Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that the prosecution did not place any material or evidence to conclude that reformation, rehabilitation, and social re-integration of the accused into society was not possible.
“Call Details Record of the victim would have reflected her location which could have even strengthened the case of prosecution but is not explicable as to why such valuable piece of evidence was not bothered to be collected. Thus, a golden opportunity went begging.”
Though causing death of someone in itself is perversity, however causing death by smothering and inflicting injuries by jack handle though opined to be consistent with intense torture, cannot be held to be a diabolic or seriously perverse manner of committing murder so as to shock the collective conscience of the society and fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.
Jharkhand High Court concurred with the Trial Court’s decision and held that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond all shadow of doubt which cannot be said to suffer from an error.
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 Delhi High Court granted four weeks parole to a rape convict and held that right of a citizen to avail a legal remedy in the final court of country cannot be denied.
The Court observed that the convict was a young boy of 20 years, who has no father, and was shouldering the responsibility of his widowed sister and her son, hence, imprisonment for a term of 14 years would be adequate, to teach him a lesson.
The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) despite there being contradictions in the dying declarations as there were consistent statements about abuse and cruelty committed on the wife in all the dying declarations.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment passed by the
Tripura High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed for examining the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment passed by
Supreme Court: In an appeal directed against the judgment and order upholding conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
Bombay High Court: While deliberating upon the instant appeal challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 376, IPC [rape], the Division Bench
Orissa High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the Trial court ruling, convicting the accused under Section 302 of Penal
Supreme Court: Allowing the review petition in the 34-year-old road-rage case involving cricketer-turned-politician Navjot Singh Sidhu that resulted into the death of
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was convicted for killing his wife on the suspicion of her infidelity and was
Delhi High Court: Refusing to award death sentence to Vikas and Vishal Yadav in the sensational Nitish Katara murder case, the Court