Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RITU BAHRI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Yusuf alias Sonu, S/o. Sri Jayad Hussain – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(Ritu Bahri, CJ.) :
The present Reference has been sent by the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in judgment and order dated 27th April, 2018 passed in SST No. 46 of 2016 State vs. Yusuf @ Sonu, whereby respondent-Yusuf alias Sonu has been convicted under Sections 376(2) and 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short ‘IPC’) with death penalty.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 167 of 2018 has also been filed by the convict (Yusuf alias Sonu) against the judgment and order dated 27th April, 2018 passed by the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Special Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2016 State vs. Yusuf alias Sonu, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376(2)(i) of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and under Section 302
Capital punishment can only be imposed in 'rarest of rare' cases, and mitigating factors such as the age of the offender can influence commutation of death sentences.
The court ruled that while death penalty can be imposed, it should be reserved for exceptional circumstances; in this case, the intent was not premeditated, thereby commuting the death sentence to li....
The court held that even if bodies are touched, it amounts to penetrative sexual assault under POCSO when the victim is under twelve, establishing strong grounds for conviction.
The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping, gang rape, and murder but commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment due to lack of exceptional circumstances.
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....
The court ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The judgment underscores the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the evidentiary weight of DNA analysis in securing a conviction for serious crimes.
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
Listen Article