Court Sentences Two Men to Life Imprisonment in 2015 Murder Case
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
In an order dated May 13, additional sessions judge Virender Kumar Kharta stated that showing undue leniency in sentencing would undermine public confidence in the justice system. Citing a 2005 Supreme Court judgment, the court noted, "Undue sympathy to impose an inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system and erode public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award a proper sentence.
"
The court was hearing the sentencing arguments in the case of
and Sheesh Ram, who had earlier been convicted under Section 302 (murder) of IPC.
"The family members of deceased, Manish, have suffered mental trauma, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment and frustration. Adequate compensation must be provided to them," the judge said, directing the matter to Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to determine and award suitable compensation to the victim's legal heirs.
Additional public prosecutor Pankaj Kumar Ranga argued for the death penalty, asserting that the two convicts, acting with common intent, had committed a brutal and deliberate murder.
However, the court, while acknowledging the gravity of the crime and noting that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones, observed that the case did not meet the criteria for the "rarest of the rare" category required for capital punishment. It also took into account that both convicts were first-time offenders.
"In sentencing, a balance must be maintained between the rights of the convict, the rights of the victim and the purpose of the law. Poverty alone is not a significant mitigating factor," the court said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
29 minutes ago
- Business Standard
SC seeks Centre's reply on PIL over detention of Bengali-speaking workers
The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a PIL which alleged that Bengali-speaking migrant workers are been detained on suspicion of being Bangladeshi nationals. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, refused to pass any interim order with regard to the detention, saying any order will have consequences especially with respect to people, who genuinely came from across the borders. "States where these migrant workers are working have the right to inquire from their state of origin about their bonafide but the problem is in the interregnum. If we pass any interim orders, then it will have consequences, especially those who have illegally come from across the border and need to be deported under the law," the bench said. It asked advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner West Bengal Migrant Welfare Board, to wait for sometime for the responses from the Centre and nine statesOdisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Delhi, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and West Bengal. Bhushan alleged that people are being harassed by the states just because they speak Bengali language and have documents in that language on the basis of a circular issued by Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). "They are being detained while an inquiry is being held about their bonafide and in some cases, they are even tortured. Kindly pass some interim order that no detention will be held. I have no problem with enquiries but there should not be any detention," Bhushan submitted. The bench said some mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that genuine citizens are not harassed.
Hindustan Times
29 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Indian nurse on death row in Yemen: SC told negotiations going on, no immediate threat
New Delhi, The Supreme Court was informed on Thursday that there was "no immediate threat" to Indian nurse Nimisha Priya who is on death row in Yemen for murder. It then listed the matter after eight weeks. Indian nurse on death row in Yemen: SC told negotiations going on, no immediate threat The counsel for petitioner organisation Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council, which is extending legal support to Priya, requested a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta to adjourn the matter. The apex court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the Centre to use diplomatic channels to save the 38-year-old nurse from Palakkad in Kerala who was convicted of murdering her Yemeni business partner in 2017. "Negotiations are going on. As of now there is no immediate threat. Kindly adjourn it by four weeks. Hopefully, everything will be over by that time," the counsel said. "Let this matter be listed after eight weeks," the bench then said. The petitioner's counsel said they would mention the matter before the top court if there was any urgency. The top court was apprised last month that Priya's execution, which was scheduled for July 16, had been stayed. On July 18, the Centre informed the top court that efforts were on and the government was trying everything possible to ensure Priya came out safely. The petitioner organisation sought a Centre-appointed delegation to go to Yemen to meet the murder victim's family for negotiations. The bench said the petitioner could make a representation to the government. The petitioner's counsel had earlier said Priya's mother was in Yemen to negotiate with the victim's family and she has gone there as the Delhi High Court asked the Centre to give her permission to travel. Priya was convicted in 2017, sentenced to death in 2020 and her final appeal rejected in 2023. She is imprisoned in a jail in the Yemen capital Sana'a. The petitioner's counsel had earlier told the apex court that payment of blood money to the family of the deceased permissible under the Sharia law could be explored. He said the victim's family might pardon Priya if blood money was paid. On July 17, India said it was in touch with Yemeni authorities as well as certain friendly nations as part of efforts to reach a "mutually agreeable solution" in the case. According to Yemeni court documents, Priya allegedly drugged and murdered Talal Abdo Mahdi in July 2017. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
