Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Which Misread Direction - (02 Mar 2020)

CRIMINAL

Delhi High Court has clarified that there is a difference between "addition" of charge and "alteration" of charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court has stated that when the High Court had, in a criminal revision Petition, directed the Trial Court to add the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Accused, the Trial Court had erred since it "replaced" the existing charge under Section 304 Part I with Section 304B of IPC.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   TRIAL COURT ORDER WHICH MISREAD DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved