Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The Karnataka High Court held that merely mentioning an individual’s caste during an altercation with no intention to insult, would not attract the provisions of the SC/ ST Act
This report revisits all the riveting and paramount Supreme Court Constitution Bench cases that were delivered, reserved for judgement and heard in the month of January 2023.
The High Court Roundup brings a curated list of the top stories of the month to ensure that our readers do not miss out any important updates. This month’s roundup covers the stories Live-in relationships; Motor Accident Claims; medical treatment of HIV positive person; Trademarks; Yashraj Copy Rights case; problem of toxic work culture; termination of pregnancy of rape victims; Sexism not accessible, no means no; allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans on flights….
Allahabad High Court has held that the Trial Court has, after analysing the entire facts and evidence have concluded that there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused, and thus has rejected the discharge application. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction order passed by Chhattisgarh High Court, and further held that a lapse of time in death would not per se constitute a determinative factor as to diminish the offender’s liability from the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
The Supreme Court stated that the Allahabad High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent, keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence, the relationship between the parties and the prima facie evidence on record with reference to common intention as well as antecedents of the respondent.
Delhi High Court opined that death caused due to overwork and toxic work environment is a social problem which requires the government, the labour unions, the health officials and corporates to formulate appropriate policies.
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Absence of cross-examination of witnesses resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. The omission of fair and proper trial is not only a violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure and constitutional mandate but is also a violation of mandatory provisions of Section 304 CrPC
The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure by the attempts made by parties to invoke jurisdiction of criminal courts, by filing vexatious criminal complaints by camouflaging allegations which were ex facie outrageous or pure civil claims.
In the case at hand, the date of birth of both the petitioners showed them to be major and they claim their decision live together to be based upon voluntarily will/option.
Bombay High Court remarked that they have come across at least three such cases in last three weeks wherein the statement of the prosecutrix has been totally disbelieved in the grave and a serious offence under Section 376 IPC by not following the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in its catena of decisions. It is the second case in this week wherein Police did not adhere to the basic principles of investigation.
The Bombay High Court came down heavily on the law firm for revealing the identity of a rape victim. The Court, while allowing the firm’s application to mask the name of the victim imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on it.