<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1979 (2) TMI 214 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305054</link>
    <description>The majority judgment commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment in each appeal, stressing the necessity for clear guidelines and constitutional adherence in death penalty imposition. Emphasizing reformation and rehabilitation in sentencing, the court highlighted the significance of societal and individual factors. In a dissenting opinion, Justice A.P. Sen advocated retaining the death penalty for extreme brutality, opposing restrictions on judicial discretion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2022 15:46:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (2) TMI 214 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305054</link>
      <description>The majority judgment commuted the death sentences to life imprisonment in each appeal, stressing the necessity for clear guidelines and constitutional adherence in death penalty imposition. Emphasizing reformation and rehabilitation in sentencing, the court highlighted the significance of societal and individual factors. In a dissenting opinion, Justice A.P. Sen advocated retaining the death penalty for extreme brutality, opposing restrictions on judicial discretion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305054</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>