Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

When consistent and cogent evidence on record the eyewitnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that he had not named other accused in specific terms-SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex Court recently ruled that When consistent and cogent evidence on record the eyewitnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that he had not named other accused in specific terms

Justice Uday Umesh Lalit observed that With such clear, consistent, and compelling evidence on record, the High Court was not justified in proceeding on the basis that the eyewitnesses had not named other accused in specific terms or entertained any doubt before recording an order of acquittal. The High Court's approach was completely contrary to established legal principles, and no valid reasons were provided by the High Court as to why the evidence of all eyewitnesses could not be relied on in relation to the role played by the acquitted accused. We find the High Court's order of acquittal to be completely unjust, and its conclusion to be completely contrary to the record.    

D.D- NOVEMBER 24, 2021

 

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BABLU @ OM PRAKASH

Latest Legal News