In the present case, the High Court noted the respective ages of the accused-i.e., Krishan (61 years); Raju (40 years); Parveen (32 years); Sundar (39 years); Sandeep (25 years); Nar Singh (41 years) and Sunder s/o Rajpal (36 years). The court noted that Bramhajit had served in the army. Apart from these, the court noted the relative family circumstances: the number of children each accused had. It then adopted a uniform rule, i.e., the period of sentence undergone by the accused, as the appropriate sentence.
Sentencing accused
![R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688](https://advocatetanmoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/supreme-court-of-canada.jpeg)
Criminal law ‑‑ Sentencing ‑‑ Aboriginal offenders ‑‑ Accused sentenced to three years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to manslaughter ‑‑ No special consideration given by sentencing judge to accused’s aboriginal background ‑‑ Principles governing application of s. 718.2(e) of Criminal Code ‑‑ Class of aboriginal people coming within scope of provision ‑‑ Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C‑46, s. 718.2(e).
VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SC]-The normal rule is that the offence of murder shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment. The Court can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so. Such reasons must be recorded in writing before imposing the death sentence.
In R v. Howells and others [(1999) 1 All.ER 50] Court of Appeal, Criminal Division said that “Court should always bear in mind that sentences were in almost every case intended to protect the public, whether by punishing the offender or reforming him, or deterring him and others, or all of those things.”
here is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence. One of the essential ingredients of Section 389 is the requirement for the appellate Court to record reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of the sentence or order appealed.
Keywords:- Detention in Jail -Sett off- Section 428 of Code is concerned, it provides that the period of detention spent in jail as under-trial or as convict will be set off against his total jail sentence once awarded to him in connection with the same offence. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Tribhuwan & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.2437 of 2010] Date: […]
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs. the State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498, Apex Court held the nature, motive, and impact of crime, culpability, quality of evidence, socioeconomic circumstances, impossibility of rehabilitation and some of the factors, the Court may take into consideration while dealing with such cases.
You must be logged in to post a comment.