United News of India
41 minutes ago
- United News of India
Biting debate: SC reserves verdict on stray dog removal in Delhi-NCR
New Delhi, Aug 14 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its order on a high-stakes controversy over stray dog management in Delhi-NCR, a case that has gripped public attention across India, sparking emotional debates on safety, animal rights, and municipal responsibility. The three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice NV Anjaria heard marathon arguments before reserving its verdict on multiple petitions seeking a stay on the August 11 directions of a two-judge bench to remove stray dogs from all streets and relocate them to shelter homes. The case originated on July 28 this year, when a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took suo motu cognisance of a news report headlined 'City hounded by strays and kids pay price'. Concerned over the rising incidents of dog bites, particularly involving children, the bench on August 11 issued sweeping directions to the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and civic bodies of Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram. The order mandated the immediate creation of dog shelters across Delhi with CCTV monitoring, starting with capacity for 5,000 dogs within 6–8 weeks, a continuous campaign to pick up stray dogs from vulnerable and peripheral areas, a prohibition on releasing any captured dog, daily logging of captures, the establishment of a 24/7 helpline for dog-bite complaints, and ensuring vaccination stock disclosure. The bench warned that any obstruction by individuals or organisations in implementing the directions would be treated as contempt of court. The order triggered an unprecedented reaction nationwide. On one side, there was public support from residents and parents concerned about safety, citing rising dog-bite incidents and rabies deaths. On the other side, animal welfare groups, rights activists and lawyers condemned the move, warning that it would lead to mass confinement, overcrowding in shelters, spread of diseases, and possible illegal culling, in violation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules and earlier Supreme Court judgments that forbid indiscriminate capture and require sterilisation and vaccination as the primary method of population control. The matter took a dramatic turn yesterday when it was reassigned to the current three-judge bench after several lawyers mentioned before the Chief Justice of India that the August 11 order conflicted with at least half a dozen previous Supreme Court rulings. The reassignment effectively paused the execution of the August 11 order pending further judicial consideration. In court today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, painted a grim picture of public health risks, citing media reports that 37 lakh dog bites occur in India annually, about 10,000 each day, and 20,000 people die every year from rabies, according to WHO estimates. 'Sterilisation does not stop rabies. Even if dogs are immunised, that will not stop them from mutilating children,' he said. Drawing a stark analogy, the SG remarked, 'Only four or five species of snakes are poisonous, but we do not keep them at home. Nobody is saying kill dogs, but they must be separated to ensure children can play outside and go to school without fear.' Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for NGO Project Kindness, argued that the August 11 order was legally unsustainable. 'This is the first time I hear the Solicitor General say, don't look at the legislation which occupies the field. The ABC Rules are part of Parliamentary legislation and must be complied with. Where are the shelters? Where are the pounds? The MCD has failed to sterilise and vaccinate, causing dog numbers to rise. Without infrastructure, dogs will be caged in inhumane conditions and will eventually be culled,' he warned, urging the Court to stay directions 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the August 11 order, which allow immediate pickup and detention of strays. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi submitted that the August 11 order disregarded earlier Supreme Court rulings explicitly rejecting mass capture and mandating ABC compliance. He said at least six prior orders were ignored. Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave noted that animal rights activists were not heard before the order was passed, and Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi contended that the directions were based on anecdotal reports and unauthenticated videos. Colin Gonsalves stressed that sterilisation combined with feeding was the most effective way to bring dog populations down. Krishnan Venugopal highlighted the logistical impossibility of accommodating over one million strays in Delhi-NCR in shelters with only 1,000 available spaces. Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned the evidentiary basis of claims from both sides, calling many submissions 'anecdotal.' Justice Vikram Nath criticised civic inaction, stating, 'This is happening because of the inaction of the Municipal Corporation. The government does nothing. The local authorities do nothing. Everyone who has come here to file intervention should take responsibility.' The three-judge bench, after hearing extensive submissions, reserved its order, acknowledging the complexity of the issue, which sits at the intersection of public health, statutory animal welfare obligations, municipal governance, and societal sentiment. The reassignment effectively paused the execution of the August 11 order pending further judicial consideration. Concluding the proceedings, the Bench directed that there will be a stay on the August 11 order until the Court has an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive judicial review. UNI SNG AAB
