Whether the High Court was justified in reversing a Trial Court order of conviction and acquitting the accused persons in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence where recoveries were doubtful, “last seen” evidence was weak, and identification procedures were flawed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High
Whether registered General Powers of Attorney (GPAs) and subsequent sale deeds executed by the GPA holders were sham transactions intended only as loan collateral, and whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the second appeal due to lack of a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the
Whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence—including the “last seen together” theory, extra-judicial confessions, and weapon recoveries—sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused for premeditated murder. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, reversing the orders of the Trial Court and High Court, and acquitted the appellants
Whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was justified in granting regular bail to the accused (Respondent No. 2) based on the omission of allegations against him during the preliminary inquest proceedings. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s bail order. The matter was remanded
Whether the Allahabad High Court was legally justified in granting regular bail to the accused/Respondent No. 2 (Jeeshan). This must be evaluated considering that his previous bail was cancelled by the Supreme Court, he had continuously evaded arrest for 42 days following that cancellation, and he faced serious charges under
Whether threatening to upload a secretly recorded video of a woman taking a bath on social media constitutes criminal intimidation by threatening to “impute unchastity” under Part II of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and whether the failure to recover the digital device or physical video recording
Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court convicting the three appellants under Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were legally sustainable, given that the injuries arose from a sudden, spontaneous altercation without proof of prior enmity
