Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When an appeal against conviction is preferred before the High Court, at the earliest stage, the High Court must examine whether there is a proper statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC (Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi formerly serving as Judge of Calcutta High Court was appointed to the Supreme Court on 10-3-2025 and is in line to become the CJI in 2031.
“The crime committed by the convict was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomized and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased. The post-mortem report clearly indicated that death was due to asphyxia by throttling”.
“Article 21 of the Constitution does not end with the pronouncement of the sentence but extends to the execution stage of that sentence. An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused. An inordinate delay caused by circumstances beyond the prisoners’ control mandates the commutation of a death sentence.”
The accused was arrested in 2012 on the suspicion of murdering his wife, mother and 2-year-old daughter. In 2016, the Trial Court convicted him and imposed death penalty which was confirmed by Bombay High Court
The Court affirmed the father’s conviction but converted the death penalty to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment without remission considering several mitigating factors favouring the accused.
Justice Ritu Bahri who retires on 10-10-2024, made history as upon her elevation on 04-02-2024, she became the first woman Chief Justice of Uttaranchal High Court.
The Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to how the present case is ‘rarest of the rare case’ even though the accused has committed the gravest offence.
The present case is the most brutal, barbaric, and gruesome murder of a 60-year-old mother by her son on 28-08-2017 at Makadwala Vasahat, Kolhapur, where her body parts, i.e., liver, intestine, heart, rib and breast were eviscerated outside
The High Court stated that the convict had taken innocent lives in an extremely barbaric, criminal, and heartless manner. His acts have shocked not only the judicial conscience but also the conscience of society.
“Respondent has used utter derogatory language for the Single Judge bench to the extent of saying that the Single Judge is a ‘thief’ and he has full proof of the same.”
Calcutta High Court held that the proximity between the last seen circumstance and the recovery of the victim’s body established a livelink between their presence and the rape and murder.
“It is just not enough for the court to say that the dying declaration is reliable, as the accused is named in the dying declaration as the assailant.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the test which is to be applied for death sentence are – crime test, i.e., aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, criminal test and R-R test.
“It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. The application of the rarest of rare case principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case.”
The Supreme Court also directed the competent authority to deal with the mercy petition later and take further decision as and when deemed necessary.
The Supreme Court stated that it was imperative to conduct evaluation of mitigating circumstances at the trial stage, in order ‘to avoid slipping into a retributive response to the brutality of the crime’.
Justice Chandrachud referred to the recent 2023 budget and stated that Government of India had announced a provision of 7000 crores for Phase III of E-Courts project which would enhance the accessibility of the judicial institutions and improve the efficiency of the justice delivery system in India. He also informed that the Supreme Court heard 3.37 lakhs cases through VC during the Covid period.
Supreme Court: In a suo motu case initiated to address the question as to whether the provision of pre-sentence hearing in capital
Madras High Court: In a case related to a reference made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge under S.