Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
Supreme Court said that the degree or dimension of the offence should not be the direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused or convict.
To identify whether the case of an accused under S. 302, IPC falls in the category of ‘rarest of the rare’ case, for the purpose of modification of sentence, it is no consideration by itself that the accused is a first-time offender and has no antecedents.
Supreme Court said that if the sentence carrying a maximum sentence of death and a minimum sentence of life sentence has such low evidentiary threshold, the difference between punishments for kidnapping under 363, 364 and 364-A shall become meaningless.
“A protest cannot be allowed to endanger others, damage property, restrict essential services and such a protest cannot receive constitutional protection. The acts of violence and violent speech that instigates violence and endangers rule of law, damage public property and peace are not protected under the Indian Constitution.” opined the Delhi High Court
Allahabad High Court said that the convicts are not in a position to say that they were prejudiced in any manner by common FIR, one charge sheet and same charge for all three convicts and one trial.
Allahabad High Court released Nandi on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to deposition of fine
Allahabad High Court said that the purpose is not to persecute the accused, nor is it to let him off because his relations with the complainant has taken a happier turn, as an offence of rape or one under POCSO is an offence against the society.
In the case at hand, the juvenile had already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years which was against Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part.
Karnataka High Court observed that consent of a woman on a promise to marry is always an enigma.
by Maharukh Adenwalla† and Prakriti Shah‡
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of ASJ to register an FIR under the provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against the petitioner, however, clarified that the same does not include the direction to arrest any of the accused or petitioner.
Cases under Section 153A are on the rise and the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.
Rajasthan High Court stated that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant and mere recovery of money could not be a grounds to consider it as a bribe.
In a case of Cross FIRs relating to murder and attempt to murder, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused in the murder case
Supreme Court in a case pertaining to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, held that the accused is entitled for anticipatory bail, and directed the Investigating Agency to follow the procedure prescribed under CrPC for investigation against the disabled person
In the present case there is no allegation that the Applicant has derived or obtained any property or proceeds of crime. Additionally, there is no allegation or evidence produced to suggest that the Applicant has concealed, possessed, used, projected or claimed any proceeds of crime as untainted property.
The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
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.