Category: I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 465(2) – Sanction for prosecution – Irregularity in – Effect of – Irregularity in sanction would not by itself render the trial vitiated. Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Section 3(4) – Harbour – Meaning of – Must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provision – Mens rea is not excluded from constituting harbouring.

  AIR 1998 SC 201 : (1998) CriLJ 369 : (1997) 9 JT 18 : (1997) 6 SCALE 689 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KALPNATH RAI…

Rape—Intercourse—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual inter course necessary to the offence rape. Modesty—Test—Action which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. Rape—Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape.

    2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 1995 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Criminal Appeal No.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Murder – Incident of firing – Ocular as well as medical evidence – Oral evidence not found at variance with medical evidence – Prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by fire arms substantially tallied with medical evidence – Inconsistency relating to distance from which gunshots were fired held to be inconsequential

  (2008) 8 JT 411 : (2008) 10 SCALE 536 : (2009) AIRSCW 1752 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SURAJ SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before…

Murder—As per S.B. Sinha, J.- It can not be conclusively said that murder of wife for usurping property is a particularly rarest of rare incident–It could, be a rare case. Murder—Death penalty—Imposition of—As per Markandey Katju, J.- That pre-planned, calculated, cold-blooded murder has always been regarded as one of an aggravated kind.

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1851 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 454 of…

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.