The Supreme Court held that the Court cannot be limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death.
Though causing death of someone in itself is perversity, however causing death by smothering and inflicting injuries by jack handle though opined to be consistent with intense torture, cannot be held to be a diabolic or seriously perverse manner of committing murder so as to shock the collective conscience of the society and fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.
Supreme Court considered the case wherein the Trial Court proposed award of death sentence for rarest of the rare case, while the Jharkhand High Court modified it to life imprisonment for whole biological life without any scope for remission.
The Supreme Court asked the Gujarat Government reasons behind its decision to grant remission to the 11 life convicts, who were convicted for raping Bilkis Bano and murdering her family members
In a petition filed by Bilkis Bano, and other pleas in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, Supreme Court said that “we are only on legal and law and nothing to do with emotions.”
The Delhi High Court observed that furlough could not be denied perennially even if the prisoner had earlier jumped parole and was re-arrested after committing another offence.
The Delhi High Court granted four weeks parole to a rape convict and held that right of a citizen to avail a legal remedy in the final court of country cannot be denied.
When on August 15, 2022, her rapists walked out of the prison after serving 15 years’ imprisonment based on Gujarat Government’s remission policy, Bilkis Bano found herself “bereft of words” and “numb”. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.
Madhya Pradesh High Court | The Division Bench comprising of Subodh Abhyankar* and Satyendra Kumar Singh, JJ., reduces life imprisonment awarded to
“Apart from the remission ordered, there is no basis on which a party in CKH’s position or the Tribunal itself can seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration.”
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by two convicts (‘petitioners’) challenging an order dated 09-07-2021 passed by Home Department,
Supreme Court: On being appraised of high number of pending bail applications in 10-14 years old cases, the Division Bench of Sanjay
Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling, the Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., reversed Delhi High Court’s judgment holding
“Section 432 (2) of the CrPC would stand defeated if the opinion of the presiding judge becomes just another factor that may be taken into consideration by the government while deciding the application for remission.”
Supreme Court: While addressing the plea of a murder convict seeking remission on the ground of blindness, the Division Bench comprising of
Supreme Court: In a case where a man had brutally raped and murdered a 7-year-old girl, the 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar,
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has answered the following three important questions on the revisional jurisdiction
Supreme Court: Explaining the provision of remission under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the bench of R.
Supreme Court: Dealing with an issue relating to special remission being granted to certain categories of prisoners by the Governor of Haryana
Each criminal trial is but a quest for search of the truth. Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha