Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
The Court opined that is important to acknowledge that individuals vary in their sensitivity and temperament. It is not solely the feelings of the deceased that would matter, but most importantly, the intention behind the act of the accused would also have to be discerned.
It is clarified that this order does not amount to acquittal but is merely suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances of the case including the long political career of appellant and his age.
The case under 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 seems to be the outcome of a personal grudge and differences between both the parties.
Supreme Court highlighted that the fact of accused being a child in conflict with law was known to the Investigating Officer, prosecution as well as the Trial Court from the very inception of proceedings.
The Calcutta High Court criticised the trial court for not properly assessing the evidence and for erroneously applying legal principles and set aside conviction on prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court raised doubts that if prosecution version was to be believed, there had to be presence of syringe and needle or a container at the scene of occurrence.
“The sword of justice given to a Judge has to be exercise with utmost responsibility and judiciously considering the reforms.”
“The Investigating Officer becomes functus officio when charge sheet is filed after investigation, unless there will be further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.”
Supreme Court concluded that both the Courts below “completely misread the material available on record”.
“Revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature and may be exercised only when there is glaring defect in procedure or there may be a manifesting error on a point of law, resulting in a flagrant miscarriage of justice.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1960.
“Credible evidence even of a hostile witness can form the basis for conviction in a criminal trial and his/her evidence can be accepted, if he/she is a natural and independent witness.”
Calcutta High Court upheld the lower courts’ conclusion regarding the unreliability of Exhibit A and Exhibit B as the petitioners’ defense did not raise a reasonable doubt.
Mere accompaniment of uncle to visit court for recording statement under section 164 of CrPC is not good ground or submission to hold that the child was tutored.
Calcutta High Court found no loopholes in the trial court’s analysis of the evidence, concluding that the appellant’s guilt under Section 304 IPC was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Calcutta High Court stated that Mens rea, a crucial element for a criminal offense, was not established merely by the omission of the license number.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on credibility of the witness.
The case at hand presents a tragedy, wherein the continuous demands of dowry made by the appellant pushed the deceased into a despair so profound that she felt compelled to take her own life. This serves as a reminder of how the forces of greed can often eclipse the sanctity of human life and the bonds of matrimony.
“Presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent, unless proved contrary. There is no presumption for doubting the credibility of official witnesses, in principle.