SOUMEN SEN, PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Padam Subba – Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Soumen Sen, J.
1. The brutality of murder of Maya Subba, a house maker and her 13 year old child by inflicting multiple wounds has resulted in a conviction with death sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Darjeeling which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.
2. The investigation commenced on the basis of a written complaint by one Sumit Limbu on 2nd September, 2017 before the Officer in Charge, Pulbazar P.S. inter alia, stating that on 1st September, 2017 at about 11 P.M. his uncle who happens to be the husband of his aunt informed him over telephone that his mother Maya Subba aged about 50 years and his younger sister Ms. Pragya Subba aged about 13 years have been brutally murdered with the help of sharp and heavy weapon by Padam Subba aged about 42 years who happens to be one of his close relatives and usually performed domestic and household job and had two meals a day.
3. In the FIR it has been stated that his uncle Dambar Subba narrated the incident of the murder that took place at around 10.30 P.M to him. The complaint, inter alia, states that Dambar Subba on being alerted by the screaming of Pragya rushed to the house along with his wife Gouri Subba an
Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Anil Alias Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra
Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Bhagchandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Devendar Pal Singh v. State of (NCT of Delhi)
Fainul Khan v. State of Jharkhand 2019 (9) SCC 549
Jayesh kumar Parshottamdas Valand v. State of Gujarat
Lochan Srivas v. State of Chattisgarh
Machi Singh v. The State of Punjab
Md. Arif vs. Registrar of Supreme Court of India
Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v State of Andhra Pradesh (1983) 1 SCC 143
Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Mustakeem @ Sirtajudeen AIR 2011 SC 2769
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra 2019 (12) SCC 460 : AIR 2019 SC 1
Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra
Ram Niwas -vs- State of Haryana
Ranjendra Prasad Rao Wasnik vs. State of Maharashtra
Salvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer 1956 INSC 15 : AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794
Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
State of Karnataka v. David Rozario 2002 (7) SCC 728 : AIR 2002 SC 3272
State of Uttar Pradesh v. MK Anthony
State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. 2000 INSC 422 : (2000) 8 SCC 382 2000 SCC (Cri) 151
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police
Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police
Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka
Swamy Shraddananda @ Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
Union of India v. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC 1
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
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 as the case does not fall under the 'rarest of rare' category, emphasizing the need for special reasons for such a sentence.
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court upheld that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing rehabilitation and reformation when sentencing for serious crimes, mandating consideration of the offender's background and potent....
The court ruled that the death penalty is an exception, emphasizing the need for considering the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation of the accused, leading to a modification of the sentenc....
(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 held that death sentence should be imposed only in rarest of rare cases considering the possibility of rehabilitation, thereby modifying the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years.
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....
Offence of Murder – Death Sentence Confirmed - Imposition of death sentence in ‘rarest of rare’ cases - Instant case falls in category of 'rarest of rare case', warranting capital punishment. Hence d....
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.