Criminal Law

The Supreme Court just clarified this in Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026).Compensation is not a shortcut to avoid punishment. It cannot trivialize the offence. Sentencing must balance Gravity of offence, Impact on victim, Circumstances of accused, Societal interest. Compensation can supplement justice. but cannot substitute accountability in serious crimes. Parameshwari v State of […]

Case Comment “What if I told you a statement made in police custody is usually inadmissible but one small part of it can still convict you?” That’s exactly what the Supreme Court clarified in Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026).” This case revisits Section 27 of the Evidence Act -the narrow exception that allows

The Supreme Court has sent a clear message:Freedom of speech is not a favour — it is a Fundamental Right Duty of Police to Uphold Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court Clarifies in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026)Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 12, 21, 51-A(a), 32 and 226 Fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression— Duty of

The case arose from the murder of political leader Ramavatar Jaggi in 2003. The State police initially registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet; however, due to dissatisfaction expressed by the victim’s family, the investigation was later transferred to the CBI, which filed a fresh charge sheet implicating, among others, Amit Jogi. The trial

In the instant matter, the petitioners are engaged in the business of buying and selling gold ornaments, gold bars, coins and precious stones and have been carrying on such business in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. In July 2024, a company named Dallas E-com Infotech Private Limited (“the Customer”) approached the petitioners for

The Supreme Court held that timelines imposed by High Courts to conclude investigations are the exception rather than the norm. It held that Courts must respect the practical realities of investigations and should only impose deadlines in situations where inaction would lead to adverse consequences. In this case, three individuals approached the Allahabad High Court

The Supreme Court held that persons against whom criminal proceedings are pending are not absolutely disentitled to a passport under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, the appellant, sought renewal of his ordinary passport after its expiry while proceedings were pending before the NIA Court, Ranchi, and a criminal appeal against conviction

The Supreme Court held that leading questions are permissible in cross-examinations and that answers elicited in response do not, for that reason alone,  lose probative value. The Court further noted that omissions in examination-in-chief can be fixed at the time of cross-examination. In 1998, the appellant executed a will bequeathing his properties to eight of

The Supreme Court held that in cases of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, the evidence of minor victims must be appreciated with sensitivity and realism. It held that the credible testimony of a minor victim can, by itself, sustain a conviction and cannot be rejected on the basis of minor inconsistencies. K.P. Kirankumar and

The Supreme Court held that the right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be the sole ground of consideration for granting bail in cases where security or integrity of the nation is called into question.  The case concerned the 2010 derailment of the Jnaneshwari Express which killed 148 people. The accused were charged for murder