Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.
The Court observed that the convict was a young boy of 20 years, who has no father, and was shouldering the responsibility of his widowed sister and her son, hence, imprisonment for a term of 14 years would be adequate, to teach him a lesson.
Supreme Court: In a murder case, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which was
Supreme Court: In a big development, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and MM Sundresh, JJ has directed that the infamous gangster/terrorist
Supreme Court: Allowing the review petition in the 34-year-old road-rage case involving cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu that resulted into the death 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: In a case where it was argued before the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud* and Surya Kant, JJ that in
Supreme Court: In a case where a 65-year-old man committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 4-year-old neighbor, the bench of MR
“No leniency should be shown to an accused who is found to be guilty for the offence under the NDPS Act. Those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to a number of innocent young victims who are vulnerable.
Supreme Court: Explaining the principles of sentencing policy, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant* and AS Bopanna, JJ
Bombay High Court: Pained to note the permitting of questions by the Lower Court which crossed all lines of dignity of a
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was convicted for killing his wife on the suspicion of her infidelity and was
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudhir Mittal, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the dishonour of cheque held that, “Offence
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and M.S. Karnik, JJ., partly allowed an appeal by reducing the sentence of the
Supreme Court: Upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006, the bench of Arun
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, MM Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee, JJ held “it needs to be understood that prisoners
Supreme Court: In the case where a 4-year old girl was raped and battered to death by the petitioner, the bench of
Supreme Court: In the case where death penalty was sought for a man who allegedly set his 7-month pregnant wife on fire
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi and Ashok Bhushan, JJ, while considering the affidavits filed to show the
Supreme Court: In the case where the refusal to marriage proposal by a girl resulted into a house trespass by the accused