Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

Rajasthan High Court Commuted Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment in Gruesome Rape and Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant and thought-provoking verdict, the Rajasthan High Court has commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment in a case involving the horrifying rape and murder of a minor girl. The court's decision, delivered by Justices Bhuvan Goyal and Pankaj Bhandari, underscores the delicate equilibrium that must be maintained between the seriousness of the crime and the individual characteristics of the accused.

The judgment, rooted in meticulous legal analysis and referencing past legal precedents, highlights the constitutional aspect of the death penalty. "Life imprisonment is the norm, and the death sentence is the exception," the court iterated, underlining the principle that capital punishment should be reserved for the "rarest of rare cases." The judges emphasized that proportionality is crucial and that the choice between death penalty and life imprisonment must be made by striking a balance between the crime and the offender.

The case in question led to the conviction of the accused on multiple charges including rape, murder, and violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court took into account several incriminating factors, including eyewitness accounts, recovered evidence, confessions, and DNA analysis. However, the bench also gave due consideration to mitigating aspects such as the age of the accused, his lack of prior criminal records, absence of premeditation, and behavior during custody.

The court drew parallels with previous judgments where death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment based on similar factors. "Taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this case does not meet the criteria of a 'rarest of rare cases'," observed the court, resulting in the decision to convert the death penalty to life imprisonment.

While upholding the conviction on various charges, the court's ruling emphasizes the significance of adhering to established principles laid down in previous cases. The judgment reaffirms the court's commitment to maintaining a nuanced balance between the gravity of the crime and the individual context of the accused.

Date of Decision: 18.07.2023

State Of Rajasthan vs Suresh Kumar

Latest Legal News