Back
J. R. MIDHA, GITA MITTAL
Sukhdev Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Gita Mittal, J.
Justice to all-the accused, the society as well as a fair chance to prove to the prosecution-is not only an integral part of the criminal justice system but it is its prime objective. This finds reiteration by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported at (2012) 8 SCC 263, Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal when the court emphasized thus:
34. Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attemp
No cases in the provided list explicitly indicate being overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "abrogated," "criticized," "questioned," or similar negative treatments present in any of the case descriptions.
The vast majority of cases (all 100+ listed) fall into this category. These cases articulate legal principles, "important points," or holdings without any indication of negative judicial treatment. They are presented as authoritative statements of law, often marked with phrases like "Important point," "Very Important Points," or detailed holdings that subsequent citing courts appear to rely upon or affirm. Examples include:
Thangaiya VS State Of T. N. - 2005 1 Supreme 867: States a rule on Section 302 IPC depending on facts; presented as applicable principle.
Vaikuntam Chandrappa VS State Of A. P. - 1959 0 Supreme(SC) 140: Rule on eyewitness testimony requiring corroboration; no negative treatment.
Ramesh Harijan VS State of U. P. - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 401: Guidance on hostile witnesses; evidence not to be discarded in totality.
State Rep. by Inspector of Police VS Saravanans - 2008 8 Supreme 415: Relationship does not affect witness credibility.
Praveen Kumar VS State of Karnataka - 2003 7 Supreme 478: Inference from possession of ornaments post-murder.
Thaman Kumar VS State of Union Territory of Chandigarh - 2003 4 Supreme 206: Ocular evidence with medical corroboration sufficient despite no motive.
Himanshu @ Chintu VS State of NCT of Delhi - 2011 1 Supreme 33: Dependable part of hostile witness evidence admissible.
Santosh Kumar Singh VS State thr. CBI - 2010 7 Supreme 281: Multiple points on expert evidence, DNA, motive, sentencing; all affirmed principles.
Kans Raj VS State Of Punjab - 2000 3 Supreme 554: Interpretation of "otherwise than under normal circumstances" in Section 304-B IPC.
Suresh Rai VS State Of Bihar - 2000 3 Supreme 266: Enmity as double-edged sword.
Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao VS State Of A. P. - 1996 6 Supreme 356: Number of victims relevant in "rarest of rare" analysis.
Jayabalan VS U. T. of Pondicherry - 2009 7 Supreme 270: High Court review of acquittal; dying declaration as sole basis if voluntary.
And all remaining cases (e.g., State Of Haryana VS Bhagirath - 1999 5 Supreme 387, LACHHMAN SINGH VS State - 1952 0 Supreme(SC) 24, ..., State Of U. P. VS Nahar Singh (Dead) - 1998 2 Supreme 139), which uniformly state holdings, principles, or "important points" without any language suggesting negative treatment.
**Explanation**: Every case description consists solely of affirmative legal propositions, summaries of upheld convictions, or established principles (e.g., on circumstantial evidence, motive, hostile witnesses, dying declarations, rarest of rare cases). No case contains language indicating it has been overruled, distinguished negatively, criticized, or questioned. Terms like "Important Point," "Very Important Points," or detailed holdings imply ongoing validity and positive reliance.
None. All cases are unambiguously presented as valid precedents without ambiguity in treatment. The list provides no phrases suggesting doubt, limitation, or negative history for any entry.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
