| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
|
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Charge — Mode of proof — Held, a charge can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence to warrant legal conviction — no person can be held guilty on pure moral conviction. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Mode of proof — Held, howsoever grave the alleged offence may be, otherwise stirring the conscience of any court, suspicion alone cannot take the place of legal proof. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Gravity of Crime — Degree of proof — Well established cannon of criminal justice — “fouler the crime higher the proof” —Held, the prosecution in order to succeed in a criminal trial, has to prove the charge(s) beyond all reasonable doubt. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence— Criminal Justice — Administration of — Gravity & Standard of Proof — Interrelation between — Graver the crime, greater should be the standard of proof—Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan, ABC 2013 (II) 206 SC — Relied. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence— benefit of Doubt — Principle of — An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion — but that cannot amount to legal proof — Two possibilities — one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused— the accused is entitled to the — benefit of doubt — The principle has special relevance where the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by — circumstantial evidence — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact—Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya vs. State of Rajasthan ABC 2013 (II) 206 SC — Relied. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Principle of — Two views — possibility of — One pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence— Held, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted— Kali Ram vs. State of H.P. — Relied. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Degree of proof — Held, the prosecution case to succeed has to be in the category of “must be” and not “may be” — clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence — to rule out any possibility of wrongful conviction of the accused & resultant miscarriage of justice— Suspicion, howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof and. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Principle of Innocence — Object of —The outcome of a wrong conviction is regarded as a significantly worse harm than wrongful acquittal. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — It is a settled law that the defence needs to only establish its case based on probability, whereas the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Approach of the trial Court — learned Additional Sessions Judge viewed and examined the matter as if what was to be decided was whether the infirmities in the prosecution evidence and the contentions raised by the appellants ruled out the possibility of the appellants being guilty — Such an approach was contrary to law, and has resulted in the learned Additional Sessions Judge arriving at an incorrect conclusion — Appeal allowed. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Liability — Establishing of — Degree of proof — Held, must be such that— the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others, as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Liability — Negligent conduct — does not entail an intention to cause harm — but only involves a deliberate act subjecting another to the risk of harm where the actor is aware of the existence of the risk and, nonetheless, proceeds in the face of the risk — This, however, is the classic definition of recklessness, which is conceptually different from negligence and which is widely accepted as being a basis for criminal liability. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Liability — Rash & Negligent act — Punishment for — Held, the only state of mind which demonstrates an intention to cause harm to others — or where there is a deliberate willingness to subject others to the risk of harm — is punishable. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Rashness or Criminal negligence — The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences — In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out — that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Rashness or Criminal negligence — The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences — In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out — that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Liability — Attraction of — Held, only if a person has acted in a morally culpable fashion criminal liability can be attracted — at least as far as non strict liability offenses are concerned. |
PDF |