- Corroboration of testimony of child witness before a conviction is requiredby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Prosecution has proved the case through hostile witnessby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- The facts of the present case can be brought under exception I of Section 300 of IPC and thus is punishable u/s. 304(I) of IPC and not u/s. 302 of IPCby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- Recall: 70(2) CrPC: Only Revision lies against order issuing against NBW and not Crl.O.P jurisdiction [Editor’s note inside]by Ramprakash Rajagopal
- POCSO: Victim’s testimony before the Court is clear and cogent and almost the same as per the statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C and there has been no exaggeration or any inconsistencyby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- Discrepancy in the use of the complainant’s fingers (two or five) to pick up the demanded money from his pocket has some bearing while considering the entire evidenceby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Rejecting the petition filed under section 156(3) CrPC does not prevent the police to register FIR inasmuch the poser of registering FIR flows from section 154 CrPCby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Acquittal: Defence of the accused is that the deceased accidentally drowned and the post-mortem report did not suggest homicideby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Alibi: Quash: The service certificate is not a disputed one thus the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings on the fact of alibi based on that certificateby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Section 161 CrPC witness statements cannot be used to convict the accused only their testimony can be used to convict or acquit the accusedby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Rape of child: Acquittal based on the Forensic Lab Report which is inconsistent with the testimony of the witness before the courtby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- 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 asideby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Acquittal: Since the limitation for a suit for money recovery has expired a criminal case cannot be used for money recoveryby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- 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.by Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- 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 policeby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- 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.Cby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Remedy and Challenges after the order of the Magistrate for FIR Directionby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- Madras High Court: 14% of the disproportionate assets is inconsistent with the known sources of income thus conviction upheldby Sathiyajyothi Sabapathi
- Cheque conviction: The accused has only relied upon plausible theories with conjectures and surmisesby Ramprakash Rajagopal
- Murder acquittal: No revision against the order of acquittal whereas the remedy of appeal is available in Cr.P.C after 2009 amendmentby Ramprakash Rajagopal
Further Study
No Related Posts Found.
