//
archives

state of assam

This tag is associated with 2 posts

motive is not a very strong one= The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.”

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40455 Page 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1130 of 2010 Birendra Das & Anr. … Appellants Versus State of Assam …Respondent J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated … Continue reading

Sentence/Sentencing: Commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment by the Governor – No reason indicated in the order which was passed on recommendation of NHRC – Writ petition under Article 32 challenging order of Governor – Held: NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the 1993 Act – That being so, recommendations by NHRC was non est – Moreover said order did not indicate reasons – Governor’s order is set aside – Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32. Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed challenging the order of Governor of Assam, commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment when the accused was held guilty of heinous crime of brutally killing four persons of a family. He was awarded death sentence which was confirmed by this court and review thereagainst was also dismissed. The order of commutation was passed on recommendation of NHRC. =Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1. In the documents filed before this Court by NHRC, the name of victim was stated and cause of action was stated to be the date of judgment of this Court i.e. 31.7.2000. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 was enacted for constitution of NHRC for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 17 in Chapter IV deals with inquiry into complaints regarding violation of human rights. Obviously, there have to be atleast two persons involved. One whose human rights have been violated and the other who has violated the human rights. [Para 7 and 8] [504-C-G] 2. The NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the Act. That being so, the recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est. [Para 14] [505-G-H; 506-A] 3. The State of Assam indicated that not only the recommendations of NHRC but several other aspects were take note of. But the order directing commutation did not indicate any reason. Absence of any obligation to convey the reasons would not mean that there should not be legitimate or relevant reasons for passing the order. Apparently, in the instant case that was not done. The impugned order of commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment is set aside and direction is passed to reconsider the application filed by the accused for commutation of sentence. [Para 15 and 16] [506-A-E] Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 161, relied on. Case Law Reference: (2006) 8 SCC 161 relied on Para 15 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 457 of 2005. Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Manish Goswami and Map & Co. for the Appellant. Avijit Roy (for M/s. Corporate Law Group), Vijay Panjwani, Shobha, J.B. Prakash and Puja Sharma for the Respondent.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 457 OF 2005 Bani Kanta Das and Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of Assam and Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by Smt. Jayanti Das w/o … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,036 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com