“Death was not pre-meditated”; Allahabad High Court modifies conviction under Section 302 IPC into Section 304 IPC
Allahabad high Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the
cross-examination
‘Appoint experienced advocates as legal aid counsels’: SC acquits death row convict for want of evidence, finds defence ‘below-average’
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.
Allahabad High Court convicts former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari for threatening jailer
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment passed by the
Allahabad High Court observes statements of victim and informant unreliable, when not supported by medical evidence; Releases the accused convicted for Rape
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
JSA | Webinar on Cross-Examination of Fact and Expert Witnesses
JSA, Advocates & Solicitors, in collaboration with Osborne Partners, Clifford Chance, 39 Essex Chambers, IAMC Hyderabad and SCC Online Blog organised a
JSA | Webinar on Cross-examination of fact and expert witnesses [August 25, 2022]
JSA, in collaboration with Osborne Partners, IAMC Hyderabad, Clifford Chance and SCC Online Blog (exclusive media partner), invites you to a session
Rigour under S. 33(5) POCSO Act gets diluted once the child attains majority; Kar HC allowed cross-examination under S. 311 CrPC
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition filed seeking further cross examination of the child victim as the victim has
Whether victim under POCSO Act can be permitted to be cross-examined once she turns hostile? Kar HC answers
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to Sessions Judge
HP HC | Power under Or. 18 R. 17 CPC cannot be invoked to fill up omission in the evidence already led by a witness
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 17-07-2017. The facts of the case
Ori HC | Where disputed questions of facts are involved, a petition under Art. 226 of Constitution is not a proper remedy; Leading of evidence and examination and cross-examination of witnesses required
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ. and B. P Routray J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
[NI Act] Kar HC | In a case where both the complainant and the accused remained continuously absent, Court ought to have “dismissed the complaint for non prosecution under S. 256 CrPC and not on merits”
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The case involves default under Section
Proving a contradiction during a Trial
by Jeet J Bhatt*
Del HC | Accused allowed to confront witness with reference to answer given by him in cross-examination; Law on S. 145 Evidence Act and Ss. 161 & 162 CrPC restated
Delhi High Court: Brijesh Sethi, J., allowed a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC
Chh HC | Affidavit filed under Or. 18 R. 4 CPC is not “evidence” within S. 3 of Evidence Act unless deponent is subjected to cross-examination
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First
Kar HC | Non cross-examination of material witnesses is against the principles of audi alteram partem
Karnataka High Court: B.A. Patil, J. while allowing the appeal set aside the Judgment of the trial court with a direction to
Del HC | Conviction under POCSO set aside where Amicus Curiae found to make no serious efforts to defend the accused
Delhi High Court: In view of the failure of justice on account of lack of effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, Sanjeev Sachdeva,
Del HC | Recalling of material witness allowed even where accused held to have not exercised due diligence in defending themselves
Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., while putting petitioners to terms, allowed their application filed under Section 311 CrPC to recall three
Direction requiring advance submission of cross-examination questionnaire under the POCSO Act procedurally improper as it defeats the accused’s right to fair trial
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sunil Thomas, J. set aside the order of Sessions Judge requiring advance submission
Sufficient opportunity for cross-examination must be granted to defence; trial court directed to re-summon witnesses: Delhi HC
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial
“Cross-examination is a powerful weapon that helps to separate truth from falsehood”, reiterates Delhi HC
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of J.R. Midha, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of family court