<?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>Capital punishment for murder is described as an exception, with life imprisonment as the normal rule under Section 302 IPC read with Section 354(3) CrPC and constitutional guarantees of life, dignity and fair procedure. The majority states that death sentence requires special reasons tied to the offender&#039;s continuing dangerousness, irredeemable violent propensity, or clear inadequacy of life imprisonment; brutality of the crime alone is insufficient. Applying that approach, it treats the relevant appeals as not disclosing exceptional social threat or inability of reform and commutes death sentences to life imprisonment. A dissent would have upheld the capital sentence as justified on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 13:15:00 +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>Capital punishment for murder is described as an exception, with life imprisonment as the normal rule under Section 302 IPC read with Section 354(3) CrPC and constitutional guarantees of life, dignity and fair procedure. The majority states that death sentence requires special reasons tied to the offender&#039;s continuing dangerousness, irredeemable violent propensity, or clear inadequacy of life imprisonment; brutality of the crime alone is insufficient. Applying that approach, it treats the relevant appeals as not disclosing exceptional social threat or inability of reform and commutes death sentences to life imprisonment. A dissent would have upheld the capital sentence as justified on the facts.</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>