Category: I P C

Murder—Essential ingredients to bring a case under Section 300″thirdly” IPC; enumerated.Even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.

  2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 853 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. 214…

Murder– Appreciation of evidence–Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way–There is not set rule of natural reaction–Evidence of witness not be discarded on that ground. Murder—Evidence—Adverse inference should not be drawn against prosecution for non examination of the informant and other material witness.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 664 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Criminal Appeal No. 744 of…

Death Penalty–When to be awarded–In rarest of rare cases, when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty, irrespective of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty, death sentence can be awarded.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 530 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. 453 of 2006…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.