..
..
Apex Court has made it indubitably clear that the prosecution under the UP Gangsters Act is permissible even in case of single FIR/charge-sheet for anti-social activities. It thus merits no reiteration that the Apex Court has very rightly refused to ..
While leaving not even an iota of doubt, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Narinder Singh and another Vs State of Punjab and another in CRM-M No. 22725 of 2021 delivered recently on February..
Apex Court makes it absolutely clear in this cogent, commendable, composed and convincing judgment that concurrent running of sentences shall not be allowed in drug trafficking cases! It must be mentioned here that the Bench was considering a special..
In an extremely exemplary observation, the Karnataka High Court has in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Anil S/o Venkappa Kushalkar v. The State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 201199/2021 delivered recently on October 2..
In a well-reasoned, well-analysed and well worded judgment titled Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393 of 2020) delivered just recently on September 28, 2020, a three Judge Benc..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal & upheld the decision of the HC and held that “the heinous offence of gang-rape of an innocent and helpless young woman by those in whom she had reposed trust, followed by a cold-blooded murder and calculated at..
The Court held that Mistake of fact does not stand as a defense to a crime where the statute making the act a crime contains no requirement of knowledge of that fact to begin with. In this case the forbidden act is wrong in itself and the legislature..
The jury reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Also, itheld that “every man is presumed sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes. Therefore, in order to establish an insanity defense, it must..
The court acquitted the parents of Aarushi Talwar, calling the evidence against them unsatisfactory and severely criticizing the police, CBI and the media for not having investigated the murder properly...
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rape transgressed the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court mandated the National Commission of Women to prepare a scheme for the rehabilitation of the rape victims ..
In a well-balanced, well-analysed, well-worded and well-reasoned judgment delivered by a woman Judge named Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Vaibhav Bhanudas Ubale Vs The State of Mah..
The court observed that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried...
The Trial Court on the examination of the evidence and materials on record held that the circumstantial evidence surrounding the commission of the offence clearly connected the accused persons with the offence and it further ordered conviction under ..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the capital punishment awarded by the Sessions Court was set aside and life imprisonment was awarded. The Court further ..
The Court finally held that, when a female foetus is destroyed through artificial means which is legally impermissible, the dignity of life of a woman to be born is extinguished. It corrodes the human values. The Legislature has brought a complete co..
Honour killing is a social evil that undermines the development of a society. Judicial pronouncements as in the present case and penal laws acts as a tool to evict such evils from the society. ..
The Court held that evidence can be recorded by way of video conferencing relying on Section 273 with a different view, stating that where a witness is willing to give evidence an official of the Court can be deported to record evidence on commission..
The Civil Court has the power and jurisdiction to decide the question upon taking appropriate evidence as would be required for passing a declaration in terms of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to disqualify the husband defendant to inhe..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
