Arms Act - The Legal Chamber

Accidental Death or Murder? Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in the Medical Student Case

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Accidental Death or Murder? Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling in the Medical Student Case

The Supreme Court partially set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 5 read with 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, acquitting him of these charges. The Court found the circumstantial evidence inconsistent with a murder conviction, noting a reasonable possibility of accidental death supported by medical evidence and bullet trajectory. His conviction under Section 201 IPC (disappearance of evidence) was sustained, and he was sentenced to the period already undergone. The judgment emphasized that mere suspicion, or an accused's inability to explain circumstances, cannot substitute for the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, especially when a probable counter-view exists. Facts Of The Case: Vaibhav and Mangesh, first-year homeopathy medical college s...

Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the determination of an accused as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that school records and birth certificates take precedence over medical age tests under Section 94(2). The Court clarified that once juvenility is established, bail considerations for juveniles differ from adults, focusing on rehabilitation rather than offence gravity. It also affirmed that Section 15 (preliminary assessment for heinous offences) does not negate juvenile status but mandates a separate evaluation for trial as an adult. The ruling reinforced the statutory hierarchy of age-proof documents and restricted JJBs from reviewing earlier age determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Rajni (appellant), the mother of a ...

“Masterminds Can’t Claim Parity with Minor Accused”: Supreme Court Overrules Bail Order under 302 IPC

The Supreme Court ruled that bail parity cannot be mechanically applied when material distinctions exist between accused persons. It held that alleged conspirators/masterminds of a serious crime (Section 302 IPC) cannot claim bail parity with minor co-accused, especially when evidence suggests their active role in hiring a contract killer. The Court emphasized that bail decisions must consider the gravity of allegations, evidentiary role of each accused, and potential witness intimidation, rather than granting parity as a blanket rule. The judgment clarified that "parity" under Section 439 CrPC requires comparable roles, not mere similarity of charges. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a brutal shooting during a marriage procession in Rajasthan on November 28, 2023. The prosecution al...