Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Judges, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, and the “last seen together” theory, when the factum of homicidal death is not conclusively proven. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Chandrapal vs. State […]

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Double Homicide Case Citing Weak Evidence (27 May 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies rules on using evidence from separate trials: A.T. Mydeen & Ors. vs. Customs Department (29 October 2021)

/ B.V. Nagarathna, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 273, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 299, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 132, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 135(1)(a)(ii), Customs Act, 1962 with Section 135A, D.Y. Chandrachud, Fair Trial, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 33, Judges, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court on Evidence in Separate Trials: A.T. Mydeen vs. Customs Department (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Can evidence from one criminal trial be used in another separate trial, even if both trials involve the same offense and similar facts? CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Customs Act Case Name: A.T. Mydeen and Another vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs

Supreme Court clarifies rules on using evidence from separate trials: A.T. Mydeen & Ors. vs. Customs Department (29 October 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Charges in Counterfeit Currency Case: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019)

/ Admissions and Confessions, Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 162, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 20, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 489B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 489C, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Relating to Currency Notes and Bank Notes, Statements to Police

Supreme Court Quashes Charges in Counterfeit Currency Case: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of co-accused statements and the requirement of independent evidence for framing charges in counterfeit currency cases. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat and Another [Judgment Date]: 24 April 2019

Supreme Court Quashes Charges in Counterfeit Currency Case: Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the evidentiary value of co-accused statements under NDPS Act: Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 21, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 67, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court on the Admissibility of Co-accused Statements in NDPS Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility and evidentiary value of a co-accused’s statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, NDPS Act Case Name: Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [Judgment Date]:

Supreme Court clarifies the evidentiary value of co-accused statements under NDPS Act: Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Official Secrets Act Case: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh (08 August 2003)

/ Doraiswamy Raju, H. K. Sema, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 30, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 120B, Judges, Official Secrets Act, 1923, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 3, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 5, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 9

Date of the Judgment: 08 August 2003 Citation: Where available, provide the case citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: Doraiswamy Raju, J. and H. K. Sema, J. Can possessing a classified document, even without proof of communication to another party, be sufficient to establish guilt under the Official Secrets Act? The Supreme

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Official Secrets Act Case: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh (08 August 2003) Read Post »

Scroll to Top