Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the case did not pass the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court said that when reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt.
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
Supreme Court said that the cherished principles or golden threads of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly which was done by the Courts below.
by Harsh N. Dudhe† and Pranay Bhardwaj††
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
Punjab and Haryana High Court granting bail to the petitioner emphasised that the NDPS cases can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally done through FSL.
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ., reversed the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High
Orissa High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the Trial court ruling, convicting the accused under Section 302 of Penal
Calcutta High Court: Sugato Majumdar, J. allowed a criminal appeal which was assailed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge
Tripura High Court: The Division Bench of Amarnath Goud and Arindam Lodh, JJ. allowed an appeal which was filed against
Rajasthan High Court: Farjand Ali, J. dismissed the bail application of petitioner being accused of honour killing and observed that the investigating
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ. allowed an appeal against conviction of the Appellant
Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai J., while acquitting the accused charged under section 302, 392 and 427 of IPC held that
Bombay High Court: Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., addressed a case of ‘Honour Killing’ by a brother
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the bench of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and Sabyasachi
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Panda and S. K. Panigrahi, JJ. set aside the impugned conviction order and allowed