P. NAVEEN RAO, JUVVADI SRIDEVI
State of Telangana – Appellant
Versus
Shaik Babu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Juvvadi Sridevi, J.)
1. Death and if not life, death or life, life and if not death, is the swinging progression of the criminal jurisprudence in India, as far as the capital punishment is concerned. All murders shock the community; but certain murders shock the conscience of the Court as well as the community. The distinguishing aspect of the latter category is that there is shock coupled with extreme revulsion. However, Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) mandates that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence. In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer in Ediga Anamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1974 SC 799, the unmistakable shift in the legislative emphasis is that life imprisonment for murder is the rule and capital sentence is an exception to be resorted to, for the reasons to be stat
Ediga Anamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Bhupinder Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra
Asharfi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mahipal
Ravishankar @ Baba Vishwakarma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Premchand Vs. State of Maharashtra
Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka
Sunil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana
Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others
Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others Vs. State of Maharashtra
Shankar Kisanrao Khade Vs. State of Maharashtra
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Ajay Pandit Vs. State of Maharashtra
Mohinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Panchhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bantu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Rahul Vs. State of Maharashtra
Haru Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal
Accused ‘X’ Vs. State of Maharashtra
(1) Minor contradictions do not go to root of matter and destroy whole prosecution which is firmly made out against accused.(2) Protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of Constitution of India does....
(1) Evidence is only to be weighed and not to be counted – It is essentially, for prosecution to decide as to how many witnesses are to be examined to establish its case on any particular point.(2) D....
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 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 the death sentence for brutal rape and murder, emphasizing the need for strong judicial responses to restore public trust and safety.
The court affirmed that the extreme brutality of the crime warrants the death penalty, emphasizing its classification as a rarest of rare case due to the specific circumstances surrounding the kidnap....
Circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' principle, can suffice for conviction in rape and murder cases yet demands rigorous scrutiny for reliability.
(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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.