Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Bombay High Court observed that the appellant was aged 46 when the offence was committed and it has come in the evidence that he was residing with his wife and children. Still, he has ravished a small child aged six years and, therefore, no leniency can be shown against him.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to the petitioner emphasised that the NDPS cases can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally done through FSL.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Trial Court, convicting the appellant/convict under Section 376 of
The “two-finger test” or pre vaginum test has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity.
Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the port mortem report on record.
Calcutta High Court: Bibek Chaudhury, J. allowed an appeal which was filed assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual
“Being women at least the sister-in-law and mother-in-law ought to have supported the prosecutrix, rather than beating her and not believing the prosecutrix.”
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. confirmed the death sentence awarded by the
Sikkim High Court: The Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed in
Bombay High Court: Pained to note the permitting of questions by the Lower Court which crossed all lines of dignity of a
Kerala High Court: Expressing, “When a man abandons his wife and children, roving vultures wait to prey on not only the abandoned
Supreme Court of India: The Division Bench of Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., reiterated the value of ocular evidence while
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., dismissed a criminal leave petition filed by the State against
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Siddharth Mridul, JJ. dismissed a petition against trial court’s order acquitting the
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and S.K. Gangele, JJ. allowed the appeal and acquitted the
Supreme Court: Stating the importance of medical evidence, especially in a murder trial, the Bench of P.C. Ghose and R.F. Nariman, JJ