Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that billing discrepancies and delayed medical records did not disclose criminal offences, and quashed the complaint under Section 482 CrPC.
None of the eyewitnesses specifically identified any accused in court as the persons they had seen committing the offences; combined with material omissions and contradictions in their statements, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal of the appellants.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the allegations and the suicide note do not establish proximate instigation or continuous harassment by the appellants required for abetment under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC; there was a gap of about a month with no contact, no active or direct acts pushing the deceased to suicide, and mens rea for abetment was not made out, therefore continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process and the chargesheet/proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Source excerpt
The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court that eyewitnesses consistently placed the appellant at the scene and that he inflicted repeated knife stabs on the deceased; the delay in recording statements was satisfactorily explained by communal riots and police engagement in law and order duties, and minor discrepancies did not undermine prosecution; because the knife was shown to have been with the appellant from the outset, the intent to kill existed and conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was justified; on remission the appellant was granted…
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings that the appellants participated in the assault and that the sole eyewitness PW-10 was credible and sufficiently corroborated by FIR, medical records and the IO; however, because death resulted from cumulative head injuries over a period (victim died days later) and motive/premeditation was not clearly established, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was converted to Part I of Section 304 IPC. The appellants were sentenced to the period already undergone and fined Rs.50,000 each with six months default simple imprisonment.
Source excerpt
On the facts the Court found no material procedural lapse under Section 52A and held that even if procedural non-compliance is alleged the trial is not automatically vitiated. The accused must first establish foundational facts of non-compliance on a preponderance of probabilities; thereafter the prosecution must prove substantial compliance or that the non-compliance did not affect its case beyond reasonable doubt. Certified inventories, photographs and samples prepared in substantial compliance with Section 52A and the Rules/Standing Orders must be treated as primary evidence under Section…
Source excerpt
Where an accused is proved to be a member of an unlawful assembly having a common object to commit a crime, Section 149 IPC renders that member guilty of offences committed in prosecution of that common object; therefore membership of the unlawful assembly sufficed to uphold convictions under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC despite non-recovery of the alleged weapon or absence of firearm injuries.
Source excerpt
The Court held that notwithstanding admission of signature, material contradictions and deficiencies in the complainant's evidence—regarding timing of issuance/presentation of the cheque, lack of proof of the alleged loan and financial capacity, and unexplained origin of the cheque—created a reasonable probability that the cheque was not issued for a legally recoverable debt; on that preponderance the respondent rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 and the concurrent acquittal by the Trial Court and High Court was not perverse and was affirmed.
Source excerpt
The appeals were allowed and the convictions and sentences set aside because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: the key injured witnesses were related/interested and their testimonies contained inconsistencies, independent witnesses were not examined despite there being many at the scene, there were unexplained delays in filing the FIR and recording statements, interpolations and lapses appeared on the record, the investigating officer's conduct and testimony were not reliable and no medical/scientific evidence adequately supported the prosecution's version.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court set aside the National Green Tribunal's orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021 because the Tribunal had not issued notice to the affected Project Proponents and had proceeded without giving them an opportunity to be heard; the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to issue notice to all necessary parties, hear them afresh uninfluenced by prior observations, and pass appropriate orders.
Source excerpt
Explore more
