Appeal against the conviction being confirmed by the High Court for murder case-Conclusion of trial and conviction-Appeal dismissed in the High court-No premeditation reveal from the testimony of witnesses-Accused did not take any undue advantage or acted cruel or unusual manner.
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder. The trial court acquitted a1, a2, and a3 but convicted a4, a5, and a6. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal of a1, a2, and a3 and confirmed the conviction of the other accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed its previous judgments and explained the four principles to reverse the acquittal. Findings are necessary to reverse the acquittal. The Hon’ble High Court did not follow the settled principles in reversing the acquittal.
It is important to note that though many were present except the deceased, none other received a single injury in the incident. PW-1, who witnessed the incident, hid in the bushes. After the incident was over, PW-1 reached his home and informed the incident to other persons and to the police. In natural course, witnesses were bound to inform the incident to the police, and their statements would have mandatorily been entered in the daily dairy, which was not brought on record in this case, creating doubt.
PW-1, who was an eye-witness to the incident, is totally contradicted by P.W-6. It is clear that the complainant party created eye-witnesses to the incident and suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence.
Motive is a double-edged weapon. The requirement under the law to prove a disclosure statement is explained. A confession statement is nothing but a memorandum reduced in writing during interrogation, which is inadmissible except for any discovery. The Investigating Officer (IO) must narrate the conversation of the interrogation in the witness box as per Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Judgments on proving disclosure statements are also examined.
Mere exhibiting the memorandum prepared by the IO is not proof of its contents. Since the IO did not give any description about the conversation while recording the disclosure statements, those statements cannot be read in evidence.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed an appeal related to a case of robbery and assault. However, the assailant was not identified. The appellant was arrested on suspicion and case articles were recovered from him. The informant identified the articles, and a final report was filed. Conclusions were reached during the trial and appeal that the appellant is the offender. The trial and high court courts convicted the accused based on the recovery of the articles. However, Apex court observed that the investigating officer did not narrate the exact words spoken by the accused while making a disclosure statement. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide any evidence to show that the recovered articles were sealed at the time of recovery. As a result, the accused was acquitted.
Prayer-Detenu was detained as sexual offender-Petitioner side contention on procedural safeguard violations-Respondent’s side Contention-Delay in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority-Cited with precedents-Unexplained delay of 21 days in considering the representation is prejudice the detenu-High Courts Directions.
The State has challenged an order rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, which had quashed the FIR registered against the respondent for cheating in the sale of land. The respondent had neither returned the amount nor handed over the land to the complainant. However, it is not the case that the land was not transferred to the complainant, or did not exist, or had been sold or transferred to somebody else. Therefore, the case is purely of a civil nature and not of cheating. Since proceedings against other accused were quashed for the same nature of the case, proceedings against the co-accused cannot continue.
An appeal has been filed against an order under section 482 CRPC to quash a summoning order. The summoning order was issued after a final report was lodged based on information received. However, a protest petition was filed alleging the investigation was unfair. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejected the police report and summoned the accused after taking cognizance of the protest petition and affidavits that supported it. The CJM concluded that the investigation was indeed unfair. The question now is how to proceed with filing a closure (final) report. The magistrate must treat the protest petition as a complaint and has the power to reject it. If the complaint is rejected, the complainant has the option of filing a fresh complaint. Since the Magistrate considered the affidavits and protest petition, the Apex court has set aside the cognizance taken under section 190(1)(b) and directed the case to proceed as a complaint case.
The appellant, who is the complainant, challenged the order that granted suspension of sentence. An FIR was registered based on the complaint, and after investigation, three separate trials were conducted. The trial court convicted five accused under section 302 IPC and acquitted two accused. The complainant challenged the impugned order of granting bail on the ground that the accused are dreaded criminals. Two accused respondents are not entitled to the grant of bail for their subsequent conduct, which includes murder.
The complaint filed by the ED authority is being challenged on the grounds that, except for Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, no other offences are considered scheduled offences. Without a scheduled offence, there cannot be any proceeds of crime. Furthermore, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), a special court can only take cognizance of a case only through a complaint filed by an ED authorized authority. In this case, as there is no scheduled offense in the complaint filed by the ED authority is available, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the case.
This is a summary of a legal case where the accused were convicted under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC for a fire shot incident that occurred during a liquor party. The conviction was upheld by the High Court after sentenced by the Trial court. However, it was found that one of the accused (A2) had refused to shoot the deceased, and therefore, vicarious liability under section 34 did not apply to him. Although the other accused had attempted to shoot the deceased, the weapon (a firearm) was not brought for the purpose of committing an offense during the liquor party. As a result, the sentence was modified to “homicide not amounting to murder”.
Understand the legal procedure for disposal of property in court cases. Discover the steps to file before the concern court and high court.
Challenge against the reversal of acquittal by the Hon’ble High Court – Facts of the case: Section 302 IPC – Trial court acquitted the appellants but Hon’ble High Court overturned the sentence and sentenced to life – It is well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused – Unless there is statutory presumption the accused is not required to discharge any burden – Hon’ble High Court accepted the statements given before the police under section 161 cr.p.c and rejected the statement given before the court.
