High Courts acquittal was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference, as prosecution failed to establish essential criminal elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations in FIR prima facie reveal an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of Act against Respondent No. 1 hence, FIR registered against Respondent No. 1 under Section 7(a) of Act and all proceedings arising therefrom, stand revived and restored and trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
Criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC does not hold due to lack of direct nexus to patient's death hence, prosecution against appellant stands quashed and appellant is discharged from offences alleged against her.
Circumstantial evidence must clearly establish accuseds guilt, forming an undeniable chain that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence hence, view taken by High Court is a plausible view and no good reason to interfere with order of acquittal passed by High Court.
Recalling prosecutrix for another examination would cause unnecessary hardship, especially given sensitivity of case and fact that she has already faced multiple examinations thus, High Court erred in setting aside order of Trial Court and allowing application under Section 311 CrPC.
Cheque issued, which was returned unpaid due to an Account Blocked status, further supports case against respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 4, establishing sufficient basis for prosecution hence, High Courts final order is set aside regarding respondents Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and quashing of proceedings for respondent No. 3 is upheld.
High Court erred by directing trial judge to impose a proper sentence thus, case is remitted to High Court to set a date for hearing convict on sentencing.
Prosecution proved all charges and brutality of crime, resulting in multiple fatalities and serious injuries, warranted no sympathy or leniency from Courts.
Conviction and sentence of appellant is upheld however, sentence of death awarded for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is commuted to imprisonment for life which shall enure for fixed term of 25 (twenty-five) years without remission.
Application for re-grant of land under Section 4 of Abolition Act can only be initiated by actual landholder.
Appellate courts decision to reverse Estate Officers order lacked sufficient basis and is deemed unsustainable hence, order of eviction passed by Estate Officer is confirmed.
Given substantial time elapsed since prosecution began in 2015, remanding case for legal sanction was unnecessary therefore, appeal was granted and preceding judgment was set aside.
Despite being in jail for over two years and being acquitted in some cases, applicant has repeated offenses while on bail, indicating misuse of granted liberties hence, bail application rejected.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated any ownership in property, failing to establish it as ancestral or Joint Hindu Undivided Family property therefore; First Appellate Courts decision is upheld.
No reason to interfere with impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by Additional Sessions Judge, as suicide by deceased was established but there was insufficient evidence of cruelty or abetment by accused.
Trial court found no reason to overturn its acquittal of accused, emphasizing that prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which it failed to do hence, order of acquittal needs to be upheld.
Impugned judgment passed by High Court affirming conviction of Appellants of alleged offence and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them is upheld, as prosecution has established robust chain of evidence against appellants in abduction case of 8-year-old child.
Prosecution failed to prove forgery of bills and that Respondent had committed any offenses under IPC and PC Act hence, impugned order of acquittal does not require to be interfered.
Claimant is entitled to compensation for land at Rs. 6,400 per square meter as of 16th August 2000, statutory interest of 12% per annum on enhanced compensation from notification to possession and solatium of 30% on enhanced compensation.
Distinction between selection and promotion posts is emphasized, noting that right to appointment under 2021 Rules does not exist for individuals unless conducted through prescribed selection methods, which Government may alter thus, Respondents cannot claim rights to ARTO position outside these established rules.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer