Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Supreme Court Suspends Sentence in Conspiracy and Murder Case on Humanitarian Grounds

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India suspended the sentence of an applicant involved in a conspiracy and murder case, highlighting humanitarian considerations. The decision was rendered by the bench of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA on October 3, 2023.

The case involved the applicant's conviction, along with co-accused, for hatching a conspiracy and committing murder. According to the prosecution, the conspiracy revolved around eliminating the deceased, who was allegedly having an affair with one of the co-accused. The tragic incident unfolded when the deceased was called to a house and served an intoxicating drink, subsequently leading to his murder.

The Trial Court had convicted the applicant and co-accused under Sections 302, 120B, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. All three accused had appealed to the High Court, where the applicant's appeal was dismissed, while one co-accused was granted the benefit of doubt.

The Supreme Court, in its observation, took into account the applicant's custody period, which amounted to 10 years and 9 months, as well as the urgent medical needs of his newborn daughter. Recognizing the humanitarian aspects, the Court allowed the suspension of the applicant's sentence and directed his release on bail.

In a significant statement, the Court remarked, "Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and the sentence awarded to the applicant/appellant is suspended and he is directed to be released on bail."

This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the judiciary's commitment to considering humanitarian grounds while ensuring justice is served. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between justice and compassion in legal proceedings.

Representing the applicant were a team of dedicated advocates, including Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Mr. Joginder Tuli, Ms. Joshini Tuli, Mr. Lalit Khanna, and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal. The respondents were represented by Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mr. Ishan Kapoor, Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Mr. Joginder Tuli, Ms. Joshini Tuli, and Mr. Lalit Khanna.

This decision sets a precedent for the consideration of humanitarian factors in similar cases, reaffirming the importance of empathy in the legal system.

Date of Decision: 03-10-2023

KHADAK PRASAD  vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.         

Similar News