| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
. |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Multiple injuries — Held, multiple injuries could certainly not have been caused by one person and tells an entirely different story by itself that the assailants may have been more than one. (Para 12) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Human conduct — It is not uncommon human behaviour that on the death of a near relative, or upon witnessing a murderous assault, a person goes into complete silence and stupor showing no reaction or sensibility. (Para 13) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Interpretation of Statute — CrPC — S 313 — Statement of the accused — interpretation of — Held, the Section cannot be seen simply as a part of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard as well) — It confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence — & can well be considered beyond a statutory right as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution — even if it is not to be considered as a piece of substantive evidence, not being on oath under Section 313(2), Cr.P.C. — Constitution of India — Article 21. (Para 16) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Burden of proof — on the accused — Held, unlike the prosecution, the accused is not required to establish the defence beyond all reasonable doubt— The accused has only to raise doubts on a preponderance of probability. (Para 17) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Circumstantial evidence — case based on — Evidence must satisfy three tests — (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; —(ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; — (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Limitation of the appellate Court — Question which has attained finality— Held, there was no occasion for the High Court to have gone into the question in an appeal filed by the accused as the same had attained finality. (Para 15) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Judicial Administration —Modification by the High Court in its own order — Held clearly erroneous— step taken by the High Court was beyond its jurisdiction— It could have been done only in appeal. (Para 25) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal Negligence — degree of — Jurisprudential approach — Held, for an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree— Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution— Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab — relied. (Para 11) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — CrPC — S 357 — Compensation order under — the learned Trial Judge had not clarified as to whether the order was passed u/s 357(1) or u/s 357(3) — Order of compensation not sustainable — set aside. (Para 19) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Awarding of compensation — Conviction of the accused by trial Court under the offences charged — Imposition of fine & compensation alongwith sentence — Held, that means the fine was part of the sentence awarded — If the compensation could have been awarded u/s 357(1), CrPC, then it ought to have been out of the said amount of fine — When the compensation has been awarded then fine ought not to have been awarded — order of payment of compensation not sustainable— CrPC — S 357. (Para 21) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Basic principle of — Duty of Court & investigating agency — to find out the real culprit — such culprit should not be let go because of technicalities & mistake on the part of the complainant being victim of incident of killing of human being. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Basic principle of — Duty of Court — Held, if it is mistake on the part of the complainant, the Court should be careful that no-one has benefited by selective proceedings. (Para 6) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal trial — Duty of Court & investigating agency — Held, It is also quite clear & certain that in criminal proceedings, it is duty of the investigating agency and Court to find out the culprit and to punish the culprit. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE |
Criminal Jurisprudence — Criminal machinery should not be misused to pressurize the accused to settle their civil dispute. (Para 10) |
PDF |