Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
“It is never the intention of the legislature to say that merely because two persons were residing together in a house along with others and one of them suffered homicidal death, it would not necessarily mean that the deceased was last seen in the company of others.”
“In case of no material on record including circumstances to satisfy the ingredients of ‘rape’ or ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ committed on the deceased minor, it would be too risky to convict the accused either under Section 376-AB of the IPC or under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The ingredients of offence under Section 354 of the were squarely made out.”
“The sword of justice given to a Judge has to be exercise with utmost responsibility and judiciously considering the reforms.”
While convicting the said accused under Section 304 Part 2 of IPC, the Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.
‘Section 106 of Evidence Act never relieves the prosecution from establishing prima facie guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, only when the same is established, the burden would shift to the accused.’
“The principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that the facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court noted ASI’s submission regarding absence of complaint against the petitioner regarding threatening the witnesses, as against the contentions.
“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 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.
“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”.
“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.”
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has reiterated the factors to be considered while deciding the
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of B. Amit Sthalekar and Shekhar Kumar Yadav, JJ., held that dying declaration can be acted upon
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that there is no hard
Chhattisgarh High Court: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. disposed of a criminal appeal where he altered the conviction of the appellant from the one
Bombay High Court: The Bench of A.S. Oka and A.S. Gadkari, JJ. modified the judgment of trial court and altered the appellant’s conviction under
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal JJ., addressed a Criminal Appeal by setting aside
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment