ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Firoz Khan Akbarkhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal assails the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2008, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and Judgment dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2005, was upheld. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
THE FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The appellant (accused no.1) and two other co-accused (accused no.2/Md. Jakaria and accused no.3/Kalimkhan)1[There is some inconsistency as far as the spellings of the names of the accused and witnesses are concerned, with slight variations in different record. However, these inconsistencies are irrelevant for the purposes of the present adjudication as the identities of the persons concerned is not in the realm of dispute.] were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sectio
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh
Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat
Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
State of A.P. v. S Swarnalatha
Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab
Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
V K Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand
Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan
Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala
Murder – Benefit of any exception to Section 300 of IPC cannot be given to accused in a case of intentional cold-blooded murder.
Conviction based on unreliable eyewitness testimony due to delays and contradictions cannot be sustained, emphasizing the need for credible evidence in criminal cases.
Conviction overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts, procedural delays, and failure to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle of parity among co-accused.
The discretion to suspend or remit the sentence lies with the State Government, but the decision must be in accordance with the law and not arbitrary. The opinion of the Presiding Judge must fulfill ....
The court directed that prisoners eligible under state policy for premature release must be evaluated fairly, without undue reliance on singular opinions, safeguarding against arbitrary treatment.
Point of law : Section 28 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Court to impose sentence authorised by law.
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment due to lack of aggravating circumstances and potential for rehabilitation.
Remission in sentence – Sentencing is a judicial exercise of power – Act thereafter of executing sentence awarded, however, is a purely executive function which includes grant of remission, commutati....
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.