Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.
Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.
Allahabad High Court said that there is a serious discrepancy in the eyewitness testimony. It does not match with other evidence, material and circumstances.
The Special Judge opined that the prosecutrix’s conduct of never disclosing anything about incident to anybody nor seeking anybody’s help during relevant period, cast a serious doubt on her version of events.
“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
“Thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which the Court has explicitly warned against.”
The prosecution failed to establish the misbranding of the “Red Label Natural Care Tea” beyond a reasonable doubt as the report of the public analyst, was not adequately proven.
“It is high time that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.”
“The Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination”.
Supreme Court said that admissibility and credibility are two distinct aspects, and the latter is really a matter of evaluation of other available evidence.
The Court was of the view that the depositions did not have the requisite sterling quality and inconsistencies in the same created serious doubt regarding the nature of the alleged sexual offence but also credibility of the deposition.
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.