Posts

Kishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Kishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1974 SC 244) Parties: Appellant: Kishan Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh Facts of the Case: The case revolves around Kishan, a resident of a village in Madhya Pradesh, who was accused of the murder of a fellow villager. The incident occurred when Kishan, during a heated dispute, allegedly attacked the deceased with a blunt weapon, leading to the victim's death. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies and the medical evidence which suggested that the death was caused by the injuries inflicted during the attack. Kishan’s defense, however, argued that the incident was not premeditated and that he did not intend to cause the death of the victim. The defense claimed that the altercation was a result of a sudden quarrel and the act was committed in the heat of passion, which could mitigate the charge from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. The trial court convic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Atmendra v. State of Karnataka

Atmendra v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1988 SC 2231) Parties: Appellant: Atmendra Respondent: State of Karnataka Facts of the Case: In the case of Atmendra v. State of Karnataka, the appellant, Atmendra, was arrested and detained under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (referred to as the Karnataka Goonda Act). The act permits preventive detention of individuals whose actions are considered dangerous to public order. Atmendra was detained for his alleged involvement in various illegal activities that were perceived to disturb public peace and security. The authorities issued a detention order against him under the Goonda Act, citing his history of involvement in illegal gambling and other criminal activities that posed a risk to society. Atmendra challenged the detention order before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the order was arbitrary, violative of his fund...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 1637)

Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 1637) Appellant: Ajay Aggarwal Respondent: Union of India Facts of the Case: The case of Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India arose from the infamous Bofors scandal, one of the most significant political corruption cases in Indian history. The Bofors case involved allegations that certain political leaders and officials in India had received kickbacks from the Swedish arms company, AB Bofors, in connection with a defense contract for supplying 155 mm howitzer guns to India in the 1980s. The scandal was widely reported in the media, leading to public outrage and several legal proceedings. Ajay Aggarwal, an advocate, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the Union of India’s handling of the case. Specifically, he sought directions from the Supreme Court to take stringent action against those allegedly involved in the Bofors scam. The petition raised concerns about the failure of the Centr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935 AC 462) Appellant: Reginald Woolmington Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Facts of the Case: The case of Woolmington v. DPP revolves around the accidental shooting of Violet Woolmington, the wife of the appellant, Reginald Woolmington. In 1934, Woolmington, a 21-year-old man, married Violet, but soon after, their relationship became strained, and Violet left him, returning to live with her mother. Woolmington, distressed by his wife leaving, decided to win her back. On December 10, 1934, Woolmington visited Violet at her mother's house. He took with him a sawed-off shotgun, which he claimed was to scare her into returning to him. According to Woolmington, he intended to show Violet the gun, and if she refused to come back, he would threaten to take his own life in front of her to compel her sympathy. Woolmington asserted that while he was handling the gun, it accidentally discharged, killing Violet. Woolmington ...
Post a Comment
Read more