Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court reiterated the well-settled law that an accused can only be convicted on legal evidence, and only if a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused.
“The trial Court somewhere missed to take note as to what happened to the little baby who said to have sustained burn injuries on the back. If accused was the author of the crime and was present on the spot, then why did he not make effort to evacuate his 2.5 years old son from the raging flames.”
“It is a well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and that all the established facts point irrefutably to the accused person’s guilt.”
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, until and unless the evidence has not been properly appreciated, material aspects have been ignored and the findings are perverse.
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
To attract the charge of Section 306 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must establish incitement, instigation, aiding, or abetment to commit suicide.
“Any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”
“The yardstick to be applied in cases where the appointment sought relates to a Law Enforcement Agency, ought to be much more stringent than those applied to a routine vacancy.”
“The res ipsa loquitur is applicable in a civil action under the tort and the same cannot be pressed into service in a criminal case to prove negligence.”
The daughter was 16 years and 4 months old studying in class 11 when she allegedly witnessed her father being shot with a gun by two people, then herself being fastened with the charges of killing her father.
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) despite there being contradictions in the dying declarations as there were consistent statements about abuse and cruelty committed on the wife in all the dying declarations.
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the instant appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 01-05-2019 of
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While deciding the instant appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and
Allahabad High Court: Samit Gopal, J. acquitted the appellant of the charges leveled against him of Section 307 of Penal
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ., reversed the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High
“The suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.”
Calcutta High Court: Bibek Chaudhury, J. allowed an appeal which was filed assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh J. quashed the judgement and order which was originally passed by the special judge (POCSO) West Tripura