IPC

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Now-a-days people have become more sensitive about their religions may be than before and everybody wants to impress as to how his religion/God is supreme. Everybody should respect the religion, caste, creed etc. of another. But at the same time, if the person says that his religion is supreme, then the other person may not immediately react. There are ways and means to react on such sensitive issues.”

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court referred to Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer that “to be poor, in this land of Daridranayan, is no crime, and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means”.

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The Parliament, after considering a spate of reports highlighting the flourishing human organ trade in India and the consequential exploitation of the economically vulnerable segments of the society through organ removal, and illegal transplants, for prohibiting the unethical practice, enacted the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994”

Sikkim High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The impugned judgment of the Sessions Court had observed that if a court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the court and is found reliable and trustworthy, then the court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court opined that true justice, and the ends of justice would not be served by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”