Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Archives

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

April 24, 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 allows review petition based on leaked documents: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019)

April 10, 2019 / Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 123, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Official Secrets Act, 1923, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 3, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 5, Ranjan Gogoi, Right to Information Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8(1)(a), Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8(2)

Supreme Court Allows Review Petition Based on Leaked Documents: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Admissibility of leaked documents in a review petition and the extent of government privilege over such documents. CASE TYPE: Criminal Review Petition Case Name: Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Through Its Director & Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court allows review petition based on leaked documents: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Review Petition Documents Despite Official Secrets Act Objections: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019)

April 10, 2019 / Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 19(1)(a), Fundamental Rights, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 123, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Official Secrets Act, 1923, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 3, Official Secrets Act, 1923 with Section 5(1), Ranjan Gogoi, Right to Information Act, 2005, Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8(1)(a), Right to Information Act, 2005 with Section 8(2), Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Supreme Court Allows Review Petition Documents Despite Official Secrets Act Objections: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can consider documents that were allegedly obtained in violation of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for the purpose of a review petition. CASE TYPE: Criminal Review Case Name: Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs.

Supreme Court Allows Review Petition Documents Despite Official Secrets Act Objections: Yashwant Sinha vs. CBI (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019)

April 9, 2019 / Acquittal, Ashok Bhushan, Burden of Proof, Criminal Appeal, Criminal Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 139, Presumption, Presumption of Debt

Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding a cheque issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Cheque Dishonor) Case Name: Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa [Judgment Date]: April

Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Water Dispute Case: Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019)

March 5, 2019 / Ashok Bhushan, 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, Judges, K.M. Joseph, Offences Against Human Body

Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Water Dispute Case: Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused had the common intention to commit murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Judgment Date:

Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction in Water Dispute Case: Asif Khan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) Read Post »

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)

March 5, 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 »

Demand of Illegal Gratification: Supreme Court refers the matter to Larger Bench in Corruption Cases

February 28, 2019 / Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 114, Judges, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 20, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with Section 7, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court on Demand of Bribe in Corruption Cases LEGAL ISSUE: Whether inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant is permissible in the absence of direct evidence of demand of illegal gratification. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Prevention of Corruption Act) Case Name: Mrs. Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Judgment Date]: 28

Demand of Illegal Gratification: Supreme Court refers the matter to Larger Bench in Corruption Cases Read Post »

Supreme Court acquits medical practitioners in Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act case

February 6, 2019 / Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witness, Criminal Law, Evidence Law, Judges, Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961, Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 with Section 33, Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 with Section 36, Offences under Medical Laws, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court acquits medical practitioners in Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act case LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the appellants were practicing medicine without valid qualifications under the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Dharmendra & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra [Judgment Date]: February 6, 2019 Introduction Date of the Judgment: February 6, 2019

Supreme Court acquits medical practitioners in Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act case Read Post »

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

January 23, 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 »

Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages Upheld: Supreme Court Decision in Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (22 January 2019)

January 22, 2019 / Family Law, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 35, Inheritance, Judges, Marriage, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Muslim Law, N.V. Ramana

Supreme Court Upholds Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages: Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a child born from an irregular Muslim marriage (fasid) is considered legitimate and entitled to inherit property. CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Partition and Inheritance) Case Name: Mohammed Salim (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs. Shamsudeen (D) Through Lrs.

Child Legitimacy in Irregular Muslim Marriages Upheld: Supreme Court Decision in Mohammed Salim vs. Shamsudeen (22 January 2019) Read Post »

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

January 14, 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 in Dowry Death Case: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (07 January 2019)

January 7, 2019 / Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 113B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Navin Sinha, Offences Against Women, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused are guilty of offences under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 related to dowry death and cruelty. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case: Jagdish Chand & Anr. vs. State of Haryana (07 January 2019) Read Post »