Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA
Jai Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. A simple afternoon of play and frolic with family members yielded catastrophic results for a 10-year-old female child. The most innocent desire of either a candy or a toy was exploited in the worst manner possible by the appellant. He lured innocent children to his dwelling, took his pick from among them and let the others go. He allegedly assaulted and exploited her, killed her and then, if the prosecution is to be believed, lied to the parents of the victim saying that he was not aware of her whereabouts. The Courts below have concurrently found the appellant to be guilty of offences against the victim and also of taking her life. This Court is now called upon to examine the correctness of these conclusions.
2. The present Appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 7th January 2020, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Jail Appeal No.64 of 2019 & Criminal Reference No.02 of 2019, whereby the Judgment and sentencing Order dated 26th/28th August 2019 passed by Fast Track Court, Special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Special Sessions Trial Number 119/2018, convicting the appellant
The court affirmed that the extreme brutality of the crime warrants the death penalty, emphasizing its classification as a rarest of rare case due to the specific circumstances surrounding the kidnap....
The imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
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....
The case reiterates that appropriate punishment for heinous crimes must reflect societal values, and in this instance, a modified life sentence of at least 20 years was deemed essential rather than t....
Death sentence – Standardisation of sentencing would not be possible because no two criminal cases are identical and standardisation would leave no room for judicial discretion.
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
