Keeping Pace with Legal Change
This is an important judgment issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Singamasetty Bhagavat Guptha and…
The Tarr Facts The Facts of the Case The murder which was a case of State of Karnataka vs Sri…
In an important verdict rendered on 22 nd July 2025, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Esakkimuthu…
The current paper discusses an important case of the Supreme Court of India SUHAGRANI AND OTHERS versus MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM MS…
The present article explores judicial consequences of false rape complaints in the Indian law by looking into evidential provisions of IPC and CrPC. It specifies provisions on misleading information such as 182 and 211 IPC and their implications to complainants. The article also emphasizes legal protection and evidence playing the most important role in proving falsity.
Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court discussed whether or not evidence that was collected unlawfully might be admitted into court in cases involving marital conflicts. It found that WhatsApp communications, even if they were purportedly obtained without authorization, are admissible in Family Courts if they are significant. This decision upheld Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, which relaxes rigorous evidentiary requirements for the sake of effective conflict settlement.
The Supreme Court set aside the rejection of Maharana Pratap Singh on basis of denial of due process, broad allegations and absence of fair inquiry. It gave rewards to compensation, stating that the, due process, and following natural justice is an imperative in departmental exercises of discipline.
The Supreme Court invalidated a Patna High Court order permitting narco-analysis in a dowry death case, reaffirming constitutional protections against self-incrimination and ensuring that involuntary or standalone narco-analysis evidence cannot support conviction, emphasizing due process and fundamental rights and dignity.
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.
Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses the issue of criminal liability in cases where an offense requires specific intent or knowledge, and the act is committed under intoxication. According to this provision, if an individual voluntarily becomes intoxicated and commits such an offense, they are held legally responsible as if they possessed the required intent or knowledge, regardless of their impaired state. However, if the intoxication was involuntary—meaning the substance was administered without their knowledge or against their will—this may serve as a defense, acknowledging that the individual lacked the capacity to form the necessary intent or knowledge due to the involuntary intoxication.
