Month: June 2017

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 386(a) – Reversal of order of acquittal – Section 386(a) places no restrictions on power of appellate Court to convert order of acquittal into conviction – However, there should be good and compelling reasons for appellate Court to convert order of acquittal into conviction.

  (2011) 10 JT 77 : (2011) 9 SCALE 59 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA C. RONALD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE, U.T. OF ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS — Respondent…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 – Custodial death – Nature of offence – Injuries found on body of deceased were confined to skin and upper level of body – In this case of custodial death it is found by the medical evidence that the injuries were confined to the skin and upper level of the body. Grievous injuries were not found on vital parts of the body like head, liver, spleen, heart, lungs, etc. The duration of the injuries were widely variant.

  (2006) ACJ 1002 : AIR 2005 SC 402 : (2005) CriLJ 320 : (2004) 10 JT 547 : (2004) 9 SCALE 390 : (2005) 9 SCC 631 : (2004)…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 406 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Section 6 – Transfer of CBI case – Once a State Government issues notification transferring investigation to CBI, for all intents and purposes, CBI is entitled to exercise the same powers as State Police, in relation to investigation transferred to it

  AIR 2011 SC 1549 : (2011) CriLJ 997 : (2010) 12 JT 641 : (2011) 1 RCR(Criminal) 120 : (2010) 12 SCALE 199 : (2011) 1 SCC 307 :…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 – Statement to police – Delay in recording – Delay of 13 days in recording statement of informant, who allegedly lodged FIR within half an hour of incident – In this case of murder there was a delay of almost 13 days in recording the statement of the informant under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the High Court found the explanation given by the Investigating Officer rather unconvincing.

  AIR 2005 SC 762 : (2005) CriLJ 892 : (2005) 1 JT 89 : (2005) 10 SCC 399 : (2005) AIRSCW 359 : (2005) 1 Supreme 263 SUPREME COURT…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.