In this case, common intention to murder was established against Accused 2 who had exhorted Accused 1 to shoot deceased dead with the firearm. Hence, it was held that Accused 2 rightly convicted for murder under S. 302 with the aid of S. 34. [Omkar Singh v. Jaiprakash Narain Singh, (2022) 3 SCC 281]
In this case, accused was not shown to share common intention to murder nor was a party to conspiracy to murder. Neither was involvement in any conspiracy to murder proved against appellant herein Accused 2, nor could it be established that he shared common intention to murder. (Para 6 to 9). Hence, conviction of Accused
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/34 or Ss. 120-B/302 Read More »
Principles summarised regarding when conviction exclusively based upon disclosure statement of accused and resultant recovery of inculpatory material is permissible. Robbery under sec 392 and 397 of Penal Code, 1860- Conviction of appellant on strength of his purported disclosure statement and recovery memo not permissible in the absence of any corroborative evidence. Evidence on record
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 27 Read More »
In absence of documentary evidence on record, some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time, held, the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of deceased, same
Fixation of notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. under Sch. II for computing compensation in this case of non-earning family member (minor aged 7 yrs), held, unjust and unreasonable due to of higher cost of living since 1994 when Rs 15,000 was fixed as the notional income under Sch. II for non-earning members. It is
R-3 sold ground floor of his two-storeyed building to appellant inter alia with common right to roof. R-3 decided to construct on the roof. Dispute pertaining to right of R-3 to make construction on roof of the first floor in which he resides, requires to be decided by civil court and not Municipality. Debabrata Saha
In a petition under S. 241, the true question to be asked by the Tribunal is whether removal of a Director/Executive Chairman tantamount to conduct which is oppressive or prejudicial to some members. Further, even in cases where the Tribunal finds that the removal of a Director was not in accordance with law or was
Grant of bail without considering relevant aspects and recording reasons is not justified. Law summarised regarding principles for grant of bail and considerations to be balanced therefore. Held, though detailed evaluation of the facts on merits is not permissible, but the court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail Read More »
Order of High Court directing State Government to increase the percentage of reservation for a particular category, that is, to provide for 3% reservation/quota for sportspersons, instead of 1% provided by State Government, held, beyond its jurisdiction and a grave error. (Para 10 and 11) Court cannot issue a mandamus: (i) to provide for reservation
Accountability of Social media platforms, for posts made on such platforms by third parties: held, social media platforms such as petitioner Facebook cannot contend that they have some exceptional privilege to abstain from appearing before a House Committee duly constituted by the Legislature concerned. Extent of accountability of Social media platforms for posts made by third
Constitution of India — Arts. 19(1)(a) & (2) and Arts. 194 & 105 Read More »
Terms & Conditions
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:
The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. I AGREE