Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime.”
Delhi High Court affirmed that Explanation-II of Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA applies retrospectively
“In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”
Court of 30th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru: I.P. Naik, 30th ACMM, addressed a case wherein a pillion on a bike harassed
Supreme Court: Drawing an interesting analogy to explain the scope of Section 34 of IPC, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Joymalya Baghi and Suvra Ghosh, JJ., partly allowed a criminal appeal against the order of the
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., while addressing a criminal appeal regarding assault committed during a
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan J., decided a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and S.K. Gangele, JJ. allowed the appeal and acquitted the