Category: Acquittal

Circumstantial Evidence–Last Seen Together–There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period. Murder—Acquittal—Circumstantial Evidence—There was gap of 8½ hours when deceased was seen alive with accused—It is considerable gap between the time of crime

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1409 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Criminal Appeal No. 873 of…

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and as affirmed by the High Court under Sections 366 and 376 of the Penal Code is on the high side. In our opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years. We do so accordingly.

  (2006) 4 SCC 347 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RAM KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : D. K. Jain, J; C. A. Vaidyialingam, J…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.