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

Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi Air – 2020 sc-405

The court while ascertaining the scope of Sec 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 held that the Act does not deal with offences which are ‘heinous’ in nature.  It observes that even if a child commits a heinous offence, he cannot be automatically tried as an adult. Before, trying Read more »

Time-Barred on the Face of the Plaint: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection under Order VII Rule 11

In N. Asha Devi v. R. Aravind Kumar & Anr ., the Supreme Court held that where a suit is hopelessly barred by limitation on a plain reading of the plaint, the plaint must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court observed that there can be no Read more »

Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 INSC 687

In the case of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2024 INSC 687), the Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of Kejriwal's arrest by the CBI and his subsequent request for bail. ​ Kejriwal, a prominent political figure, was implicated in a case involving alleged irregularities in the 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.