UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SUDHANSHU DHULIA
In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentences – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. This order is necessitated due to a difference of opinion and approach amongst various judgments, on the question of whether, after recording conviction for a capital offence, under law, the court is obligated to conduct a separate hearing on the issue of sentence.
2. Section 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “CrPC” or “Code”) reads as follows:
Section 235, as it exists in the statute today, was Section 309 of the erstwhile Code (of 1898). It was introduced on account of the recommendations of the 48th Report of the Law Commission of India, on Some Questions Under the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970 (dated July 1972).
Additionally, Section 309 of the CrPC is also relevant. It reads as follows:
(1) In every inquiry or trial, th
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab
Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu
Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar
Anguswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab
Dattaraya v. State of Maharashtra
Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Tarlok Singh v. State of Punjab
Ramdeo Chauhan v. State of Assam
B.A. Umesh v. High Court of Karnataka
Vasanta Sampatha Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.