Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
No other specific overt act is attributed to petitioners to attract the offences punishable under Sections 294, 114 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 against them.
Supreme Court remarked that broken relationships and heart breaks are part of everyday life.
In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide.
Earlier, the Supreme Court vide order dated 30-06-2023, had ordered release of the accused on interim bail, as she was pregnant.
The Court said that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
A wife having illicit intimacy with another person will adversely affect the husband and family, both personally and in society. The husband cannot sit quite if the wife is having illicit intimacy with another person.
Supreme Court said that if the sentence carrying a maximum sentence of death and a minimum sentence of life sentence has such low evidentiary threshold, the difference between punishments for kidnapping under 363, 364 and 364-A shall become meaningless.
While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other’s’ property.
Bombay High Court: While deliberating upon the instant writ petitions for quashment of FIR registered in connection with the suicide of prominent
Bombay High Court: While deciding the instant bail application of a 20-year-old boy charged with abetment of suicide of a
Andhra Pradesh High Court: Subba Reddy Satti J. granted anticipatory bail to the Chief Executing Officer (applicant-accused) as on perusal
Supreme Court: While dealing with a case of abetment and conspiracy for commission of criminal misconduct by public servant, the Division Bench
Supreme Court of Canada: The Bench comprising of Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ., held that appellate
“The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.”
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of V.M. Deshpande and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that if the prosecution fails prima facie to
Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act: Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairman) allowed an appeal challenging the impugned Judgment wherein
Bombay High Court: A.M. Badar, J. addressed the present appeal challenging the Judgment and order of the trial court by setting aside
Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Vipul M. Pancholi, J. allowed a petition seeking anticipatory bail subject to certain restrictions. In the pertinent
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. set aside an order framing charges under Sections 306 and
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Md. Mumtaz Khan and Jay Sengupta, JJ. partly allowed the appeal of the appellant-husband