Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on duty of appellate court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Calcutta High Court held the trial court’s findings were not aligned with the legal requirements for cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The impugned judgment accepted the case of appellant being annoyed of second marriage, took her to the well to eliminate the deceased and strangulated her and thereafter threw her body in the well.
If there is cogent evidence that the accused was shown to prosecution witnesses, refusal to participate in test identification parade by accused is justified and the said test identification parade cannot be used against the accused for any purpose. If identification in Test Identification Parade has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of Test Identification Parade inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless.
Supreme Court did not deem it safe to base the conviction only on the testimony of child witness which did not inspire confidence and acquitted the appellant.
Supreme Court concurred with the Punjab and Haryana High Court that incriminating circumstances were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and chain of evidence was not complete to interfere with a degree of certainty of accused having committed the crime.
Madras High Court said that this is a case which brings out the dark side of human behavior. It focuses our attention on the ugly facets of our society; the caste system, bigotry, inhuman treatment of persons belonging to the marginalised section etc.
Allahabad High Court said that the Tribunal has not considered the effect of acquittal of the petitioner from the identical criminal charges. The judgment is completely silent about the same. This is an apparent perversity on the part of the Tribunal.
The commission of an offence and complicity of the offenders are two different realities. The complicity of an offender must provenly be established connected to the commission of charged offence, then only it is permissible for a court of law to derive the product of conviction, failing which, the acquittal is the rule.
Supreme Court reiterates that mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service. The acquittal must be honourable.
In a case pertaining to Criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and falsification of accounts, the Saket District Court acquits the accused, as the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
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.
Madras High Court said that when the court issues a specific direction, it’s the prison official's duty to verify it and clarify if they have doubts. Thus, held that the detention was illegal.
Allahabad High Court said that the Trial Court has erred in scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record and the finding in respect of the guilt of convict is perverse and not according to the law. Therefore, it granted benefit of doubt to the convict on the ground of rule of caution.
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.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the judgment passed by the Special Judge acquitting the accused persons in Babri
Sessions Court, Borivali Division, Mumbai: In a case filed by a minor girl against the accused for offences under Sections 354, 354-D,
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.