LawChef’s Post

📢 Supreme Court Reiterates Principles on Admissibility Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Legal Knowledge day -10. Case law -11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has once again emphasized the strict limitations under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, ruling that only specific portions of an accused’s statement directly leading to the discovery of evidence are admissible. In Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 914], the Court expressed serious concerns about trial courts being influenced by inadmissible confessions. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih criticized the practice of incorporating inadmissible confessions in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer’s attempt to prove confessions made in police custody violated Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, which impose a complete prohibition on admitting such confessions as evidence. Key Highlights of the Judgment: 🔹 Only the portion of the accused’s statement leading directly to the discovery of facts is admissible. 🔹 Any confessional statements beyond this scope, including those implicating the accused in the crime, are inadmissible. 🔹 The Court reiterated the need for a trial court to exercise caution to avoid being influenced by inadmissible evidence. Since the prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence and failed to establish the chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused were acquitted of charges of abduction and murder under the IPC. This landmark ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to evidentiary rules to ensure justice. #SupremeCourt #IndianEvidenceAct #Section27 #CriminalLaw #JudicialPrecedent #RuleOfLaw #LegalUpdate #Abduction #MurderTrial #Justice

Honourable High Court of Delhi has held that where chargesheet has been filed by the police Section 173(2) CrPC, then then Police can undertake further investigation in respect of the offence, under Section 173(8) CrPC. The objective for ‘further investigation’ remains to find the truth and bring evidence on record for ensuring substantial justice. However, this right does not extend for mere ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ to be started ab initio. If the circumstances deserve for a further investigation, the power of the jurisdictional Court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition and the same is not ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the Court. Whether further investigation should or should not be directed is within the discretion of the jurisdictional court which exercises the discretion on the facts of each case, before the trial actually commences by framing of charge. A fair trial is the imperative in dispensation of justice. Abhijit Mishra Law Insider IN #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #crime #criminallaw #police #prosecution #justice #investigations #india

🚨 Supreme Court Ruling on Alteration of Charges and Fair Trial Rights 🚨 The Supreme Court of India recently emphasized crucial procedural requirements for altering charges in criminal trials. Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted that both the prosecution and defense must be given an opportunity to recall or re-examine witnesses per Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. The Court must also record the reasons for any alteration of charges in the judgment. In Madhusudan & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction due to: 1. The altered charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were not explained to the accused. 2. The prosecution did not establish a 'common intention' among the accused. Originally framed under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, the charges were later altered without proper communication or supporting evidence. The Court distinguished between 'common object' and 'common intention', referencing Rohtas v. State of Haryana. This ruling is a significant affirmation of the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court's emphasis on procedural fairness ensures that the accused are fully aware of the charges against them and that the prosecution must present clear and distinct evidence to support any altered charges. This decision not only reinforces the integrity of our judicial process but also underscores the importance of meticulous legal procedures to uphold justice. As legal practitioners, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that these procedural safeguards are strictly followed, thereby maintaining the sanctity of the legal system and protecting the rights of all individuals involved. Stay informed on legal updates! 🔍⚖️ #SupremeCourt #FairTrial #CriminalLaw #LegalProcedures #Justice #CommonIntention #CommonObject #IndianJudiciary #LawyersOfIndia #LegalPractice #ProceduralFairness #LawAndOrder #JusticeSystem #CriminalJustice #LegalRights #LawCommunity

In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the appointment process of judges. The court ruled that publishing the reasons behind the Supreme Court Collegium's rejection of High Court judge recommendations would be detrimental to those whose names were put forward. The Acting Chief Justice Manmohan-led division bench observed that the collegium's deliberations are based on private information about individual candidates, making public disclosure potentially harmful. This decision aims to protect the integrity and fairness of the appointment process, ensuring that future decisions are not influenced by external factors. #SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #Legal #Law #India

