Category: Cr P C

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 141-Precedent-Judgments are not legislations, they have to be. read in the context and background discussions. Police Diary—Absence of entries in the General Diary concerning the preliminary enquiry would not be per se illegal or fatal to prosecution.

(2018) 5 JT 387 : (2018) 7 SCALE 6492018(2) Law Herald (SC) 746 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1023   SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE — Appellant Vs. H. SRINIVAS —…

The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. proceedings qua the Appellants in Crime No.477 of 2015,  dated 20.12.2015 under Sections 498 A, 120 B, 420, 365 IPC QUASHED

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1045 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3286 of 2016) K. SUBBA RAO & ORS. .... Appellant(s)…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439-Bail–Cancellation of-Accused was convicted for 10 years but has undergone only 2 months of imprisonment—Bail was granted intra-appeal by High Court- Prosecution stated that accused is a hardened criminal and is still involved in immoral trafficking and forcing young girls into prostitution—Bail Cancelled

(2018) 1 AICLR 836 : (2017) 4 LawHerald(SC) 3062 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURIA SWAYAM SEVI SANSTHAN — Appellant Vs. KALI — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul…

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.