Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud* and M. R. Shah, JJ., pronounced an important judgment which came out
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah*, JJ., recently held in an interesting case that evaluation
“The ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has reiterated that an application by a
Telangana High Court: P. Naveen Rao, J., while addressing the instant matter observed that, “When a citizen comes to the High Court alleging
by Sarvesh Kumar Shahi*
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., upheld the decision passed by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the present appeal filed. In
Supreme Court: In case where a man tried to rope in other relatives of his wife in a criminal proceeding that he
Delhi High Court: While wondering why the wife committed suicide, R.K. Gauba, J., acquitted the husband who was convicted under Sections 304-B and
Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. allowed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment of Kerala High
Supreme Court: Holding that the absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry is not per se illegal, the bench of NV Ramana and SA Nazeer said: “As the concept of maintaining General Diary has its origin under the Section 44 of Police Act of 1861 as applicable to States, which makes it an obligation for the concerned Police Officer
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on the credibility of the testimony of an interested eye-witness, the bench of NV Ramana and SA
Supreme Court: Clearing the air over the power of the Courts to order “retrial”, the Court said that though the word “retrial”
Supreme Court: Holding that an accused was not entitled to acquittal on the mere ground that the investigation of the matter had
Supreme Court: While deciding the question that whether a rejection of an application for recruitment in police force, on grounds of “criminal antecedents” with respect
Allahabad High Court: Explaining the scope of power of the Court under Section 319 CrPC, Surendra Singh, J. held that just on