Date of the Judgment: July 18, 2017 The Supreme Court of India, in a criminal appeal, addressed the issue of circumstantial evidence in a case involving abduction and murder. The Court examined whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the chain of circumstances presented. The […]
Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 678 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Divided Opinion) Can mere silence and subsequent absconding be sufficient to convict a person for destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Prevention of Corruption Act Case Name: Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) Through His L.R. vs. State of Punjab Judgment Date: 14 July 2017 Date of the Judgment:
Can sentences for multiple offences arising from a single transaction run concurrently? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a government employee convicted of misappropriation. The court clarified the application of Section 427(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) regarding concurrent sentencing. This judgment provides clarity on how sentences
LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a death penalty in a criminal case. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Vikram Singh @ Vicky Walia and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Judgment Date: July 7, 2017 Date of the Judgment: July 7, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 635 Judges: Dipak Misra, J., R. Banumathi, J., Ashok Bhushan,
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Muttaicose @ Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu Judgment Date: 03 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 597
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder, or if the death was a suicide. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan Judgment Date: 09 June 2017 Date of the Judgment: 09 June 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 545 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J.
LEGAL ISSUE: Criminal liability for sale of spurious liquor leading to death and grievous injury. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: State of Haryana vs. Krishan & Anr. Judgment Date: June 09, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: June 09, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 488 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. (authored by A.K.
Can persistent eve-teasing and harassment lead to a conviction for abetment of suicide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in the case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P.. The court examined whether the accused’s actions created a situation that left the victim with no option but to end her life.
Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be partially accepted in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a murder. The Court upheld the conviction of two accused persons while acquitting the third. This judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The bench comprised Justices
The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical issue regarding the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The Court has ordered a joint trial for all accused. This decision aims to consolidate proceedings and ensure a comprehensive resolution. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice R.F. Nariman. Justice
Babri Masjid Demolition Case: Supreme Court Orders Joint Trial (19 April 2017) Read Post »
Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 398 Judges: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J., R.F. Nariman, J. Can a fractured prosecution derail the course of justice? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the Babri Masjid demolition case, ordering a joint trial of all accused individuals. The core issue was whether
