Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

“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