Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

Mere fact that appellant was not brave enough to conceal where victim was hiding did not make him a part of the unlawful assembly that had the common object to murder the victim. He had only pointed towards place where victim was hiding. Hence, conviction of appellant-accused under Ss. 302/201/147/148/149, set aside. [Taijuddin v. State […]

Low age of victim cannot be considered as only or sufficient factor by Supreme Court for imposing death sentence. (para 35) Sentences awarded to appellant under Ss. 376, 364, 366-A and 201 IPC, upheld. However, considering mitigating circumstances, death sentence awarded under S. 302, is commuted to life imprisonment with stipulation that appellant shall not

In this case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, there was no pre-meditation or pre-planning and incident was result of sudden quarrel in which accused exercised his right of private defense, but exceeded the limit. Para 14. Hence, while confirming conviction under S. 304 Pt. II, sentence modified to 2 yrs’ RI with fine

In this case, victim immolating herself in her matrimonial home leading to her death in hospital. Concurrent findings of facts recorded by both courts below on harassment and/or torture and/or cruelty by appellant mother-in-law of victim with regard to jewels, on appreciation of evidence, stand established. Therefore, appellant, held, rightly convicted under S. 498-A. The

Causing injury(ies) to vital part of body which injury(ies) were the actual cause of death: In this case, death occurred six days after the injury(ies) were inflicted. It was held that such case, held, would still fall under S. 302, as such injury(ies) inflicted on vital part of body were the actual cause of the death.