Category: I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 457, 380 and 506 – Lurking house trespass or house breaking at night, theft and criminal intimidation – FIR quashed by High Court – Appeal against – Assets and belongings inside the shop in question were in joint possession of the appellant as also the respondent and there was an injunction granted by the Competent Court that the assets and belongings of the shop in question would be preserved, removal of the same without consent or knowledge of the appellant would amount to theft – There was breaking open of the locks of the premises wherein the property was stored for the purposes of theft – All these offences are cognizable in nature and basic ingredients being there in the FIR, the High Court clearly erred in quashing the FIR – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUCHIR RASTOGI — Appellant Vs. PANKAJ RASTOGI AND OTHERS ETC. @ RESPONDENT ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 148, 149, 302 and 307 – Explosive Substance Act, 1908 – Sections 4 and 5 – Murder – Accused with 11 persons attacked with country made bombs as also Laathis and tabbal – Deceased received multiple injuries and eventually succumbed while receiving the treatment he was died – Deceased was a history-sheeter and had scores of criminal cases pending against him or cases in which he was involved – Simply because the deceased had a chequered past which constituted several run-ins with the law, Courts cannot give benefit thereof, particularly when such claims are bald assertions, to those accused of committing such a person’s murder – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMAL PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTISGARH) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 302 read with 34 – Murder – Common intention – Accused persons had assembled in the morning and surrounded (gheraoed) the deceased with deadly weapons is sufficient indication to infer that they had surrounded (gheraoed) in a pre-planned manner with a pre-determined mind – the nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHAKTU GORAIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Circumstantial evidence, it’s essential to establish a complete chain of circumstances to prove the accused’s guilt and rule out alternative explanations – Sustaining a conviction based on incomplete evidence is deemed unsafe – Additionally, the legal presumption favors the accused, and in cases of doubt, the benefit goes to the accused, not the prosecution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R. SREENIVASA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 859…

It can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted – There are no criminal antecedents of accused-appellant that have been brought on record – Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever – Sentence reduced to 3 years from 5 years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

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.