Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court was of the view that the High Court ought to have interfered with the conviction when it found one of the links in circumstantial evidence missing and not proved, respecting the settled law in this regard.
While hearing the appeal against conviction for attempt to murder, the Court stated that the accused’s actions fall under ‘causing grievous hurt’ rather than ‘attempt to murder’.
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.
In 2015, a young Dalit Engineering student was abducted, and his head was severed for allegedly having a relationship with an upper caste woman.
Delhi High Court observed that it cannot lose sight of the fact that alleged offence was committed with a child victim of tender age who got frightened by the threats extended to him by the accused as well as by the alleged act of the accused and it is not expected that a child of such a tender age would behave like an adult by raising the alarm promptly.
The teacher in the instant matter was convicted in a criminal case for showing obscene pictures to a girlchild, while conducting classes.
Delhi High Court opined that the cause of death was found to be cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Delhi High Court observed that the child who was being examined in the case at hand was in the category of a child witness who is vulnerable and a victim of sexual assault by her own father, and it was not a new phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence.
Allahabad High Court said that the admission form has not been filled in by the parents of the victim, but by a stranger, whose credentials are unknown. Thus, the significance of victim’s medical age determination will be considered, as per which, she was a major on the date of the incident.
Allahabad High Court noted that last year, the Trial Court convicted Kamlesh Pawan and six others for protesting against the arrest of Akhilesh Yadav and attempting to burn the statue of the then UP Chief Minister, Mayawati.
The Patna High Court stayed Lower Court’s order against Rahul Gandhi in the ‘Modi Surname’ defamation case.
Supreme Court said that the High Court did not properly consider the instant case of rash and negligent driving, and that the principle aim and object of IPC is to punish offenders.
The Supreme Court doubted the prosecution’s story due to various lacunas existing in it, the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the material inconsistency in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
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.
The Supreme Court refused to grant the benefit of General Exception of unsoundness of mind under IPC in favour of the appellant, since he failed to discharge his burden of proof.
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.
Allahabad High Court observed that Section 201 IPC looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. It partly allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 201 IPC, but upheld the conviction for murder.
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.
The conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been set aside by the Delhi High Court more than 19 years after the appeal was filed, due to the persistent inability to locate or reconstruct the trial court record.