The Delhi High Court acquitted Gir Raj in a murder case, setting aside his conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC. The Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and reiterated that suspicion cannot replace evidence.
The Supreme Court clarified that once a sentence is suspended, a convicted person need not appear at every appellate hearing. Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale observed that appeals take years, making mandatory physical presence purposeless in practice.
The Delhi High Court said false rape allegations can cause severe lifelong harm to an innocent accused, including loss of reputation, jail, social stigma and psychological trauma. It added such wounds cannot be healed by discharge or sympathy.
The Delhi High Court ruled that SEBI cannot withhold its investigation report when it forms the basis of criminal prosecution. Denying such documents, the Court held, violates the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Kerala High Court has ruled that accused persons cannot file bail applications in multiple courts at the same time. The Court also directed its registry to verify every bail plea to ensure no other bail application is pending elsewhere.
The Supreme Court stressed that every accused has a fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial, ruling that no individual can be left languishing in jail endlessly without their case being heard and decided.
The Supreme Court ruled that courts can permit amendments in criminal complaints if they don’t harm the accused. It reaffirmed that procedural rules must serve justice, not obstruct it.
Today, On 26th June ,The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Karnataka Police’s plea against a High Court order that denied custody remand of a murder accused, observing he was “not informed of the grounds” for his arrest.
The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot enhance a convict’s sentence on its own. It stated, “HC can’t enhance sentence or act as revisional court without appeal by State or victim.”
Sr. Adv. Aryama Sundaram strongly opposed linking an NDPS case to the Pahalgam terror attack in the Supreme Court. He highlighted the serious impact on the accused’s family, saying, “Children are being bullied in school, called children of terrorists.”
