Keeping Pace with Legal Change
This paper studies the case of SD in India delivered by the Supreme Court of India. Shabuddin v. The State…
In a recent judgement of the High Court of Uttarakhand, a case was under consideration wherein the defendant took contravention…
It was a crucial criminal appeal case (Criminal Appeal No. 2695 of 2025) considered by the Supreme Court of India…
In an important verdict rendered on 22 nd July 2025, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Esakkimuthu…
In this article, the author focuses on the decision of the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition where conviction of a public servant was not stayed under Prevention of Corruption Act. It explores the reasoning of the Court in opposing convictions that are stayed with respect to cases in which the charges against a public servant relate to corruption, strengthening the rule of the courts and citing the principles that apply of accountability and good citizenship in public service. It discusses the actual background, the legal provisions at stake, and the underlying facts brought to request by the Court.
The Honourable Supreme Court established the fact that provided there is circumstantial evidence in the case, it would suffice to convict the person of an offence provided the circumstances when joined together creates a complete and unbroken chain of guilt. Maintaining the decision made by the Chetan case, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration important precedents, supporting the view that the credible circumstantial evidence provided, together with inability of the accused to signify the facts that proved his guilt are enough to convict the case without direct witnesses.
This article talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the acquittal of a government official accused of bribery. The court reinstated the trial court’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concentrating on the legal principles and evidence issues at hand.
Introduction The ruling that was handed down by Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh on May 30, 2025, in the case of…
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes punishment for murder. It mandates life imprisonment or death sentence upon conviction, reflecting society’s gravest condemnation of intentional unlawful killing.
In 1998, Salman Khan illegally hunted and killed two Schedule I blackbucks, contravening Section 9’s absolute hunting ban and attracting up to three years’ imprisonment or fines under Section 51.
