Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In criminal jurisprudence, the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is significantly higher than the preponderance of probabilities applicable in civil cases.
Since the Call Detail Records and location data have only been ordered to be preserved and not disclosed, there is no basis for the petitioner’s apprehension that this would provide an undue advantage to the defence. The direction simply ensures that potentially relevant evidence is not lost due to automatic deletion.
It is unfortunate that despite directions from Supreme Court and this Court, the trial has not yet concluded. This was unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused is in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial.
Public transport, which is meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency to an accused caught at the spot, may embolden any future for perpetrators.
On literal interpretation of Section 115(1) of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, it can be stated that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and cannot be tried and punished for any offences under Penal Code, 1860.
Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events. However, this does not mean that genuine cases of harassment didn’t exist, and it is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry.
“Youngsters are prone to commit mistakes/follies during their teens or young age for which they cannot be branded as deviant and wholly unreliable.”
“To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking.”
The husband’s contention that the present case is not a case where the wife is hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, is not only unmerited but also cross the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital.
“The record shows that the petitioner (‘accused’) has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, the apprehension that the accused suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.”
“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731 of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”
Special leave petition – Exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order of the High Court
The Court stated that it is baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife has never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on corroboration of retracted confession, dating back to the year 1954.
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
In the present case, the complaint remained pending for several years and no application was filed by Respondent 2. Now, no purpose would be served by ordering the prosecution of the accused persons, after a long delay of 14 years, when Respondent 2 and his co-accused have already been convicted in a criminal trial, relating to the same occurrence.
The Court observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, is not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on commutation of sentence, dating back to the year 1954.
If the criminal procedures are continued in the present case, it is not likely to result in conviction and will amount to abuse of process of law.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, confession of co-accused, dating back to the year 1954.