Section 161 CrPC witness statements cannot be used to convict the accused only their testimony can be used to convict or acquit the accused

Rape of child: Acquittal based on the Forensic Lab Report which is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness before the court

Acquittal: A confession taken from a suspected person in police custody by using third-degree methods is not acceptable as evidence hence trial court conviction is set aside

Acquittal: Since the limitation for a suit for money recovery has expired a criminal case cannot be used for money recovery

Madras High Court Quashed: Section 69 and 351(2) BNS: Distinction between a promise to marry and a mere breach of promise due to later circumstances explained.

Hon’ble Madras High Court suggests the need for structured and digital handling practices for e-filing of final report by district registry staff and police

Sudalaimani case upheld & Selvam case distinguished: Confession given the police during investigation cannot be used in favour of the accused due to the bar u/s 162 Cr.P.C

Remedy and Challenges after the order of the Magistrate for FIR Direction

Madras High Court: 14% of the disproportionate assets is inconsistent with the known sources of income thus conviction upheld

Cheque conviction: The accused has only relied upon plausible theories with conjectures and surmises

Murder acquittal: No revision against the order of acquittal whereas the remedy of appeal is available in Cr.P.C after 2009 amendment

Quashing of Multiple FIRs: A citizen of India may approach S.C through Article 32 is a fundamental right but may follow judicial principle and orderly procedure at first