Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
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
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
RITU BAHRI, ALOK KUMAR VERMA
State of Uttarakhand – Appellant
Versus
Sartaj – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
1. A reference has been sent by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in S.T. No. 14 of 2017, State Vs Sartaj, passed vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2018, whereby the respondent Sartaj has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 , 307 of IPC. He has been further convicted for the offence under Section 4 /25 of ARMS ACT , in S.T. No. 15 of 2017. The convict/respondent was sentenced to death along with a fine of Rs.40,000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and he was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.30,000/- in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Convict / respondent has also been sentenced to undergo
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....
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 corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
The court redefined the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of mitigating factors, emphasizing the need to consider a defendant's mental state and family circumstances.
(1) Death sentence – Rarest of Rare Case – Death penalty for offence of murder would not be a violation of constitutional provisions – In grave cases of extreme culpability, capital punishment can be....
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 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 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.
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