Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Cases Against Italian Marines In Enrica Lexie Case Accepting Compensation Of Rs 10 Crore By Italy

Posted in: Criminal Law
Mon, Jun 21, 21, 16:14, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 3848
Massimilano Latoure v/s UOI quashed the criminal proceedings pending in India against two Italian Marines - Massimilano Latoure and Salvatore Girone – with respect to the 2012 sea firing incident near Kerala coast

It has to be said right at the outset that the Supreme Court has in a significant development in Massimilano Latoure and others Vs Union of India and others in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20370 of 2012 (IA No. 58644/2020 – for directions) in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction has on June 15, 2021 quashed the criminal proceedings pending in India against two Italian Marines - Massimilano Latoure and Salvatore Girone – with respect to the 2012 sea firing incident near Kerala coast which killed two Indian fisherman! This triggered a huge furore and strong demands for action against the erring two Italian marines! The Apex Court has thus accepted the compensation of Rs 10 crores deposited by the Republic of Italy with the Supreme Court Registry and has also directed the transfer of the amount of Rs 10 crores – deposited with the Supreme Court Registry to the High Court of Kerala!

Truth be told, the top court requested the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement to protect interest of heirs and ensure it's received by them. This was the need of the hour also. It must be also mentioned here that a vacation Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah passed the order in an application filed by the Central Government to quash the criminal proceedings pending in India against the marines.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court had on April 9th 2021 observed that the criminal cases pending in India against the two Italian Marines in the Enrica Lexie case will be closed only after the Republic of Italy deposits the compensation agreed to be paid to the victims of sea firing incident. It may also be recalled that it was in July 2020 that the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention of Law of Seas had ruled that India was entitled to claim compensation from Italy for the death of Indian fishermen. It may again also be recalled that it was in August 2020 that the Apex Court had told the Centre that the cases will not be quashed without hearing the families of victims.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 1 of this commendable judgment authored by Justice MR Shah for himself and Justice Indira Banerjee wherein it is put forth that:
In an unfortunate incident which took place on 15.02.2012, two fishermen who were onboard the boat St. Antony registered in India, namely, Valantine @ Jelestine, aged 44 years and Ajeesh Pink, aged 20 years, while fishing off the coast of Kerala, were fired at from a passing ship (an Italian Vessel M.V. Enrica Lexie), due to which the aforesaid two fishermen died. An FIR being Crime No. 2 of 2012 came to be registered against petitioner nos. 1 & 2 herein for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and other offences under IPC. That the aforesaid vessel which was registered in Italy was reportedly sailing from Singapore to Egypt. That during the investigation two Italian Marines – petitioner nos. 1 & 2 herein were identified as the ones who had fired at the fishing boat. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 were apprehended by the police and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the jurisdiction of the State of Kerala and the Circle Inspector of Police, Kollam, District Kerala to register the FIR, to conduct the investigation or to arrest and produce the Italian Marine Naval officials before the Magistrate by filing Writ Petition No. 4542 of 2012 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. That the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 135 of 2012 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before this Court seeking directions to respondent no.1 to take all steps to secure the interest of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 herein – Italian Military Naval officials and makeover their interest to petitioner no. 3 herein. That petitioner no.3 herein – Republic of Italy made ex-gratia payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased persons in the month of April, 2012. This Court also passed an order in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11942 of 2012 dated 2.5.2012 allowing the vessel to sail away, subject to certain terms and conditions along with all 24 crew members. Vide order dated 9.5.2012, this Court in Article 32 writ petition passed an order directing the State of Kerala to consider the representation of the Republic of Italy concerning the shifting of petitioner nos. 1 & 2 Military Naval officials to a safe house. Thereafter chargesheet came to be filed against petitioner nos. 1 & 2 herein on 18.05.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Suppression of Unlawful Activities Act. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the learned Court of Sessions, Kollam. Thereafter, by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2012, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 4542 of 2012, inter alia, upholding the assumption of the jurisdiction by the State of Kerala and the concerned Circle Inspector of Police at Kollam.

Needless to say, the Bench then points out elegantly in para 2 that:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in dismissing Writ Petition No. 4542 of 2012, the chargesheeted accused – Italian Marine officials and the Republic of Italy have preferred the present special leave petition.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then lays down in para 3 that:
It is the case of the petitioners that India and Italy having signed and ratified the 1982 United Nationals Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) agreed to settle the dispute concerning the incident in question, in terms of the binding dispute resolution mechanism provided under Annex VII of the UNCLOS.

