上一步 31 / 31 下一步

2. In our view, since the Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1, has upheld capital punishment, there is no need to reexamine the same at this stage. ………………………..J. (DEEPAK GUPTA) ...……………………..J. (HEMANT GUPTA) New Delhi November 28, 2018 1 (1980) 2 SCC 684 31

選擇目標文字3

● ● ●

Chhanu Lal Verma

案件摘要

司法管轄

印度

國籍

印度人

案件標題: Chhanu Lal Verma v. State of Chhatisgarh

作案時年齡: 46

作案時年齡組: 成年人 (18至59歲)

性别: 男性

犯罪時的宗教信仰: 印度教

司法轄區 - 地理定位

緯度: 20.5937

經度: 78.9629

司法轄區 - 地理定位 (已連結案件摘要): 印度

瑞慈合作機構

The Square Circle Clinic (印度)

該國最新死刑狀態

保留死刑

案件現狀: 已結案: 減刑

判處死刑年份: 2010s: 2013

執行方式: 絞刑

涉嫌侵犯的權利

公正審判與正當程序權利: 處罰過重或不成比例

死刑所涉罪名的性質

謀殺: 多名受害者

案件背景 (最多300字): "The case against the accused was for killing three members of a family and causing grievous injuries to three others. The circumstances against the accused are: eyewitness testimony (child); motive (previously charged of rape - involved with the same family, later acquitted) The trial court convicted the accused and awarded the death sentence on 25.06.2013. The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the conviction and death sentence on 11.04.2014. The Supreme Court, in its criminal appeal decision, upheld the conviction but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on 28.11.2018.

辯方意見 (最多200字): 1)Violation of fair trial: The sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment, since the hearing for conviction and sentencing was done on the same day, in violation of established guidelines on death sentencing. The accused did not have enough time to adduce evidence in mitigation. 2) Sentencing: The lower courts did not fully consider the mitigating circumstances, and disproportionately considered aggravating ones. The High Court placed the onus on the accused to mitigate, where in fact it is on the court to elicit required information. Further, the state was not able to prove that the accused did not demonstrate any probability of reformation or rehabilitation.

判决摘要 (最多200字): 1)Fair Trial: By conducting hearing for sentencing on the same day, the trial court had failed to provide necessary time to the appellant to furnish evidence relevant to sentencing and mitigation. 2) Sentencing: The lower courts had erroneously confirmed the death sentence, without adequately considering either mitigating factors or the possibility or reform/rehabilitation. This case did not fall into the ‘rarest of the rare’ category that would warrant the death sentence. In an observation, it expressed concern on the idea of ‘collective conscience/public morality’ determining death sentencing.

獲得法律代理的情況

第二次上訴階段: 公益律師
偵查前階段: 未知
審判階段: 未知
上訴階段: 未知

與罪名相關的立法: Sections 302, 307, 506(2), 450 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

司法判例: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra