Criminal Law

Hence, their conviction was not maintainable on probability. They were entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, their conviction stood set aside. (2021) 7 SCC 204 [R. Natarajan v. State of T.N.]

Held, High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail in present case mainly on ground that magistrate’s direction for investigation S. 156(3) CrPC was doubtful as complainant had not been examined on oath as required  under S 200 CrPC, though complaint was supported by affidavit. Furthermore, relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail had not been

Held, in terms of Sec 20, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that even if it is held that Amrat Ram

Held, The objective is clear that in cases of offences against body, compensation to victim should be methodology for redemption. Hence compensation cannot be determined at stage of consideration of grant of bail. Hence direction in impugned order of High Court regarding deposit of compensation cannot be sustained. However, this does not rule out the

Bail was granted by High Court on fourth bail application of accused without assigning any reasons. Accused, main conspirator in crime led to killing of one person. Earlier grant of bail to accused by High Court was cancelled by Supreme Court on finding of prima facie material against him. Thereafter, mere examination of principal star

There was an allegation of terror funding as the accused allegedly paid levy/ extortion amount to certain terrorist organizations. Sec 43-D (5) proviso entails expression “prima facie true” as in it must be good and sufficient on its face to establish a given fact or the chain constituting the stated offense unless rebutted or contradicted.

It was brought to the notice of this court that a judgment dated 19.01.21 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Satish v. State of Maharashtra acquitted the accused under section 8 of the POSCO Act 2012 on the ground that the accused had no sexual intent of committing the

In the facts of the present case, the finding recorded by the High Court that the 2nd FIR was not registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the matter relating to 1st FIR was under investigation and it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in this regard by holding

According to the prosecution, the accused along with other persons operate an organized crime gang in Azamgarh that allegedly commits offenses punishable under Chapters 16, 17, and 22 of the Penal Code. The very purpose of the gang is to make physical and financial gains by committing innumerable crimes of serious nature instilling extreme fear

In the instant case there was a delay in compliance with section 157 of the Code, as the fir was received in the office of the Chief judicial magistrate with a delay of 11 days. Effect of the delay was examined in the case of Jafel Biswas v. State of W.B. (2019) 12 SCC 560