Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The moment a higher court stays a conviction, the anathema of conviction goes out of the window and the person against whom such conviction is stayed, though not absolved, cannot be stated to be a convicted person.”
Non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.
Covering all the important criminal law cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court as well as the legislative updates, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in criminal law and links to other roundups.
Covering all the important criminal law cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court as well as the legislative updates, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in criminal law and links to other roundups.
The Court held that it was a well-planned cold-blooded murder by the woman, who for the reasons best known to her, was not keeping good terms with her husband tortured him to death firstly by serving him a seductive drug and electrocuting him.
“The accused cannot be held liable based on high speed alone without any further evidence that the accused was in breach of his duty to take care which he had failed to do.”
“The manner in which the accused assaulted the deceased with predetermination definitely indicated that he was guilty of the offence of murder and not culpable homicide.”
The Trial Court hadn’t given any separate sentence to the convict under Sections 376(3), 377, 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.
In this 14-year-old cold-blooded case, the deceased was hacked to death in front of his own son. During the trial, 71 out of 87 witnesses turned hostile including the relevant ones, thereby leading to the collapse of the prosecution case before Trial Court.
“The conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary, provided that the said witness passes the test of reliability.
Allahabad High Court said that the deposition of the informant, recorded during his examination-in-chief and cross-examination prior to the amendment of charges, could not be discarded merely because of his subsequent statements made during the later examination-in-chief conducted after the inclusion of Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
“Youngsters are prone to commit mistakes/follies during their teens or young age for which they cannot be branded as deviant and wholly unreliable.”
“The requirement of law in criminal trials is not to prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense.”
The Court explained that when the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time, especially when there exists a tacit and clear admission as to the age of the Appellant.
The absence of any explanation or defense from the convict, coupled with the surrounding circumstances that pointed to his culpability, led the Supreme Court to conclude that the only plausible inference was that the convict had participated in the commission of the crime.
The Trial Court did not notice the facts that the offence was committed in 2014 and at that time there was no such punishment as rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in Section 6 of POCSO Act.
The Division Bench opined that in Section 498-A IPC cases, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences.
The High Court refused to interfere with the sentence imposed on convicts, even after noting inherent contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and placed major credence on the inconsistent statements of injure and her husband, to establish the liability.
Brij Bihari Prasad, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was murdered in 1998. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision and acquitted the accused persons.
The Court emphasised that in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. The presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused throughout the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court.