Criminal Trial - CaseCiter (Page 2)

CaseCiter

Sign in

Criminal Trial

A collection of 57 posts

Hakim vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 728 - Acid Attack case - Concurrent Conviction Upheld

Constitution of India - Article 136 - while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily refrains from re-evaluating the evidence afresh. Interference is warranted only if it is clearly demonstrated that the courts below failed to consider material evidence or that their conclusions suffer from perversity,

Tukesh Singh vs State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 683 - Eyewitness - Identification Of Accused In Court

Criminal Trial -The failure of the eyewitnesses to identify the accused in the court as the accused they had seen committing the crime is fatal to the prosecution's case (Para 23)-In a case where there are eyewitnesses, one situation can be that the eyewitness knew the accused

Subhash Aggarwal vs State Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 499 - Criminal Trial - Absence Of Motive

Criminal Trial - Motive - If the case is built solely upon circumstantial evidence, absence of motive will be a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Just as a strong motive does not by itself result in a conviction, the absence of motive on that sole ground cannot

Arun vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 406 - Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus

Criminal Trial - As the maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ (false in one thing, false in everything) is not part of Indian law and jurisprudence and is, at best, a rule of caution, the entire evidence of these witnesses need not be discarded because some of their statements

Aslam Alias Imran vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 403 - Concurrent Murder Conviction Set Aside - Enmity - False Implication

Criminal Trial - Enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. (Para 22) 2025 INSC 403 Aslam Alias Imran vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - Concurrent Murder Conviction Set Aside - Enmity

Sanjay vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 317 -Last Seen Theory -Circumstantial Evidence - Extra-judicial Confession

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Theory - Conviction cannot be solely based on last-seen theory. (Para 32) - Circumstantial Evidence - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must convince the Court that circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else, as also lack

Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 323 - Murder Conviction Upheld

Note: No legal aspect discussed in the judgment - Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeal filed by accused convicted in murder case. 2025 INSC 323 Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs State Of Maharashtra2025 INSC 323 Tanaji Shamrao Kale vs State Of Maharashtra.pdf70 KBdownload-circle Suggested Reading: LawLens - AI-Driven Legal Research for

Patel Babubhai Manohardas vs State Of Gujarat 2025 INSC 322 - Abetment Of Suicide - Handwriting Expert Evidence -Poisoning

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction

Gopal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 263 - Criminal Trial - Identity Of Accused

Criminal Trial - When the prosecution alleges that a particular person has committed an offence, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the identity of the accused as the person who has committed the offence by adducing evidence. [ Context: SC acquits accused allowing appeal against HC judgment which

State Of Uttarakhand vs Deepu Verma @ Devendra Lal 2025 INSC 244- Appeal Against Acquittal By HC - Benefit Of Doubt

Constitution of India - Article 136 - Appeal against acquittal - Unless the view taken by the High Court is found to be totally perverse or impossible, it will not be permissible for this Court to interfere with the same. Equally, if two views are possible and one of the

Mehatar vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 216 - Murder Conviction Set Aside - Witness Testimony Partly Unreliable

Criminal Trial - When the witness is found to be wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty, inasmuch as the conviction could be based on the testimony of such a witness- Equally when the testimony of a witness is found to be wholly unreliable again the difficulty would not arise

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Survendra Kumar @ Sunil Kumar - S 27 Evidence Act - Independent Witness Turns Hostile

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - If an independent witness turns hostile that does not mean that the evidence in the form of panchnama is to be outright rejected or discarded. The Investigating Officer can definitely prove the contents of the panchanama. 45. However, the law expects the

Wahid vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 145 - Criminal Trial - Robbery

Wahid vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi 2025 INSC 145 - Criminal Trial - Robbery

Criminal Trial - Robbery - In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases,

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Raghuvir Singh - Criminal Trial - Defence Witnesses

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Raghuvir Singh - Criminal Trial - Defence Witnesses

Criminal Trial - The evidence tendered by the defence witnesses cannot always be termed as a tainted one - The defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution. The issue of credibility and the trustworthiness ought also to be attributed to the defence

Y.S Nataraja Vs State Of Karnataka - Criminal Trial - Defence Counsel Suggestion

Y.S Nataraja Vs State Of Karnataka - Criminal Trial - Defence Counsel Suggestion

Criminal Trial - Suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature, in any manner, would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in

Thammaraya vs State Of Karnataka 2025 INSC 108 - Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - TIP

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence -Conviction on a charge of murder may be based purely on circumstantial evidence, provided that such evidence is deemed credible and trustworthy. In cases involving circumstantial evidence, it is crucial to ensure that the facts leading to the conclusion of guilt are fully established and

Baban Shankar Daphal vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 97- Criminal Trial - Interested Witness

Criminal Trial - The law nowhere states that the evidence of the interested witness should be discarded altogether. The law only warrants that their evidence should be scrutinized with care and caution. It has been held by this Court in the catena of judgments that merely if a witness is

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023

Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil Vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 93 - S 25,27,106 Evidence Act - Motive -Village Police Patil - Extra Judicial Confession

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 106 - The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence

Indian Penal Code

Bhupal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 82 - S 304B IPC - Dowry Death

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 304B ; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023- Section 80 - For proving the offence of dowry death, the prosecution must prove that (i) the death of the woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or has occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances, (ii) the

Pooja Nankan Prasad Vs State Of Maharashtra - Bail

Criminal Trial - Bail - An undertrial has the right of expeditious trial and is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. (para 4) Pooja Nankan Prasad Vs State Of Maharashtra Pooja Nankan Prasad Vs State Of Maharashtra

Abdul Nassar vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 35 - Rape and Murder Case - Death Sentence - Circumstantial Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence - Principles that courts must adhere to while appreciating and evaluating evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, as follows: (i). The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure

Goverdhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 47 - Criminal Trial - Reasonable Doubt -

Criminal Trial - “Reasonable doubt”- It means that such doubt must be free from suppositional speculation. It must not be the result of minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a

Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan Vs State Of Kerala 2025 INSC 28 - Criminal Trial - Legal Maxims

Criminal Trial - On the account of defective investigation the benefit will not inure to the accused persons on that ground alone. It is well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the evidence which the prosecution has gathered such as statement of the eyewitnesses, medical

Ashok Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh 2024 INSC 1011 - Alibi - S 106 Evidence Act- Murder Cases

Criminal Trial - Alibi -Alibi means 'elsewhere'- The plea of alibi can be applied only if the ‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to

Zeeshan Haider vs Directorate Of Enforcement - Public Prosecutor & ED

Public Prosecutor - Enforcement Directorate or its Director can give instructions to a Public Prosecutor on facts of the case. However, Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any directions or instructions to the Public Prosecutor about what he ought to do or ought not to do before the Court