Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Ramesh A. Naika – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General, High Court Of Karnataka Etc. – Respondent
ORDER :
(Sanjay Karol, J.)
1. A child’s parents are their reason for existence and form an indispensable part of their lives, even more so, in the early years of life. Parents are expected to be loving, nurturing and sometimes disciplining guides in life. Abraham Lincoln is said to have said that “love is the chain whereby to bind a child to its parents, 1[https://home.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/alincolnbio.htm]”. In the classical traditions of India, however, parents are placed on a higher pedestal, at an exalted position, as their word equals the word of God. While it is true that in modern times, we refrain from making such comparisons, nonetheless, it cannot be said that the irreplaceability, essentiality, importance, and desirousness of the love, affection, and stewardship of parents, has been watered down in any way. One is forced to wonder, in the facts of this case, how these cherished ideals could have been entirely absent.
THE APPEALS
2. These appeals challenge judgment dated 22nd September 2017, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Referred Case No.2 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No.196 of 2014 confirming the conviction and death sentence award
The court ruled that death penalty requires unimpeachable circumstantial evidence and consideration of mitigating factors, leading to a commutation to life imprisonment without remission.
Quantum of sentence – There can be no straitjacket formulae – A delicate balance has to be struck – Fundamental underpinning is principle of proportionality.
The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping, gang rape, and murder but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment due to lack of exceptional circumstances.
(1) Constitutional guarantees of equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, protection in respect of conviction, and protection against arrest and detention, do not expand into a c....
The court upheld the conviction for murder and sexual assault, emphasizing the brutality and premeditation of the crime, while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment based on mitigating fa....
The court established that circumstantial evidence and motive for honour killing justified the conviction for murder, while mitigating factors led to the commutation of the death penalty to life impr....
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 modified the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years, emphasizing the need for proportionality in sentencing while acknowledging the heinous nature of the crime.
The court ruled that the death penalty is not warranted as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
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
