The Supreme Court held that the circumstantial evidence must establish only one hypothesis of guilt. The case based on circumstantial evidence has failed to satisfy the test laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. Reiterated, a complete and unbroken chain of evidence must be there, including the absence of any hypothesis of innocence.

Public interest litigation has emerged over the years as an effective and much needed tool for facilitating the judiciary’s attempt…

For millions of Indians, the judicial system has long been an intimidating maze of procedures, paperwork, and prohibitive costs. A…

Adverse possession is a legal doctrine that enables a person in continuous, uninterrupted, peaceful, open, and hostile (without permission) possession…

In sexual offence cases, DNA evidence is often very powerful in court, and differential DNA extraction is commonly used to…

Capacity building is the ongoing effort of building, preparing and improving the skills, knowledge, resources, systems, and abilities for the…

The law of limitation sets a time limit within which a legal case must be filed in court. In India,…

The Unnao Rape Case and India’s Criminal Justice System The Unnao rape case is not merely a criminal proceeding—it is…

SLP (C) No. 20330/2023 | Supreme Court of India | Judgment dated 26 March 2025 In today’s digital era, electronic…

Sir Robert Peel was born in 1788 and died in 1850. He was an important British leader. His greatest achievement…