Category: I P C

(IPC) – Sections 300 Exception 4 – Culpable homicide is not murder – Four requirements must be satisfied to invoke this exception, viz. (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner – Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to section 300, IPC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREMCHAND — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 – S 302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of her five-year-old child – If the accused does not offer an explanation under Section 106 and there is corroborative evidence establishing a chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt, the accused could be convicted on that basis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VAHITHA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Last seen theory – may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction – But if If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM GOPAL S/O MANSHARAM — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…

Merely because the wife was suffering from the disease AIDS and/or divorce petition was pending, it cannot be said that the allegations of demand of dowry were highly/inherently improbable and the said proceedings can be said to be bogus proceedings — High Court while quashing the criminal proceedings has seriously erred

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: M.R. Shah & C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9899 of 2019) Decided on: 04.01.2023 Sunita Kumari…

(IPC) – Ss 302, 211 & 84 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S 105 – the manner of commission, with strangulation of the children one by one; throwing of their dead bodies into the canal; appellant himself swimming in the canal and coming out; and immediately thereafter, stating before several persons that the children had accidentally slipped into the canal – neither Section 84 IPC applies to the present case nor Section 329 CrPC would come to the rescue of the appellant – Conviction and sentence upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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.