Category: Murder

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 & S.149–Murder–Unlawful Assembly- Common ; Object-After having held that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly carrying dangerous weapons with the common object to resorting to violence (as described in the charge) it was not open to the High Court to acquit some of the members

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 547 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 677 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud Criminal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 43, 313, 354(3) — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 307, 436 —Conviction and sentence — Whether the death sentence awarded to the Appellant is excessive, disproportionate on the facts and circumstances of the case, i.e. whether the present case can be termed to be a ‘rarest of the rare case’ —

  AIR 2014 SC 2486 : (2014) AIRSCW 3905 : (2014) 7 JT 552 : (2014) 8 SCALE 113 : (2014) 7 AD 615 : AIR 2014 SC 2486 :…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 341, 447, 302 read with 109, 149 – Murder – Deceased a coparcener had a dispute over ownership of land with appellant – Witnesses accompanying appellants made categorical statement that they had gone to scene of offence with a view to prevent appellants from causing obstructions to ploughing of land by deceased

  AIR 2006 SC 2419 : (2006) CriLJ 2931 : (2006) 5 JT 419 : (2006) 5 SCALE 331 : (2006) 10 SCC 157 : (2006) 1 SCR 947 Supp…

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302–Murder–Fixed period of sentence-High court is empowered to impose a fixed term sentence—Contention that when IPC provides for only two punishments i.e. imprisonments for life or death, the court cannot introduce a third category of punishment, rejected

2016(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3885 (SC) : 2016 LawHerald.Org 1920 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan 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.