https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194658 Conviction for a capital offence was upheld because the evidence and sentence disclosed aggravating circumstances, extreme depravity, diabolical conduct and brutal treatment of the body, so the trial court's choice of death penalty was not disturbed; delay under sentence, by itself, was insufficient for leniency. On jurisdiction, the Court held that confirmation of a death sentence under section 377 of the old Code applied only when the relevant High Court or equivalent court had two or more judges at the time of hearing, and the presence of a single Judicial Commissioner meant the provision was not attracted. The statutory Regulation did not exclude the Code's appellate or revisional jurisdiction, so confirmation was within jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 04 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:21:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194658 Conviction for a capital offence was upheld because the evidence and sentence disclosed aggravating circumstances, extreme depravity, diabolical conduct and brutal treatment of the body, so the trial court's choice of death penalty was not disturbed; delay under sentence, by itself, was insufficient for leniency. On jurisdiction, the Court held that confirmation of a death sentence under section 377 of the old Code applied only when the relevant High Court or equivalent court had two or more judges at the time of hearing, and the presence of a single Judicial Commissioner meant the provision was not attracted. The statutory Regulation did not exclude the Code's appellate or revisional jurisdiction, so confirmation was within jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194658