Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Sunil Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
ABC Versus State Of Chhattisgarh
Hirdesh Sahu s/o Jagdish Sahu Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - The examination of the witness shall be held as expeditiously as possible; and the same shall be continued on day to day basis till its conclusion. The Judge ought to have seen the sensitivity of the matter and should not have given such long date for the purposes of cross[1]examination which has led to the material witness turning hostile, seriously jeopardizing and undermining the efforts made by the police officers to bring home the charges against the accused Full Judgment
Prosecutrix (Minor) through her Natural Guardian Vs. State of M.P. and others
Chamru Sai Yadav Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Narad Tamrakar Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Sudesh Kumar Rai and Anr Versus State of Chhattisgarh
NATASHA NARWAL VERSUS STATE OF DELHI NCT
DEVANGANA KALITA VERSUS STATE OF DELHI NCT
ASIF IQBAL TANHA VERSUS STATE OF DELHI NCT
HC/RO Md Hussain Versus Director General of Police
RELIGARE FINVEST LTD. VERSUS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
RAJESH LAL VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
SHAKUNTALA DEVI GOLYAN VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS
Raju @ Vijay s/o Daulji Ahirwar V/s State of M.P & one another
Law laid down - The procedure prescribed under section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is to be adopted by the committee or board but where the accused claiming himself to be "Child in conflict with law" is produced before the Magistrate or Sessions Court empowered under Cr.P.C.to conduct trail and an objection is raised about juvenility at the time of commission of offence, the procedure prescribed under section 9 (2) of the JJ Act, Full Judgment
Dr. Pawan Tamrakar and another vs. M.P. Special Police Establishment & others
Law laid down - 1. Law relating to clubbing of FIRs - There can be no straightjacket formula for consolidating or clubbing the FIR and Courts are required to examine the facts of each case. A second FIR in respect of same offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is not permissible. The second FIR on the basis of receipt of information in respect of same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise one Full Judgment