In consequence of the Provisional Measures Order dated 24 August 2015 passed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) requiring both Italy and India to suspend all court proceedings, this Court by its order dated 26.08.2015, as modified by order dated 2.9.2015, recording the agreement of both the parties, stayed till further orders all proceedings in the pending matters. By its order dated 6.3.2017, this Court required that the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UNCLOS be placed on the record of this Court. That thereafter Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal has delivered its award dated 21.05.2020, importantly the Arbitral Tribunal in its award dated 21.05.2020 has duly recorded Republic of Italy's commitment that following the award, Italy will resume its criminal investigation in the events of 15.02.2012 and that both India and Italy will cooperate with each other in pursuit of that investigation. That under the award, the Republic of Italy had agreed to the amount of INR 100,000,000 (INR 100 million) to be paid by Italy as total compensation under all the four heads of compensable loss identified by the Arbitral Tribunal's award, excluding the amount of INR 21.7 million already paid by Italy to the families of the victims. It appears that during the course of the proceedings, the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India vide its Note Verbale No. WI(A)/415/06/2012 dated 26.11.2020 emphasised the implementation of the award dated 21.05.2020 of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 UNCLOS concerning the incident in question.

As we see, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that:
The Union of India has filed I.A. No. 58644 of 2020 for an appropriate direction to dispose of the proceedings in conformity with the award dated 21.05.2020. The aforesaid application came up for hearing before this Court on 9.4.2021. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Republic of Italy submitted that amount of compensation payable in terms of the award dated 21.05.2020 will be deposited by the Republic of Italy with the Union of India in the particular account to be specified by the Ministry of External Affairs. This Court directed that after the amount is received by the Union of India, the same shall be deposited in this Court within a period of one week. It is reported that thereafter the Republic of Italy deposited the amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) with the Republic of India. It is reported that thereafter the Union of India has transferred a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) into the bank account of the Registry of this Court.

That pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the heirs of the deceased fishermen are also impleaded in the present proceedings. The Government of Kerala has also placed on record the letter addressed to the Foreign Secretary of Ministry of External Affairs, Union of India that the Government of Kerala have consulted the dependents/victims of the Enrica Lexie incident through the District Collectors concerned and informed that the Italian Government has offered a compensation of Rs. ten crores out of which State Government proposes to disburse Rs. four crores to the dependents of each deceased and Rs. two crores to the owner of the boat – St. Antony. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the legal heirs of each deceased and the owner of the boat have agreed to the proposal and consented in writing to accept the amount of compensation offered to them. In light of the above, it is prayed to dispose of the present proceedings and to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Of course, the Bench then goes on to state in para 5 that:
We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri Sohail Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Republic of Italy and the petitioners, Shri K.N. Balagopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala and Shri Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the heirs of the deceased.

Be it noted, the Bench then also brings out in para 5.1 that:
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties have stated at the bar that their respective clients – Republic of Italy, Union of India, State of Kerala and the heirs of the deceased fishermen and the owner of the boat have agreed to accept the award dated 21.05.2020 of the Arbitral Tribunal. All of them have prayed to dispose of the present proceedings and quash the criminal proceedings in the larger interest of the victims and the heirs of the deceased, more particularly when the long drawn dispute is being settled amicably.

Most remarkably, the Bench then waxes eloquent to state in para 6 that:
Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the fact that the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS has delivered its award dated 21.05.2020 under which the Republic of Italy has agreed to pay the compensation of Rs. Ten crores, over and above the amount of ex-gratia amount already paid and that the Arbitral Tribunal has also duly recorded Republic of Italy's commitment that following the award Italy will resume its criminal investigation into the incident of 15.02.2012 and now the Republic of Italy has deposited the amount of Rs. Ten Crores with the Union of India and thereafter the Union of India has transferred the said amount to the Registry of this Court and the State of Kerala as well as the heirs of the deceased fishermen and even the owner of the boat which was damaged have agreed to accept the award and even the Union of India has also accepted the award dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS and when the long-drawn proceedings are coming to an end and we are satisfied that the amount of compensation of Rs.Ten Crores over and above the ex-gratia amount of compensation already paid to the heirs of the deceased fishermen offered and deposited by the Republic of Italy, deposited pursuant to award dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal can be said to be a reasonable amount of compensation and can be said to be in the interest of heirs of the deceased, we are of the view that this is a fit case to close all the proceedings in India including criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

However, at the same time, while disbursing the amount of compensation to the heirs of the deceased fishermen, i.e, Rs. Four Crores to the dependents/heirs of each deceased, their interest is also required to be protected so that the amount of compensation paid to them is not frittered away, by investing the amount in the name of the dependents/heirs of each deceased in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank for some time and they will be paid the periodical interest accrued thereon.

