Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

Held, Thus, criminal breach of trust would, inter alia, mean using or disposing of the property by a person who is entrusted with or otherwise has dominion. Such an act must not only be done dishonestly, but also in violation of any direction of law or any contract express or implied relating to carrying out

The allegations against the appellant had been that on 03.05.2009, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, strangulated them, and threw the dead bodies into the canal; and thereafter, attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning. It was also alleged that the

In this case, deceased was a taxi driver, who was strangulated to death by appellant-accused herein (original Accused 1) along with 4 co-accused, and after burying his dead body, they stole his car taxi and sold it. High Court upheld conviction of appellant herein under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC. It is required to be

Direction for quashing of proceedings, after conducting mini trial, not justified, because, while exercising powers of quashing, High Court has to consider only the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offence or not. Held, When a prayer for quashing

Requirements for invocation of S. 106, Evidence Act, explained. Acquittal granted to a man sentenced to death for alleged rape and murder of minor girl. Held, We cannot shy away from the fact that it is a ghastly case of rape and murder of a 6 year old child. By not conducting the investigation properly,

Held, The fact remains that there was rape and murder of a 14 year old girl. The guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt on account of testimony of direct eye-witnesses. The sentence awarded by the High Court is life imprisonment for the whole of biological life of the appellant without any remission.

In this case, deceased allegedly assaulted to death by two appellant-accused herein, father and son, using “tabal” and “axe”. Land dispute between appellants (Appellants 1 and 2) and deceased, was alleged cause of the incident. The High Court upheld conviction of appellants under S. 302 IPC. However, prosecution failed to established case beyond reasonable doubt.