Category: Murder

Murder—Trail of Blood–Since the accused persons were dragging the dead body of the deceased to the house of the accused, there was possibility of their clothes being strained with blood rather than leaving trail of blood. FIR–Delay in lodging of–Murder of deceased at night while he was with his wife in his home–There was no requirement for offering any such explanation.

  2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 3101 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Criminal Appeal No. 330-331…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 – Statement to police – Delay in recording – Delay of 13 days in recording statement of informant, who allegedly lodged FIR within half an hour of incident – In this case of murder there was a delay of almost 13 days in recording the statement of the informant under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Moreover, the High Court found the explanation given by the Investigating Officer rather unconvincing.

  AIR 2005 SC 762 : (2005) CriLJ 892 : (2005) 1 JT 89 : (2005) 10 SCC 399 : (2005) AIRSCW 359 : (2005) 1 Supreme 263 SUPREME COURT…

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.