
Recent Updates
-
A commercial court in Gurugram recently awarded Microsoft ₹55 lakh in damages after a company, Retnec Solutions Pvt Ltd guilty, was found guilty of trademark infringement and running fraudulent call-center operations using Microsoft’s trademarks, including "HOTMAIL," "OUTLOOK," and "OFFICE 365."
-
Telangana High Court bars entry of children into theaters, multiplexes post 11 PM
The petitions also sought safety measures at multiplexes in the wake of a stampede that took place at the premiere of Pushpa 2, claiming one life. -
Litigant tells Karnataka High Court that trial court cited "non-existent" judgments of SC. The trial court had relied upon three judgements - two of the Supreme Court and one of the Delhi High Court to support its own order. However, there exist no records for any of the three cited orders.
-
Supreme Court Collegium summons Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav over remarks on Muslims. The judge made a series of other controversial remarks during a speech, including the use of the term "kathmullah," a derogatory slur against Muslims.
-
Atul Subhash suicide: Bengaluru Court sends estranged wife, family to judicial custody. Subhash had died by suicide in Bengaluru. He left behind an elaborate suicide note and also made a video blaming his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family of harassing him.
Today’s
Intention to cause death can easily be discerned from conduct of appellant and nature of fatal injury inflicted, which in ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. Fulfilment of any one condition of S. 300 is enough to convict appellant under S. 302, but in present case not one but two conditions have clearly been shown to exist to nail appellant for murder, [Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 102] Case Comment The appellant participated in a premeditated attack on the victim, armed with a deadly weapon and stabbed the unarmed victim on a vital organ causing his death. The conduct of the appellant is covered by both clauses (1) and (3) of section 300, IPC. The intention to cause death can easily be discerned from the conduct of the appellant and the nature of fatal injury inflicted, which in the ordinary course of nature was sufficient to cause death. Fulfilment of any one condition of section 300, IPC is enough to convict the appellant under section 302 thereof, but in the present case not one but two conditions have clearly been shown to exist to nail the appellant for murder. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
Yesterday’s
Awareness Series 6