Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, until and unless the evidence has not been properly appreciated, material aspects have been ignored and the findings are perverse.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on contempt of court.
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
“Prevalent presumption is that a related witness would not testify falsely against an innocent person because they want to see the true culprits punished.”
Notwithstanding the conclusion due to inconsistent prosecution evidence, the Court emphasized that timely disclosure, effective investigation and prompt trial are necessary in sexual abuse cases involving young complainants.
The High Court was shocked to find that the Trial Judge have not understood properly what is meaning of the theory beyond reasonable doubt in appreciating the evidence in POCSO cases.
The Supreme Court said that the evidence regarding the last seen theory was totally unreliable and the evidence regarding the Call Detail Records also did not inspire any confidence.
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.
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.
Delhi High Court: While deciding the instant appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”
Tripura High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed for examining the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned judgment passed by
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed against
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment
“We are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it.”
Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru, J., while dismissing the present appeal upheld the decision of the trial court for offences charged under
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: A Division Bench of K.K. Wickremasinghe and K. Priyantha Fernando, JJ.,
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: Tashi Rabstan, J. upheld the finding of the revisional court as it was found to be well
Kenya High Court, Nyahururu: R.P.V. Wendoh, J. passed a judgment directing acquittal of an accused in the absence of sound circumstantial evidence.
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, JJ. allowed the appeal filed by a couple accused