LawforAll

▼
Saturday, February 28, 2026

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Bail in cases involving caste-based violence — Parameters — Gravity of offence and societal impact to be considered — Pendency of prior civil litigation not a mitigating circumstance at bail stage where it furnishes motive. (Paras 11, 25, 27, 31) The Court observed that the High Court treated pending civil litigation between the parties as a circumstance favouring bail. The Supreme Court held that such litigation could equally constitute motive for the assault. In a case involving allegations of caste-based insults and violence against a Scheduled Caste victim, the gravity of the offence and societal ramifications must be given due weight. Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act coupled with murder, pendency of civil disputes cannot be treated as a mitigating factor for bail when it may provide motive for the crime. Medical Evidence — Stage of bail — Dissection of post-mortem findings impermissible — Multiple injuries including head trauma with cerebral damage — High Court erred in evaluating medical causation as if at final trial. (Paras 28–31) The post-mortem report recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and head injury leading to cerebral damage. The High Court’s reasoning that only eight injuries were caused by six accused and that nexus between injury and death required scrutiny at trial was held inappropriate at bail stage. Evaluation of medical causation and intention is a matter for trial. Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of bail, the Court ought not to undertake a meticulous dissection of medical evidence as if adjudicating guilt; existence of multiple injuries including head trauma is sufficient to weigh against grant of bail in a murder case.

›
Criminal Procedure — Grant of bail — Distinction between cancellation of bail and reversal of bail order — Scope of interference by superior...

Evidence — Post-mortem report admitted by defence — Non-examination of doctor — Evidentiary value — Held, where genuineness of post-mortem report is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the report constitutes substantive evidence and absence of oral testimony of medical officer does not weaken prosecution case. (Paras 52, 63–64) The defence admitted the post-mortem report (Exh.P/8), and consequently the doctor was not examined. The Court held that once genuineness is admitted, the contents stand proved and may be relied upon substantively. There was no suggestion of any intervening cause of death. The medical findings were corroborated by ocular evidence. Ratio Decidendi: Admission of post-mortem report under Section 294 CrPC dispenses with formal proof; non-examination of the medical officer does not create infirmity where the report stands admitted and corroborated.

›
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II — Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Applicat...

Civil Law — Hereditary pujari rights — Competing claims — Effect of earlier decree — Subsequent conduct inconsistent with decree — Filing of suit for possession by party claiming prior decree — Legal inference — Held, institution of a suit for possession by a party asserting prior decree of possession constitutes an admission that possession was not with such party at the relevant time — Subsequent conduct can dilute the practical effect of an earlier decree. (Paras 18, 19, 24) The appellants relied upon a decree in O.S. No. 287/1901. However, their predecessor instituted O.S. No. 88/1944 seeking possession of the very temple. The Court observed that a party in settled possession does not sue for possession. The filing of the 1944 suit was treated as a categorical admission that possession was not with the appellants’ predecessor at that time. The inconsistency between reliance on the 1901 decree and the subsequent suit seeking possession materially weakened the appellants’ claim. Ratio Decidendi: Where subsequent conduct of a party is inconsistent with rights claimed under an earlier decree, such conduct can be relied upon to draw adverse inference regarding possession and continuity of asserted rights.: Civil Law — Hereditary pujari rights — Competing c...

›
ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Law — Hereditary pujari rights — Competing c... : advocatemmmohan Practice and Procedure — Article 136 of the Constit...
Wednesday, February 25, 2026

విశ్వంభర

›
విశ్వంభర విశ్వంభర వీణా తంత్రుల  పై, కాలమనే గీతాన్ని ఆలపించాను… దిగ్దిగంతములు ఓంకార నాదాలతో నిండెలా… భువనమోహన వేణువు పై, వేదనాద స్వరాలు వి...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XVI Rule 1(2) read with Section 151 — Summoning of witness and production of documents — Suit for permanent injunction — Plaintiffs seeking to summon records of third-party institution to establish possession — Not proper mode of proof — Application rightly dismissed. Paras 2 and 7. Civil Procedure — Suit for permanent injunction — Burden of proving possession — Nature of evidence — Plaintiffs must establish possession through cogent and direct evidence — Summoning documents of unrelated third party institution insufficient to establish possession. Paras 6 and 7. Evidence — Relevance and necessity — Documents pertaining to third party — Whether essential for adjudication — Held, summoning third-party records to disprove defendant’s stand or to establish plaintiffs’ possession, when plaintiffs can lead direct evidence, is not warranted. Paras 4 and 7.

›
 Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with discretionary orders — Application to summon third party...