The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
Supreme Court held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, it set aside the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court's judgment and order and acquitted the convicts.
Madras High Court said that when the court issues a specific direction, it’s the prison official's duty to verify it and clarify if they have doubts. Thus, held that the detention was illegal.
Allahabad High Court said that the Trial Court has erred in scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record and the finding in respect of the guilt of convict is perverse and not according to the law. Therefore, it granted benefit of doubt to the convict on the ground of rule of caution.
Without there being any evidence as to the presence of the accused in the house at the time of the death of the deceased, especially when the material witnesses turned hostile, convicting the accused basing on the assumptions and presumptions by the Sessions Court was erroneous.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Special Judge acquitting the accused persons in Babri
Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Mumbai: In a case filed by a minor girl against the accused for offences under Sections 354, 354-D,
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's reversal of acquittal of 2 out of the 22 accused
Allahabad High Court: Samit Gopal, J. acquitted the appellant of the charges leveled against him of Section 307 of Penal
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of S.H. Vora and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ. dismissed a criminal appeal which was
Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.
Calcutta High Court: Sugato Majumdar, J. allowed a criminal appeal which was assailed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a case where an election was declared null and void on the grounds of non-disclosure of
Patna High Court: While dealing with a case of rape, A M Badar, J. observed that mere non-offering of physical resistance by
“The suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.”
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed against
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment
Supreme Court: In an interesting case, the Division Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R, Gavai, JJ., acquitted the appellant who
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Arvind Singh Chandel and Sanjay K. Agrawal, JJ. dismissed the acquittal appeal being devoid of