Terrorist Act: Any act must be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or such act must be accompanied with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
Appeal against dismissal of bail- FIR was registered- Investigation was expanded and section 120-B IPC was added- Initial and supplementary chargesheet were filed- During initial chargesheet bail was filed before sessions which was got dismissed-Case explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court-Whether the course adopted by the High Court could be invalidated because another course suggested by the appellant is available?-Courts hearing the question of bail must scan the case diary or report under section 173 Cr.P.C to for an opinion on accusation-Analysing of materials for allegations against the appellant for commission of offence-What is terrorist act is being explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?-Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
Tutoring a witness: Police cannot tutor prosecution witnesses. Police interference with the judicial process is a misuse of power.
Challenging the reversal of acquittal by the High Court – Case rests on circumstantial evidence – Chain of evidence must be complete as against the accused without any hypothesis except the accused is guilty – Suspicious cannot take place of proof – The law regarding interference by the appellate court Homicidal death is admitted fact – Appreciation of trial court judgment of acquittal – Reversal of acquittal by the high court is in cursory way – High court can interfere in the findings of the trial judge only if it is perverse or impossible – Two views theory.
Appellant convicted under section 138 NI Act – Whether accused can be held guilty whereas the competent civil jurisdictions already passed decree in connection with the same transaction – Proceedings and facts before the lower court – Same cheque was in issue before both civil and criminal courts and the conclusions of the courts below.
Appellant has taken obscene photographs of the neighbour ‘X’ and blackmail to extort money – Prime accused enlarged on bail – High Court allowed Anticipatory Bail to the accused and subsequently dismissed on the application filed by the complainant section 439 (2) Cr.P.C – Concept of anticipatory bail – Present appellant had been charged only under section 120B and section 67A IT Act – Cancellation of bail is set aside.
Challenge against the dismissal of criminal appeal by the Hon’ble High Court – Observation of the Trial court after the conviction – Child was not returned home from a shop and could not be traced hence fir registered – Victim (deceased) was last found with accused – Accused confessed and based on that dead body recovered and after post-mortem it is reported that it is homicide with injuries in the victim’s genitals – Accused was a child in conflict with law – Trial concluded in conviction – Mother of the accused filed petition praying the sentence may be reduced – Special court dismissed the petition – High Court dismissed the appeal = It is not disputed that the appellant was CICL (Child In Conflict with Law) because of the school record – As per section 9(1) Magistrate who is not empowered to exercise the power of board shall without any delay forward the child to board having jurisdiction – Though charge sheet was filed before the Special court it has no option except to forward the child to the concerned board for further directions – Procedure before the Board if the offence is heinous offence – Board has to decide whether the child to be tried as an adult by special court as per section 18(3) – As per section 19(1) Children’s court may further decide if there is a need for trial as an adult or not – Sections 15 and 19 are mandatory – Flagrant violation of not following mandatory requirements of sections 15 and 19 – Absence of preliminary assessment being conducted under sections 15(1) and 18(3) vitiates trial – Remanding back does not create any possibility to find out the mental and physical capacity of the accused.
Challenge against the dismissal of order under section 482 Cr.P.C – Deceased died due to non-vacation of his house by his brother (accused) – Quash petition filed after charge sheet was filed – Except the appellant told the deceased to go out and die there is no other allegations brought on record – Appellant was in USA and there is no material in record to show that any telephonic conversation occurred – Suicide notes did not give any evidence that the appellant was in touch with the deceased on telephone – A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things does not constitute offence under section 306 IPC.
Charge against the appellants are under sections 419, 420 of IPC and sections 66 read with 43 (j) and 66D of IT Act. Trial judge recorded 12 Prosecution witnesses Chief-examination without recording their cross-examination. Trial proceeded as per the direction of the Hon’ble Madras High court but appellants did not engage any advocate. Trial court ought to have provided legal aid advocate also the appellants did not decline to accept the service of legal aid lawyer. Presence of accused’s advocate is required when chief-examination of a material Prosecution witness is being recorded to object to a leading or irrelevant question being asked to the witness. Recording only the examination-in-chief without recording cross-examination is contrary to law. De novo trial directed again to examine the witnesses already examined.
The cause of death of a young woman in Delhi remains a mystery in this complex legal case. After a legal battle the relatives of the young woman (deceased) obtained investigation by CBI.
Disclaimer:
Contents of this Web Site are for general information or use only. They do not constitute any advice and should not be relied upon in making (or refraining from making) any personal or public decision. We hereby exclude any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness, performance, fitness for a particular page of the Site or any of its contents, including (but not limited) to any financial contents within the Site. We will not be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business projects, or loss of profits) arising in contract, tort or otherwise from the use of or inability to use the site or any of its contents, or from any action taken (or refrained from being taken) as a result of using the Site or any of its contents. We shall give no warranty that the contents of the Site are free from infection by viruses or anything else which has contaminating or destructive user’s properties though we care to maintain the site virus/malware-free.
For further reading visit our ‘About‘ page.
© 2023 Developed and maintained by PAPERPAGE INTERNET SERVICES
Questions explained agreeable preferred strangers too him beautiful her son.
