https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277896 The Supreme Court of India explained that the death sentence and life sentence imposed on the co-accused were not disturbed because the murder was committed in a coordinated manner, the fatal role of one accused justified the extreme penalty, and the other had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34. It further held that Section 303 of the Penal Code applies only when the accused is under a subsisting and operative sentence of life imprisonment at the time of final adjudication. Because the earlier life sentence against Rohitsingh had been set aside before that stage, the mandatory death penalty could not be sustained and his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. en-us Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2018 10:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277896 The Supreme Court of India explained that the death sentence and life sentence imposed on the co-accused were not disturbed because the murder was committed in a coordinated manner, the fatal role of one accused justified the extreme penalty, and the other had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34. It further held that Section 303 of the Penal Code applies only when the accused is under a subsisting and operative sentence of life imprisonment at the time of final adjudication. Because the earlier life sentence against Rohitsingh had been set aside before that stage, the mandatory death penalty could not be sustained and his sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277896