“The objective for ‘further investigation’ is to find the truth and bring evidence on record for ensuring substantial justice. However, this right does not extend to mere ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ to be started ab initio.”
“Wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.”
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the impugned FIR and its subsequent criminal proceedings by the prosecutrix aged about 17 years 10 months.
JJ Act, 2015 and JJ Rules, 2012 are mandatory and have overreaching effect over any other provision.
Delhi High Court denied bail to a married person as he wanted to take advantage of the complainant by getting the complainant’s Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she would not have been a minor.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by Special Judge convicting the accused under Section 376 of
Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Father (Appellant) under
“A person suffering from mental disorder or mental sickness deserves special care, love and affection. They are not to be exploited.”
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., observed that If an HIV positive person is aware of their condition and has unprotected sex, the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has acquitted a man in a rape case
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta J., allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and set aside
Supreme Court: Navin Sinha, J. speaking for Ranjan Gogoi, J. and himself and K.M. Joseph, J. dismissed an appeal, which if not
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. decided a criminal petition filed under Section 438
High Court of Himachal Pradesh: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J., decided a criminal miscellaneous petition, wherein the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh: A Single Judge Bench of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant-accused