Keeping Pace with Legal Change
In the case of Gajanan Dattatray Gore v., the Supreme Court of India held that. The State of Maharashtra &…
A very recent notable judgment of the Supreme Court of India was in a case involving Kattavellai @ Devakar in…
The present article discusses an order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding arrest and remand in relations to the social media. It brings to light the fact that the court put a stress on sticking to
[Arnesh Kumar and Imran Pratap Gadhi judgments, to guard against the possible abuse of the criminal law and also safeguarding the freedom of expression by committing the courage to question any police action in a court of law.]
On a petition by Ananth Kumar Hegde, a former Union Minister and Karnataka state BJP President, the High Court of Karnataka has stayed coercive action pursuant to a road rage case against him. The order has given short-term relief at a time when there is a legal case against the assault and abuse of power claims.
In Chellammal & Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), the Supreme Court reviews the fundamentals of jurisprudence regarding sentencing, which lacks a mention of the legal obligation imposed on the courts to seek probation. The case enriches our knowledge of Section 498A IPC and the Probation of offenders Act 1958.
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.
The Supreme Court said in the case of Rikhab Birani v. State of Uttar Pradesh that civil problems like breach of contract cannot be considered criminal cheating unless there is proof that the person who broke the contract was dishonest from the start.
Section 60 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, penalizes concealing plans to commit offenses punishable with imprisonment. It holds individuals accountable for withholding knowledge of intended crimes, ensuring liability with penalties proportionate to the offense’s severity, reinforcing deterrence under criminal law.
Section 58 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, penalizes concealing plans to commit serious offenses, holding individuals liable for withholding knowledge of intended crimes. It ensures accountability for enabling grave offenses through silence, with punishment proportionate to the offense’s severity under criminal law.
Section 28 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 expresses that consent cannot be offered when taken out of fear, misapprehension, stupor, soundness of mind, or by a kid younger than twelve years in order to offer protection against duplicity, compulsion, and other subjection to justice.
