Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When an appeal against conviction is preferred before the High Court, at the earliest stage, the High Court must examine whether there is a proper statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC (Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”
The original judgment of the Special Court convicted and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the convict. However, the convict had already undergone eleven years of actual sentence.
“If the age of wife is not below the age of 15 years then any sexual intercourse or sexual act by the husband with her wife cannot be termed as rape under the circumstances, as such absence of consent of wife for unnatural act loses its importance, therefore, the offence under Section 376 and 377 of the IPC against the accused was not made out.”
The Court said that the prosecution evidence must establish that the accused was the perpetrator of the offence and no one else.
The Court found that all the documentary evidence proved his DOB. The Court, however, upheld the conviction under POCSO and given the convicts minority, he was set at liberty having already served 3 years of his sentence.
To attract the charge of Section 306 of the Penal Code, the prosecution must establish incitement, instigation, aiding, or abetment to commit suicide.
Participants in a public auction must maintain the character they assumed throughout the ensuing litigation, unless legally permitted by the Court. Changing character to exploit the situation for personal gain, especially at the expense of legitimate beneficiaries, is impermissible.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
“The ‘intent’ under Section 307 of the IPC cannot be determined solely by the severity of the harm done to the injured.”
“It is well-settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. The application of the rarest of rare case principle is dependent upon and differs from case to case.”
The Supreme Court refused to grant the benefit of General Exception of unsoundness of mind under IPC in favour of the appellant, since he failed to discharge his burden of proof.
Madras High Court: In a criminal appeal filed challenging the extension of the remand period from 90 days to 180
“In a tradition-bound society like ours, particularly in rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there was a delay in lodging the FIR.”
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that merely because a long period has lapsed by
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., addressed a matter wherein the right of residence was claimed by the wife. In the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J., dismissed an appeal filed to challenge the acquittal of the respondents-accused, for causing simple hurt
Orissa High Court: S.K. Sahoo, J. dismissed a criminal appeal for the acquittal of the appellant under Section 376 of the Penal
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ. partly allowed a criminal appeal wherein they reduced the
Bombay High Court: Swapna Joshi, J. partly allowed a criminal appeal and altered the conviction of the appellant — an Ayurvedic certificate holder
Bombay High Court: V.M. Deshpande, J. dismissed a criminal appeal and imposed costs of Rs 5000 on the appellant for filing the