Back
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA
Rajendar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Per Hon'ble Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.)
1. Reference No. 17 of 2021 is made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 43, Shahjahanpur for confirmation of capital punishment in Sessions Trial No. 853 of 2003. The Jail Appeal being Capital Case No. 20 of 2021 has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2021 holding the appellants- Rajendar and Narvesh guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and order of sentence of the same date vide which both the accused-appellants were sentenced to death under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The Reference and Appeal were admitted. The Trial Court’s record is received and paper books are ready.
3. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kuldeep Johri, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. With the aid of learned counsel for the parties, the entire evidence is re-scrutinized and re-appreciated. After judgment was reserved, certain clarification were again sought by both the learned counsels for the parties by giving hearing in open Court.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on the int
The court ruled that the death penalty was not warranted due to lack of aggravating circumstances and the age of the appellants, modifying their sentence to life imprisonment.
The court upheld the conviction for murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in imposing capital punishment.
The court emphasized the necessity of considering mitigating circumstances and the possibility of reformation before imposing the death penalty.
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....
The court held the convictions for murder under Sections 302 and 149 IPC were upheld, asserting that while the prosecution's evidence was lacking in parts, the credible testimony established involvem....
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.
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....
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
