Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Allahabad High Court noted that the deceased survived for seven days, thereafter he succumbed to this injury, and viewed that a single injury caused by throwing a piece of brick, which is not a handheld weapon, cannot be categorised as an injury likely to cause death.
“There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is on the prosecution.”
Supreme Court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had either any intention of causing the death of the deceased or the intention of causing such bodily injury to the deceased which was likely to cause his death.
Based on the weapon used for inflicting injuries to the deceased was a very heavy danda with nodes therein, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. However, it failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged offence was not committed by pre-meditation.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, and further held that a lapse of time in death would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
Madras High Court while dealing with the question that whether the mother had the intention to commit the murder of her daughter, set aside the conviction and sentence of the convict for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted her for offence under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment
“It is not the duty of the police officers to kill the accused merely because he/she is a dreaded criminal. Undoubtedly, the police must arrest the accused and put them up for trial”.
Without there being any evidence as to the presence of the accused in the house at the time of the death of the deceased, especially when the material witnesses turned hostile, convicting the accused basing on the assumptions and presumptions by the Sessions Court was erroneous.
The conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been set aside by the Delhi High Court more than 19 years after the appeal was filed, due to the persistent inability to locate or reconstruct the trial court record.
Bombay High Court : In an appeal filed questioning the legality of Judgment and convicting both Appellants i.e. a father
Calcutta High Court: Sugato Majumdar, J. allowed a criminal appeal which was assailed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge
Rajasthan High Court: Farjand Ali, J. dismissed the bail application of petitioner being accused of honour killing and observed that the investigating
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: The Division Bench of N. Bandula Karunarathna and R. Gurusinghe, JJ.
Bombay High Court: Stating that, in the moment of anger spouses almost forgot about the two children who were hardly three years
Supreme Court: In a case relating to murder versus culpable homicide legal controversy, the Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., modified the conviction of a husband who
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that once the prosecution establishes the existence of
Supreme Court: The bench of KM Joseph and S. Ravindra Bhat*, JJ has reiterated the factors to be considered while deciding the
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing an issue with respect to culpable homicide expressed that: “…crucial to determine whether the