Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Shri Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh R/o Thana Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Panchram Urf Mannu Gendre, S/o Premlal Gendre – Respondent
Judgment :
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)
1. The Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2024 is the reference under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Section 407(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ) made by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the accused- Panchram @ Mannu Gendre, who has been convicted by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/-, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2-2 months and death sentence (subject to confirmation by the High Court) with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 months.
2. The Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2025 is filed by the appellant/accused- Panchram @ Mannu Gendre under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.11.2024 passed by learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Case No. 180 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted
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.
(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 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....
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 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 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 emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
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.
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
