Krishan VS State of Haryana - 04 Mar 09

Criminal Law--Murder--Circumstantial evidence--Hostile witness--Appeal against conviction--Case of blind murder as dead body of deceased was found lying in abandoned plot--Material witnesses not supporting case of prosecution and turned hostile--Chain of prosecution case not complete and link evidence missing--Prosecution story seems to be suspicious if statement of all witnesses alongwith circumstances are considered together--Circumstantial evidence not sufficient to hold accused guilty for alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted--|Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 201. (Paras 17, 18, 22, 23, 24 & 25)

India - Punjab

R VS Lichniak - 25 Nov 02

Mandatory life sentence for murder has a denunciatory value, expressing society s view of a crime which has long been regarded with peculiar abhorrence.

India - Supreme Court

Image Developers Pvt. Ltd. VS N. Subhash - 26 Jun 00

CONTEMPT CASE - “Status quo order” - Violation of - Status quo orders must be in clear specific terms and not ambiguous - If order of Court is not clear enough or is amenable to manifold interpretations, Court would not be justified in holding that there was violation after placing its own interpretation on the order - Courts are advised in framing status quo orders in specific terms by mentioning “Status quo as to possession, satus quo as to construction or status quo with regard to enjoyment of property and so on, it is also desirable to give brief description of property

India - Andhra

M. V. Thomas VS S. I. T. (State) Special Investigation Team Rajiv Gandhi Murder case Special Court, Poonamallee. - 21 Apr 94

Order under Section 482 cannot be challenged.

India - Madras

Rakesh VS State of Rajashtan - 03 May 00

In absence of evidence that finger prints were given by accused voluntarily, finger print expert evidence that chance finger print tallied with specimen prints could not read against accused.

India - Crimes


In all common law jurisdictions, judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"

India - Gujarat

Bhanwar Lal VS Champa Lal - 30 May 66

(a) Tenancy Act, Sec. 207(2) — Main relief for sharing water from tube well—Other reliefs ancillary—Case triable by revenue court.(b) Tenancy Act, Secs. 91 and 92-A—Suit by co-tenant against another co-tenant for declaration and sharing water from tube well on basis of agreement—Suit triable by revenue court.

India - Rajasthan

Hanumantha Reddy VS K. Raghava Reddy - 19 Mar 13

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - Order 8, Rule 1: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] Time for filing written statement - Suit for partition - Written statement not filed within 90 days as provided - No exceptional circumstances was made out - Since the case was pending from 2006, High Court had given time upto 18.12.2010, but inspite of that the Trial Court had allowed the 4th defendant to file written statement - Held, There is a breach of Proviso under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC. Impugned orders suffer from procedural impropriety and are also irrational. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. Impugned orders were quashed.

India - Karnataka

State of Haryana VS Vikas - 20 Nov 17

Rape – Perjury – Prosecutrix had given false evidence and had also turned hostile – High Court proceeded for offence of perjury against all material witness including prosecutrix who turned hostile.

India - Punjab

Daudas VS Ratanlal. (Unreported case. See next case in connection. ) - 17 Oct 51

Stamp Act, Sec. 35 and Schdl.1, Art. 1—Scope and Applicability—Art. applicable only if document desired to supply evidence of debt.(b) Document—Admissibility or non-admissibility on question of stamp duty—Document admissible at earlier stage of suit does not become inadmissible at later stage due to change in law.It is clear from the language of Art. 1, Schdl. I of the Indian Stamp Act that an acknowledgment which requires an anna stamp should he one which is brought into existence in order to supply an evidence of such debt and not as an acknowledgment admitting the correctness of the account. A distinction should de drawn between an admission of the correctness of an account and acknowledgment for the purpose of supplying evidence of a debt. It is only in the latter case that the Article will apply and it is a question of intention of the parties under which category an instrument falls. The intention is prima facie to be gathered from the do...

India - Rajasthan