Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.
The issue under consideration is whether the result of a polygraph test can become ground of discharge of an accused at stage of charge and could the learned Judge while passing order on application for grant of anticipatory bail, pass an order suggesting to the IO to conduct polygraph test of accused and victim to ascertain the truth of the matter without there being a prayer by accused or prosecution.
“In cases involving child witnesses, the Court should consider the child’s age, competency, and demeanor and may uphold a conviction even in the absence of other corroborating witnesses if the victim’s testimony is deemed reliable.”
The Will was executed by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thus, complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925.
Delhi High Court opined that the cause of death was found to be cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision of awarding life imprisonment to a man convicted for murdering his wife and assaulting his daughter.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Father (Appellant) under
Bombay High Court : In an appeal filed questioning the legality of Judgment and convicting both Appellants i.e. a father
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee and W. Diengdoh, JJ., while hearing an appeal which challenged the judgment of
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: Dharmesh Sharma, Principal District & Sessions Judge, found a 28-year-old man guilty of committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Division Bench of Devika Abeyratne and P. Kumararatnam, JJ., allowed
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Division Bench of K Priyantha Fernando and Sampath B Abayakoon,
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bambhani, JJ., while addressing a very unfortunate incident, involving sexual
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., opined that where the witness is of tender age (as in the instant case before the
Sikkim High Court: The Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ. and Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., dismissed a criminal leave petition which
Allahabad High Court: Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., while addressing the present jail appeal held that, “…in cases involving sexual assault/rape, it is
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and R.C. Khulbe, J., dismissed a writ petition that was filed questioning
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 302 of
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., upheld the decision passed by the Sessions Judge while rejecting the present appeal filed. In
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the decision of the trial court whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for