Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a ‘Public Servant’ whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 CrPC and not to every public servant.
“Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of the death penalty without considering the mitigating factors and other circumstance”
“The Court also held that it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged, must be shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.”
“Demand for dowry should be the continuing cause for the death of the married women. Cruelty can be mental, or it can be physical. Every instance of cruelty and related harassment has a different impact on the mind of a woman.”
The Former Resident Additional Collector had also set up a honey trap for the District Collector in order to gain access to some controversial land clearance files.
“Mehul Choksi left the country long ago and he did not cooperate with any prosecution, though various complaints are filed against Gitanjali Gems as well as in his individual capacity. He has no respect towards the process of law”.
Taking a narrow view as to what acts could constitute an obscenity would be a retrograde act. Surely the provisions of Section 294 of IPC would not apply to all the situations and thus, the Court cannot countenance a situation where acts such as the ones referred to in the FIR would be judged by a Police Officer, who in his personal opinion considers them to be obscene acts to cause annoyance to any member of the public.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had refused to grant bail to the accused considering the seriousness of the offence.
“Murder was committed in the convict’s house, and he attempted to burn the entire house along with the dead bodies in the dead of night which pointed fingers towards the convict alone and the same was strengthened by his post occurrence conduct”.
The Court did not express anything on the merits of the case and released the accused considering the period in custody and reasonable time for conclusion of Trial.
“The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at.”
The Ministry of Coal’s policy was concerned with end use and the end use for the Baidyanath Ayurved being ‘power’ was in conformity with the MoC’s policy.
However, the Commission was of the view that it is not advisable to tinker with the existing age of consent under the POCSO Act.
The circumstances and the witness statements proved the husband’s complicity in killing wife beyond reasonable doubt.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the credibility of injured eyewitnesses.
Delhi High Court mentioned that children born from the wedlock will be free to pursue their legal rights in accordance with the law. The parties have entered a settlement only regarding their rights and titles leaving open the the rights, titles, and interests of the children to pursue their legal remedies as per law.
“If the conclusion of the Trial Court is a plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused”.
“The crime committed may be cruel or ruthless but the evidence on record has to be evaluated dispassionately and objectively to see whether the accused is responsible for the said crime or he is innocent”.
The courts should strive to strike a balance between the rights of accused and the practicalities of the legal process. In cases, if the trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through alternative means, the court should be flexible in considering prayers made to this effect by the accused.
The applicant behind bars will be violative of Article 21 as the status of the applicant is merely that of a suspect till the outcome of the proceedings emanating therefrom as the applicant is innocent till proven guilty.