Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court observed that the objective of Section 353 IPC is to prevent a public servant from not being obstructed while performing his lawful duties and same cannot be allowed to become a tool in hand, of unscrupulous persons to cover up outright illegality as done in the present case.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court reprimanded the contention of the applicant stating that since the complainant was a lawyer and was, thus, well aware about nuances of writing a complaint and had, therefore, twisted the facts and police had lodged a false complaint against the applicant. It was opined that a person’s profession of being an advocate cannot be held against him.

Suggestion to witness by defense
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.

Constitutional Courts' power
Case BriefsSupreme Court

To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“A protest cannot be allowed to endanger others, damage property, restrict essential services and such a protest cannot receive constitutional protection. The acts of violence and violent speech that instigates violence and endangers rule of law, damage public property and peace are not protected under the Indian Constitution.” opined the Delhi High Court

kidnap
Case BriefsSupreme Court

In the case at hand, the juvenile had already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years which was against Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part.