of the deceased.

Adding a further twist, the Court criticized the State’s role in the prosecution. It remarked, “We are not inclined to grant any such expenses to the State considering the fact that the State, in fact, did not prosecute the case fairly, rather throughout assisted the accused.” Consequently, additional compensation was awarded under Section 357-A of the CrPC.

In terms of compliance, the Court ordered the fine and compensation to be deposited within two months, with a compliance report due in four months. The appeal was disposed of as per the guidelines, wrapping up this long-standing case.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2023

HARENDRA RAI vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Latest Legal News