Back
B. R. GAVAI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Rabbu @ Sarvesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Heard Shri N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhupendra Pratap Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
2. These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the judgment and order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bina, District Sagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Judge”) thereby convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (for short, ‘POCSO’) awarding death penalty under Sections 376A and 302 IPC and life imprisonment under Section 376D of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 450 of the IPC.
3. Shri Hariharan submits that the present case basically rests on the three dying declarations and the DNA report. He submits that the dying declarations are inconsistent. He further submi
House trespass, gang rape and murder – Age of appellant at the time of commission of crime along with other factors can certainly be taken into consideration as to whether death penalty needs to be c....
Death sentence – Brutality of a crime cannot be only criterion for determining whether a case falls under “rarest of the rare” category.
In terms of Section 354(3) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that normally imprisonment for life is to be awarded and only in any exceptional circumstances death sentence is required to be awarded.
The court determined that while the appellant committed brutal murders, the death penalty was not warranted due to mitigating circumstances and potential for reform, leading to a commutation to life ....
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted in this case, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ultimately commuting the sentence to 30 year....
Capital punishment can only be imposed in 'rarest of rare' cases, and mitigating factors such as the age of the offender can influence commutation of death sentences.
(1) Death sentence – Rarest of Rare Case – Death penalty for offence of murder would not be a violation of constitutional provisions – In grave cases of extreme culpability, capital punishment can be....
The court emphasized the importance of mitigating circumstances, the sufficiency of evidence, and the societal perception in determining the appropriateness of death penalty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
