Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Multiple Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) INSC 164 (5 March 2019)

/ A.K. Sikri, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 366(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 118, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, M.R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Multiple Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused of murder and robbery. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Judgment Date]: 5 March 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 5 March 2019 Citation: […]

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Multiple Murder Case Due to Lack of Evidence: Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) INSC 164 (5 March 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Malaichamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (23 January 2019)

/ Benefit of Doubt, Circumstantial Evidence, Criminal Law, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 449, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Murder

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Malaichamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Malaichamy & Anr. vs.

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Malaichamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu (23 January 2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court upholds acquittal in triple murder and robbery case: Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh (2019)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 20(3), Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 with Section 4, Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 with Section 5, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 449, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court upholds acquittal in triple murder and robbery case: Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused based on circumstantial evidence in a case of triple murder and robbery. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh and Ors. Judgment Date: 14

Supreme Court upholds acquittal in triple murder and robbery case: Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Concealing Murder in Family: Asar Mohammad vs. State of U.P. (24 October 2018)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 8, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Concealing Murder in Family: Asar Mohammad vs. State of U.P. (2018) Date of the Judgment: 24 October 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 969 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J. Can family members be held guilty for concealing a murder committed within their household? The Supreme Court of India addressed

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Concealing Murder in Family: Asar Mohammad vs. State of U.P. (24 October 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018)

/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 134, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R. Banumathi, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018) Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 844 Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and Vineet Saran, J. Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s conviction based on minor inconsistencies in a key witness’s testimony? The Supreme

Supreme Court overturns acquittal in quadruple murder case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chhaakki Lal (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Last Seen Theory: Satpal vs. State of Haryana (01 May 2018)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Last Seen Theory: Satpal vs. State of Haryana (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the ‘last seen theory’ can be the basis of conviction in a murder case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Satpal vs. State of Haryana [Judgment Date]: 01 May 2018 Date of the Judgment: 01

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Last Seen Theory: Satpal vs. State of Haryana (01 May 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Navaneethakrishnan vs. State (2018) INSC 330 (16 April 2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, R.K. Agrawal

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence Date of the Judgment: 16 April 2018 Citation: (2018) INSC 330 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and R.K. Agrawal, J. Can a conviction be upheld when based primarily on circumstantial evidence and a retracted confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Double Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Navaneethakrishnan vs. State (2018) INSC 330 (16 April 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court restores acquittal in bond theft case: Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 379, Judges, Offences Against Property

Can a conviction be overturned if the prosecution fails to establish key facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the alleged theft of a bond paper from a government office. The core issue revolved around whether the High Court of Karnataka correctly overturned the acquittal granted by the

Supreme Court restores acquittal in bond theft case: Rajesh Kumar C.K. Jain vs. State of Karnataka (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Robbery Case: Aslam @ Deewan vs. State of Rajasthan (2008)

/ Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 392, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Judges

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 25, 2008 Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1531 of 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.3925 of 2007) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J., Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Can a person be convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on the evidence presented? The Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Robbery Case: Aslam @ Deewan vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top