Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony: Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) INSC 109 (15 February 2019)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, Criminal Law, Eyewitness Testimony, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 324, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Judges, Murder, Police Testimony

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained based on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, when other co-accused mentioned by the same witness have been acquitted. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Kripal […]

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Sole Eye Witness Testimony: Kripal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019) INSC 109 (15 February 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 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 »

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gambling-Related Murder Case: Har Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2008)

/ Altamas Kabir, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 394, Judges, Markandey Katju

Date of the Judgment: 18 September 2008 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: Altamas Kabir, J., Markandey Katju, J. Did a group of gamblers turn violent after losing money? The Supreme Court of India examined a case where a gambling dispute allegedly led to a man’s murder. The court considered circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Gambling-Related Murder Case: Har Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top