Kunal Majumdar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 320

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Kunal Majumdar Vs....

The court observed that, section 366 of the CrPC casts a duty upon the High Court to, (a) “examine the nature and manner in which the offence was committed, mens reas, if any of the culprit, the plight of the victim as noted by the trail court, the diabolic manner in which the offence was alleged to have been performed, the ill-effects it had on the victim as well as the society at large, the mindset of the culprit vis-à-vis the public interest, the conduct of the convict immediately after the commission of the offence and thereafter, the past history of the culprit, the magnitude of the crime and also the consequences it had on the dependants or the custodians of the victim.” “there should be very wide range of consideration to be made by the High Court dealing with reference in order to ensure that the ultimate outcome of the reference would instil confidence in the minds of the peace-loving citizens and also achieve the object as the deterrent for others from indulging in such crimes.”

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

The Exorbitant Price of Justice: Assessing Security Deposits in Arbitration Appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act aimed to revolutionize the arbitration process in India, focusing on enhancing time and cost efficiency, and ensuring flexibility of procedures with minimal judicial intervention. Despite these progressive intentions, the imposition of 100% security deposits for the... Read more »

Supreme Court Upholds Fundamental Right to Be Informed of Arrest Grounds

In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), the Supreme Court held informing grounds of arrest to relative of accused is not sufficient and that Article 22(1) mandates that every arrested person must be informed about the grounds of arrest in a way they understand. The court declared the Appellant’s arrest was illegal due to... Read more » Read more »

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case revolved around a mother who had gifted... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.