Every time Social Re-Integration of Convict is Not Possible

Must Read

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Follow us

Brief Facts:

The appellant Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik is a cousin of complaint Mahendra Namdeorao Wasnik who lives with his wife Kanta and daughter Vandana who is 3 years of age at time of incident. The appellant visit complainant house to meet complaint’s  father Namderao, who was ailing ,after having a cup of tea he left to meet his friend and thereafter returned in evening and appellant informed Kanta that he is taking Vandana to bus stand buy her some biscuits but as the time passed neither of them returned, Mahendra was at his work place after his return Kanta informed Mahendra about whole day whereabouts and non return of Vandana, Mahendra with help of some villagers go out for a search of his daughter but could not find them . Next morning Vandana dead body was found in one of the villagers field , after the police complaint and post-mortem report is was revealed that Vandana was raped as well as sodomized and had died due to asphyxia.Search for accused was instigated and was arrested by the Amravati Police under Section 41(1)of the Code Criminal Procedure as the appellant was not guilty so trial procedure was initiated and investigation report was examined and death penalty was awarded by district court subject to confirmation it was submitted to Hon’ble High Court under section 366 of CrPC. Aggrieved to the said Judgment appeal to the High Court.

Contention:

  • Death sentence should not be granted on basis of circumstantial evidence
  • One of the rarest of rare cases where awarding death sentence is Unjustified.

Held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and gave the judgment of Life Imprisonment though he agreed with the contention taken on behalf of the convict that ordinarily death sentence should not field, in a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, but there is no said rule or principle that capital punishment cannot be granted on basis of circumstantial evidence. In such cases there must be some exceptional cases were to meet the end of justice court would be bound to give such extreme punishment. Second, Contention of rare of the rarest case ailing, by the Court, this was not rarest of the rare case where the Court would find that any other sentence except death penalty inadequate and the level of crime villagers was extreme which demanded Capital Punishment only. So, learned trial court was fully justified in law and on the facts of the present case, in awarding the workplace penalty of death for an offence under Section 302,376,377 of IPC along with other punishments for other offences. The Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under the impugned judgment.

Social re-integration must be on Prior basis but not at the cause of End of Justice.

Criminal is also Entitle for Life of Dignity by social re-integration but this is not possible when the crime for which accused is convicted is of heinous in nature, then capital punishment is required to meet the end of justice. As Justice must be the priority of the court then social re-integration, social re-integration is a must for the criminal who is guilty of their offence but the criminal who was not guilty, the social re-integration cannot mould them also to be a better human. In the rarest of the rare case when capital punishment is unjustified and inadequate it can be reduced.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -