Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Prevalent presumption is that a related witness would not testify falsely against an innocent person because they want to see the true culprits punished.”
“There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.”
Based on facts, the Supreme Court said that gunshots fired indiscriminately could be said to be a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.
Madras High Court said that this is a case which brings out the dark side of human behavior. It focuses our attention on the ugly facets of our society; the caste system, bigotry, inhuman treatment of persons belonging to the marginalised section etc.
Allahabad High Court said that the facts of this case are not only shocking but show the mindset of male persons that when a woman has not conceived for many years, the only fault is of the women and not of men and for that women are subject to occultist rituals. It is a curse for society that such rituals are still prevailing in 21st Century.
While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other’s’ property.
Allahabad High Court held that a woman can also be held guilty of sexual offences and can also be held guilty of gang rape if she has facilitated the act of rape with a group of persons.
Court of 30th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru: I.P. Naik, 30th ACMM, addressed a case wherein a pillion on a bike harassed
Supreme Court: Drawing an interesting analogy to explain the scope of Section 34 of IPC, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Z.A. Haq and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., while addressing the matter, observed that: In the
Supreme Court: Explaining the difference between Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Surya Kant* and
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that it is not necessary that
Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the respondent-accused were acquitted of
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Joymalya Baghi and Suvra Ghosh, JJ., partly allowed a criminal appeal against the order of the
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected petitioner’s application
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., while addressing a criminal appeal regarding assault committed during a