No less significant is what is then spelt out in para 7 wherein it is held that:
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we dispose of/close the present proceedings by directing as under:

 

  1. FIR No.2/2012 of Coastal PS, Neendakara, Kollam, Kerala re-registered as FIR No. R.C. No. 04/2013/NIA/DLI dated 4 April 2013, under Sections 302, 307, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 registered by the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, and all proceedings emanating therefrom including the proceedings pending before the Ld. Special Designated Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi are hereby quashed;
     
  2. The Bail-Bonds dated 2 June 2012 executed by Chief Master Sergeant Massimiliano Latorre and Sergeant Major Salvatore Girone as also Mr. Vishal Talwar and Mr. Vikas Talwar who stood as Sureties, in connection with the aforementioned FIR before the Ld. Special Designated Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the Ld. Registrar General of this Court are hereby discharged;
     
  3. The Ld. Registrar General of this Court shall release the original Bank Guarantees bearing Nos.0071IGFIN000618 and 0071IGFIN000418, both dated 11 June 2018 for Rs. Two Crores each, issued by the UCO Bank, Kollam Branch, extended through Letters of Extension Nos. UCO/KOLLAM/BG/02/2020-21 and UCO/KOLLAM/BG/01/2020-21 dated 28 May 2020, given on behalf of the two Sureties, Mr. Vikas Talwar and Mr. Vishal Talwar;
     
  4. All pending matters before this Hon'ble Court including (1) the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20370 of 2012, (2) Writ Petition (C) No. 236 of 2014, (3) Writ Petition (C) No. 919 of 2014 and all pending I.As in the said proceedings are disposed of with no order as to costs.
     
  5. As per the award dated 21.05.2020 and even as agreed by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Republic of Italy, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Kerala, now the Republic of Italy shall resume its criminal investigation in the events of 15.02.2012 and it is further directed that the Union of India, Republic of Italy and the State of Kerala shall cooperate with each other in pursuit of that investigation. Finally, it is then held in para 8 that:

    We also further direct that the amount of Rs. Ten Crores now lying with the Registry of this Court be transferred to the High Court of Kerala, out of which Rupees Four Crores be paid to the heirs of each deceased and Rs. Two crores be paid to the owner of the boat – St. Antony. We request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to nominate a Judge to pass appropriate order of disbursement/investment of the amount to be paid to the heirs of each deceased (Rupees Four Crores each) so as to protect the interest of the heirs and ensure that the compensation is duly received by the heirs and not diverted/misappropriated. The order of disbursement/investment be passed after hearing the heirs of each deceased and appropriate order be passed, protecting the best interest of the heirs of each deceased. The remaining amount of Rs. Two Crores be paid to the owner of the boat – St. Antony by an account payee cheque.


Before concluding, it must be pointed out that eight months back it was the Centre that had informed the Apex Court about its decision to accept and abide by an arbitral award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) which had ruled that Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Gironne should be tried in their native Italy. The PCA had clearly ruled that the marines cannot be tried by India since they enjoyed immunity as they were exercising official functions in their capacity as Italian state officials when the incident occurred. It, however, held that India is entitled to compensation for the loss of life since its freedom and right of navigation was violated by the marines. Subsequently, Italy had agreed to pay compensation of Rs 10 crore which was accepted by India.

As we know, Girone and Latorre who were detained on the Italian ship 'Enrica Lexie' had allegedly shot the Indian fishermen thinking they were 'pirates'. It must be mentioned here that the tribunal's finding that the marines had immunity came seven years after the Supreme Court ordered the Centre to proceed with the investigation and trial of the marines in a decision on January 18, 2013. The Apex Court had ordered the Centre to set up a Special Court to try the case.

What's more, it must be stated that prior to the Supreme Court judgment, the Kerala High Court had found that the marines enjoyed no immunity. But in 2014 the marines had successfully procured a stay order on the investigation by the National Investigation Agency. As we saw, a year later, the Apex Court had stopped its own proceedings to wait for the verdict from the International Tribunal on Law of Seas. What then transpired has been already discussed above!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top