The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an adequately explained delay in recording witness statements does not automatically benefit the accused in a criminal trial.
On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of India discussed the implications of barring individuals charged with serious crimes from elections. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay underscored the need for clean candidates, while Justices questioned the availability of such individuals. A prior 2020 judgment mandated political parties to disclose candidates’ criminal histories. The court will hear further arguments on January 27.
In the tragic Worli hit-and-run case, Pradeep Nakhawa has petitioned the Bombay High Court to add a murder charge under Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita against Mihir Shah, son of Shiv Sena leader Rajesh Shah, and his driver. The incident, involving a BMW dragging his wife Kaveri to her death, has sparked outrage over alleged investigative bias and the accused’s reckless actions.
Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold someone guilty of the offence of abetting suicide, and there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect incitement, the Supreme Court has said. The observations came from a bench of justices Vikram Nath and P B Varale which delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a Gujarat High Court order which refused to discharge a woman’s husband and her two in-laws for allegedly harassing her and driving her to suicide. The case, registered in 2021, involved accusations under sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 306 carries a penalty of up to ten years of imprisonment and a fine.
While refusing to grant bail to an accused in a drugs case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Supreme Court Today (Dec 6) made references to popular TV shows Breaking Bad and Narcos. “You cannot fight with these people who are literally killing youth of this country,” Justice Sharma remarked. The Bench evoked two popular shows which deal with the drug trade.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the application filed by a rape accused seeking DNA Test of the child and clarified that when “non-access” to a relationship is claimed by the accused, it is his right to have the same proved by way of evidence available/possible. The High Court was considering a revisional application preferred against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge arising out a criminal case registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) said, “Thus, when “non-access” is claimed in such a relationship, it is the right of the accused to have the same proved by way of evidence available/possible.”
A Malayalam actress has petitioned the Supreme Court against the Kerala High Court’s order to register an FIR based on her statements to the Hema Committee, claiming she had no intention of pursuing the case. She argues her testimony was for academic purposes only and requests a stay on the investigation.
The Supreme Court expressed extreme displeasure over the Delhi High Court’s decision to a discharge order passed by the trial court in a murder case. A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih opined that such an approach in a revision plea moved by the State was completely unheard of.