No prima facie case is established for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, given absence of intentional insult or intimidation, as Appellant acted within his official capacity and lacked authority to suspend deceased hence, continuation of legal proceedings against Appellant is deemed an abuse of legal process.
Impugned order of Externment is deemed invalid and must be quashed, allowing appellant to return to districts from which he was externed.
Family Courts assessment of needs of daughters was deemed just and reasonable, leading to conclusion that High Courts modification should not be upheld.
Expedited disposal of election-related cases is encouraged, with High Courts directed to assign specific courts for swift hearings and Election Commission must file compliance report by November 18, 2026, regarding ongoing cases from Lok Sabha and Assembly elections.
Granting bail to one accused does not automatically provide grounds for others, as each case requires individual assessment based on accuseds specific roles.
Concerns regarding double jeopardy from concurrent actions by the Commission and Court are unwarranted, as Commission inquiries do not equate to prior prosecution therefore, Rule 6 of Rules aligns with Act and remains valid.
In absence of cogent evidence leading to sole conclusion of guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of appellant cannot be sustained.
Impugned Order does not prejudice petitioner, as police have indicated that allegations stem from a factual error and plan to submit a Final Report accordingly therefore, relevant Court should proceed as per law.
High Court incorrectly enhanced the Appellants sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for remainder of his natural life, despite no appeal for enhancement from the State or Complainant.
A conviction for cheating and criminal conspiracy cannot stand on fabricated, specious evidence.
Principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in India, and courts must separate truthful testimonies from exaggerations to sustain convictions against definitively identified assailants even if co-accused are acquitted.
Criminal proceedings against a corporation for an offence requiring mens rea cannot be quashed at the threshold.
Reversal of an acquittal by an appellate court is unjustified without a specific finding that trial courts appreciation of evidence was perverse or impossible.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence relying on last seen together theory and an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession cannot be sustained.
Even in absence of a specific charge, appellant can be convicted under Section 376 of IPC.
High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to recall a judgment of conviction to extend statutory benefit of juvenility.
Conviction based solely on uncorroborated confessions, unproved electronic evidence, and doubtful witness testimony without substantive proof is unsustainable in law.
Appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.21,75,681 and awarded compensation will accrue interest at 7.5% from date of claim petition.
Goods purchased by Appellant were for a commercial purpose and therefore Appellant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of Act.
Non-residents are liable for tax on income deemed to arise in India, regardless of a permanent office.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer