Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on corroboration for dying declaration, dating back to the year 1954.
The accused was arrested in 2012 on the suspicion of murdering his wife, mother and 2-year-old daughter. In 2016, the Trial Court convicted him and imposed death penalty which was confirmed by Bombay High Court
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on related eyewitness, dating back to the year 1953.
It is not necessary for a criminal trial to go on just to dabble with an incident involving sexual abuse without identifying an accused. If this is allowed, the victim will be embarrassed and vilified, and the so-called accused person will go scot-free, since he has not been identified by anyone in this case.
“Unless there is any blatant mistake or error on the face of the record which may lead to miscarriage of justice, the Revisional Court shall not exercise its diligence over the matter.”
Supreme Court said that a Court of Appeal should be circumspect in overturning its judgment of acquittal, is not a principle that requires reiteration. It has been held time and again that an acquittal will only be overturned in the presence of very compelling reasons.
With Ex-RJD MP Prabhunath Singh’s highhandedness and the police, the public prosecutor and the Judiciary failing in their duty, the Supreme Court called the case an “exceptionally Painful Episode of Criminal Justice System”.
The Will was executed by the testator, Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri in the presence of two attesting witnesses, thus, complying with Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925.
The petitioner was seeking interim bail for a period of six weeks in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground of illness of his wife Mrs. Seema Sisodia.
The lawyers are bound by their commitment to the duties cast on them by Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates), Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Bar Council of India Rules which define their duties towards the Court, Client, Opponent and Colleagues.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court said that the power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, it must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer.
NIA has not done an investigation with respect to the co-conspirators involved in planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. We hope and trust that NIA, in right earnest, will investigate this aspect since further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending.
Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused, Kapil Taneja, seeking bail for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420,
The Court acquitted the accused and held that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
A written statement sent by post or deliver by another person, may not fall under ‘to examine orally' but a written statement submitted by witness himself to I.O., and if the I.O. has assured its genuineness and reduced it in writing, shall be a statement duly recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court
Bombay High Court : In an appeal filed questioning the legality of Judgment and convicting both Appellants i.e. a father