July 29, 2025 11:49 pm

Bribe–Acquittal–Accused had no knowledge regarding the money being bribe.

Bysclaw

Sep 5, 2017

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 34, 120B — Murder — Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder — Key eyewitness evidence of the deceased’s son and wife — Distance allegedly covered on bicycle within thirty minutes questioned — Improbability of covering 16 kilometers in that timeframe raised substantial doubt about their presence at the crime scene — Absence of corroboration from other witnesses, who turned hostile and suggested multiple assailants, further weakens the prosecution’s case — Post-mortem report indicating numerous injuries, consistent with multiple attackers — Deceased’s history as a habitual drunkard and criminal suggests potential enmity with various individuals — Conviction based solely on questionable eyewitness testimony not sustainable when reasonable doubt exists about accused’s presence and involvement — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw

Hostile witnesses — Effect — When a large number of witnesses, including eyewitnesses, turn hostile, prosecution case often collapses for want of evidence — While reasons for hostility can be varied (coercion, fear, monetary consideration, etc.), it cannot automatically lead to conviction based on prior S. 161 statements or IO’s testimony about such statements, as these are not substantive evidence — Court’s consternation at collapse of a serious case due to witness hostility cannot be a reason to convict on insufficient or inadmissible evidence, amounting to a moral conviction anathema to criminal jurisprudence.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Education Law — Admissions — Eligibility Criteria — Prospectus issued by University — Amendments and Addendums — Appellant admitted to postgraduate program based on provisional admission — Completed course and received degree — University withdrew degree based on initial ineligibility — Court held that due to confusion and uncertainty caused by frequent changes in eligibility criteria, the benefit should go to the appellant, especially since she had completed the course with good marks.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

Transfer Petition — Jurisdiction — Courts — Petition seeking transfer of matrimonial and criminal cases from one state to another filed by both parties, wife seeking transfer of divorce case from Delhi to UP, husband seeking transfer of criminal cases from UP to Delhi. Parties have also filed special leave petitions against High Court orders. Supreme Court has the power to transfer cases.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 34, 120B — Murder — Appeal against conviction and sentence for murder — Key eyewitness evidence of the deceased’s son and wife — Distance allegedly covered on bicycle within thirty minutes questioned — Improbability of covering 16 kilometers in that timeframe raised substantial doubt about their presence at the crime scene — Absence of corroboration from other witnesses, who turned hostile and suggested multiple assailants, further weakens the prosecution’s case — Post-mortem report indicating numerous injuries, consistent with multiple attackers — Deceased’s history as a habitual drunkard and criminal suggests potential enmity with various individuals — Conviction based solely on questionable eyewitness testimony not sustainable when reasonable doubt exists about accused’s presence and involvement — Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Rule 13(2) and Rule 14, Appendix 3 — Disciplinary proceedings for major penalties — Initiation of by authority competent to impose minor penalties — Permissible — Rule 13(2) allows a disciplinary authority competent to impose minor penalties to institute proceedings for major penalties, even if not competent to impose major penalties itself. – Charge Sheet — Validity of issuance by General Manager (Telecommunications) for major penalties — Held valid as the General Manager is competent to impose minor penalties and Rule 13(2) permits initiation of proceedings for major penalties by such an authority.

Jul 29, 2025 sclaw