Category: Acquittal

(IPC) – Ss 394 and 397 – Arms Act, 1959 – S 25 – Robbery with voluntarily causing hurt – Presence of accused at the scene of crime and recovery of pistol from him becomes highly doubtful and the guilt of the accused having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANWAR @ BHUGRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(IPC) – Ss 302 & 149 – Murder – Acquittal – scribe of FIR not examined – PW-1 stated that she had no knowledge of the contents of the FIR -Death was homicidal but not convinced that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants – Conviction and sentence are set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PULEN PHUKAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 9 (2) – a casual or cavalier approach should not be taken in determining the age of the accused or convict on his plea of juvenility, but a decision against determination of juvenility ought not to be taken solely for the reason that offence involved is heinous or grave HELD Going by that certificate, his age at the time of commission of offence was 12 years and 6 months. Thus, he was a child/juvenile on the date of commission of offence for which he has been convicted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARAYAN CHETANRAM CHAUDHARY @APPLELLANT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 113B – no eye-witness to the crime – Presumption – nothing specific has been stated by the complainant to bring home the guilt of the appellant for raising presumption as contained in Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act. In cross-examination, stated that he had seen his sister 4/5 months before her death – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 – Order restricts unauthorised possession of gas cylinders – HELD officer or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorised by such Government – It nowhere prescribes that a Sub-Inspector of the Police can take action – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

Murder – Acquittal – Cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRADEEP KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1304…