Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK AGARWAL, DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
In Reference – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Purviya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK AGARWAL, J.
1. The criminal appeal and the criminal reference have been filed being aggrieved of the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2022 and sentence dated 19.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Bareli, District Raisen in S.T. No.46 of 2019, convicting the accused Jitendra Purviya with Death penalty for offence under Section 302 of IPC (4 counts) and with three years imprisonment under Section 25 (1-b)(a) of the ARMS ACT with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation of R.I. for two months. He is also convicted under Section 27 of the ARMS ACT with R.I. for five years, fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of two months R.I.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is guilty of causing homicidal death of his wife Sunita, father Jalam Singh, mother Sharda and son Siddhant @ Shivyansh.
3. As per the prosecution story, on 16.05.2019 complainant Ranjana Bai (PW-1) lodged a Dehati Nalishi to the effect that on 16.05.2019 at about 1.30 – 2.00 a.m., she along with her son Sourabh and husband Ramji were sleeping in the courtyard of their house. In the neighbourhood, her uncle-in-law Jalam Singh was residing with his family. In that h
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 ruled that corroborative evidence is essential in murder cases, especially when convicting based on eyewitness testimony.
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 upheld the conviction for double murder but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, emphasizing the need for special reasons for capital punishment and considering the possibility....
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 affirmed multiple convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the nature of the crimes and the relationship between the accused as central to the ruling.
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 imposition of the death penalty requires the statutory provision of special reasons, and a balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be conducted.
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
