Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

When the offence of murder was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then he has the duty to give an explanation and a failure to offer an explanation can be treated as an adverse circumstance against the accused, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Uma & Another v The State Represented by the DySP [2024 INSC 809 ].

Presence of the accused, particularly in cheque bouncing cases–which are semi-criminal/civil in nature, should not be ordinarily insisted upon, unless the trial court needs to either examine the accused or their statement is to be recorded, says the Rajasthan High Court.

Shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault, says the Supreme Court (SC) in K Dhananjay v Cabinet Secretary & Others.

If the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party in a criminal trial it can be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Shyam Narayan Ram v State of UP [2024 INSC 800].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau directed on 6th March 2024 that the Narcotics Control Bureau's officers should comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in  Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1].

Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad, says Delhi High Court in Mr Amardeep Singh Bedi v Union of India & Another.

Viewing in private, downloading, storing, possessing, distributing or displaying pornographic acts involving children is a criminal offence under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 67 B of the Information Technology Act, says the Supreme Court (SC), in a 200-page judgement.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Nipun Saxena & Another v Union of India & Others, says that identity of the rape victims should be published or revealed, in any manner, as per Section 228 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The objective of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989  ( SC & ST Act) is to prevent atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The Supreme Court (SC) in  Hitesh Verma v The State of Uttarakhand says that the object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes,

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued directives and cease-and-desist notices prohibiting the solicitation of lawyers' services, either directly or indirectly.