Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
“The Court is mindful of the legislative intent of the POCSO Act which provides that the contact between the accused and the victim should be prevented to minimise the trauma experienced by the child.”
“The main object of sentencing a convicted person is to bring in him certain character reformation and to keep him away from the society so as to see that the impact of his criminal character does not put any adverse impact on any other person.”
A convict has to keep in contact with the civil society although sporadically, so that his societal roots do not dry up when he languishes in the jail.
The Supreme Court viewed that after the introduction of Section 54A in CrPC, an accused is under an obligation to stand for Test identification parade.
It is time to ensure that a convict who leaves the correction home/prison is restored to the society as a law-abiding citizen who has repented his past conduct. This can be achieved only if the mental health issues of the convicts in prisons are recognized and attended to, rejecting the notion that this view is too idealistic.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
As there was no monitoring or remedial mechanism available to address the legitimate grievances and prayers for being compensated for work related injuries sustained by a convict-inmate while serving sentence, the Delhi High Court laid down certain guidelines that would be applicable only in the case of amputation, or any other life-threatening injury, arising out of work-related injury, sustained by the convict.
Supreme Court held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, it set aside the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court's judgment and order and acquitted the convicts.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by two convicts (‘petitioners’) challenging an order dated 09-07-2021 passed by Home Department,
Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.
Madras High Court: Expressing that, a convict cannot enjoy all the liberties as are available to a common person, otherwise there would
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ was called upon to decide whether it
Patna High Court: Noticing discrepancies in the Trial the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Sinha, JJ., acquitted a
Kerala High Court: Ashok Menon, J., directed release of a 60-year-old man convicted in 14 criminal cases taking into account that the
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., allowed the petition and held that forfeiture of earned remission of a convict is violative
As reported by ANI, Delhi High Court has set 06-02-2020 as the date on which Manu Sharma’s plea will be heard with
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., held that the appeal filed by the complainant (father of
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajiv Narain Raina, J. allowed the petition to grant furlough to the petitioner and quashed the impugned
Allahabad High Court: The Bench of Dinesh Kumar Singh, J., released the accused on probation by granting him the benefit of Section