The Delhi High Court upheld a 2014 acquittal in a robbery case, ruling that appellate courts should interfere only if findings are perverse. It reiterated the settled principle of “double presumption of innocence” in favour of an accused after acquittal.
The Kerala High Court has held that a police station is a building used for the custody of property and therefore falls within the definition of “house” under Section 442 of the IPC. The Court ruled that trespass into a police station can attract house trespass charges, though it cannot be treated as a residence or place of worship.
The Supreme Court held that circumstantial evidence can justify a conviction only when it is completely inconsistent with the accused’s innocence. The Court ruled that conviction cannot be based solely on the “last seen together” theory without strong corroborative proof.
The Supreme Court said an accused’s acquittal can be set aside only for “substantial and compelling reasons,” stressing that innocence is strengthened after acquittal. Appellate courts must interfere only in exceptional cases with strong legal grounds.
Two men convicted in a 2016 assault and property damage case from Salem gained relief after the Supreme Court reduced their remaining jail term following a compromise. The Court kept their conviction intact but ruled the sentence be treated as time already served.
Justice Gavai retired after delivering 464 Supreme Court judgments, closing a remarkable chapter in India’s judicial history. His tenure is widely seen as a legacy of clarity, balance, and impactful rulings that shaped several areas of constitutional and criminal law.
The Supreme Court has raised serious concern over the rising backlog of gangster and terror-linked cases in Delhi, urging urgent reforms and special courts for speedy trials. The Bench stressed that trials must finish within six months and said “the question of granting bail” should not arise if proceedings move on time.
The Madras High Court observed that the trial court “committed a grave error without understanding the fundamental principle of criminal law” while convicting the appellant. The Court set aside the conviction and directed the trial judge to undergo judicial training.
The Delhi High Court observed that proving motive is not essential to uphold a murder charge, noting that motive is not a critical element of an offence as many serious crimes often arise from trivial or insignificant reasons.
The Supreme Court clarified that simply being at the scene does not make a person a member of an unlawful assembly. Courts must establish that the accused shared the common object before convicting.
