Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder and Robbery Case: Dakkata Balaram Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in a case of double murder and robbery. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Dakkata Balaram Reddy […]
Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case: Yedala Subba Rao vs. Union of India (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused are entitled to bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) given the stringent conditions for bail under the act. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Case Name: Yedala Subba Rao
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be upheld based on circumstantial evidence when there is no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Murder Case Name: Siju Kurian vs. State of
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Siju Kurian vs. State of Karnataka (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal based on circumstantial evidence and the admissibility of a confessional statement leading to the discovery of a fact. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Siju Kurian vs.
Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case Citing Lack of Prima Facie Evidence: Yedala Subba Rao vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 349 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused should be granted bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) when there is a lack of prima facie evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Yedala
Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Fatal Assault Case: Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. The
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case: Balu Sudam Khalde vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellants for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC.
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession was sustainable. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh Judgment Date: 16th March, 2023 Date
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) INSC 242 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Pradeep Kumar vs. State of
Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction based on weak extra-judicial confession: Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction can be solely based on an extra-judicial confession without sufficient corroborating evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal [Judgment Date]: 3 March 2023
Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the act of the accused constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: 3rd March 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 3rd March
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Boby vs. State of Kerala (2023) Date of the Judgment: 12th January 2023 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh. This was a unanimous decision by a two-judge bench, with the judgment authored