🚨 Legal Alert: Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal Due to Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has declared an arrest illegal due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused, highlighting a breach of constitutional and procedural mandates. 🔹 Case Background: The petitioner, arrested on 01-11-2023 in connection with an FIR related to a tragic incident involving multiple IPC offenses, argued that his arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC, as the reasons were not conveyed to him directly. 🔹 Key Findings: Violation of Rights: The Court emphasized that under Section 50 of the CrPC, full details of the offense must be immediately communicated to the arrested individual. Communication Gaps: The arrest panchnama revealed that only the accused's wife was informed via phone, not the accused himself, failing the legal requirement. Landmark References: The judgment cited Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reaffirming the difference between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest." 🔹 Outcome: The Division Bench ruled the arrest as unlawful and declared the remand orders null and void. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards during arrest procedures. #LegalUpdate #FundamentalRights #CriminalLaw #ConstitutionalLaw

LawChef The recent suspension of a district judge by the Delhi High Court on allegations of indiscipline marks a significant step towards reinforcing judicial accountability. 👨⚖️👨⚖️ ➡️ This action highlights the judiciary's firm stance on maintaining ethical standards among its ranks. Judicial officers, especially those in positions of authority like district judges, are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. The suspension reflects the court's zero-tolerance policy towards any breach of these standards. ➡️ The background of the case involves complaints about the judge's behavior, which reportedly violated the code of conduct expected from judicial officers. Although the details of the allegations remain confidential, reports suggest that the judge's actions raised concerns about professionalism, courtroom decorum, and adherence to judicial procedures. In light of these concerns, the Delhi High Court initiated an internal inquiry, which could lead to further disciplinary actions, including the potential termination of the judge’s service. ➡️ This suspension serves as a reminder that no individual, including a judge, is above the law. It reinforces the message that the judicial system is committed to transparency, fairness, and accountability. The case underscores the importance of internal mechanisms within the judiciary to address lapses in conduct and ensure that justice is upheld without bias or compromise. ➡️ Such incidents are rare but crucial in maintaining public trust in the judiciary. By taking swift and decisive action, the Delhi High Court has shown its commitment to preserving the integrity of the judicial system, ensuring that it remains a pillar of justice and fairness. #legalnews #legalcontent #legalupdates #lawchef #lawfirm #lawyers #supremecourt #delhigovt #lawyers #districtjudge #delhihighcourt #indiscipline #followers https://lnkd.in/dfniU5Mj https://lnkd.in/dgRD3r8T https://lnkd.in/dkGtNwQU info@lawchef.com

The Delhi High Court today rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to block an article published by The Print stating that RAW had shut its operations in North America. To read full article, click link below 👇 https://rb.gy/cvxdx0 . . Lawstreet Journal #lsjjudiciary #lawstreetj #DelhiHighCourt #PILRejection #MediaFreedom #LegalDecision #ThePrintArticle #FreedomOfSpeech #JudicialRuling #LegalVerdict #PressFreedom #CourtJudgment #InformationAccuracy #RightToInformation #LegalDispute #PublicInterest #MediaAccountability #india #legalnews

Supreme Court of India was to hear a #PIL challenging the new criminal laws as they were passed without sufficient parliamentary debate. The petitioner sought a direction to constitute an expert committee for examining viability of these laws. However, when the matter was called for hearing, the court was of the opinion that the petition was drafted casually. The court further opined that the said laws are yet to come into force and there is no representation made to the government prior to filing this petition. Consequently the petitioner withdrew his petition. If the court would have dismissed this petition then the chance of other petitioners to challenge it before a Division Bench of #SC would have gone. Do you think there is a need to challenge the new criminal laws? #law #lawyer #advocate #newcriminallaw #criminallaw

I frequently visit Delhi District Courts and have noticed several issues: 1.Even though a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court qua non functioning of display boards at Delhi District Courts, However, till date, many of the display boards in the Delhi District Courts are still not working. 2. Sometimes, there's no prior intimation, when a judicial officer is on leave or away for a short time. For example, I recently had cases scheduled in six different courts at the Saket complex. I decided to prioritize matters in Court X because the judicial officer there doesn’t allow passovers or recall cases once they've been called. However, the judicial officer of Court X didn’t arrive until 10:30 AM, and since the court staff wasn’t informed of this, I ended up wasting time and had to ask someone else to request a passover in the other courtrooms. 3.Lastly, some court rooms of Delhi District Courts are located in areas with no network coverage, making it impossible to make phone calls or join virtual court proceedings. These are just a few of the issues I've observed. Have you noticed these or other similar problems? #lawyer #Saketcourts #law #Delhicourts