Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath*, JJ., reversed the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High
“The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest.”
Bombay High Court: While addressing a matter with regard to a husband setting ablaze his wife, the Division Bench of Sadhana S.
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ., modified the conviction of a husband who
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Sameer Jain, JJ. allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., explained as to when a charge in the alternative can be framed against an accused
Delhi High Court: While upholding the decision of Trial Court, Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., reiterated that dying
Bombay High Court: Convicting a person under Section 304 Part I of Penal Code, 1860 Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and
Allahabad High Court: Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. while addressing a bail application of an accused expressed that, “A criminal conspiracy is generally
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. reversed the conviction of the accussed−appellant who was convicted
Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J., decided on a petition which was filed seeking transfer of investigation in the case arising out
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha and Rajeev Singh, JJ., upheld the capital punishment of a man who murdered
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S.K Mishra and Savitri Ratho JJ. dismissed the appeal and directed to adjudication application for
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., set aside the impugned order having no substantial reason for rejecting parole of a female
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and V. Velumani, JJ., while addressing the present petition observed that, “Indian Democracy
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of B.A. Patil and Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, JJ., upheld the decision of the trial court with regard to
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and Surendra P. Tavade, JJ., upheld the trial court’s decision based on circumstantial evidence
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Sahidulla Munshi and Subhasis Dasgupta, JJ., upheld the conviction of accused-husband under Section 498-A IPC for the
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar and Ratnaker Bhengra, JJ. acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 302 of