In a well-reasoned, well-analysed and well worded judgment titled Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 393 of 2020) delivered just recently on September 28, 2020, a three Judge Benc
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal & upheld the decision of the HC and held that “the heinous offence of gang-rape of an innocent and helpless young woman by those in whom she had reposed trust, followed by a cold-blooded murder and calculated at
The Court held that Mistake of fact does not stand as a defense to a crime where the statute making the act a crime contains no requirement of knowledge of that fact to begin with. In this case the forbidden act is wrong in itself and the legislature
The jury reached a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Also, itheld that “every man is presumed sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes. Therefore, in order to establish an insanity defense, it must
The court acquitted the parents of Aarushi Talwar, calling the evidence against them unsatisfactory and severely criticizing the police, CBI and the media for not having investigated the murder properly.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rape transgressed the fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court mandated the National Commission of Women to prepare a scheme for the rehabilitation of the rape victims
In a well-balanced, well-analysed, well-worded and well-reasoned judgment delivered by a woman Judge named Justice Bharati Dangre of the Bombay High Court in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Vaibhav Bhanudas Ubale Vs The State of Mah
The court observed that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried.
The Trial Court on the examination of the evidence and materials on record held that the circumstantial evidence surrounding the commission of the offence clearly connected the accused persons with the offence and it further ordered conviction under
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that the accused was guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, the capital punishment awarded by the Sessions Court was set aside and life imprisonment was awarded. The Court further