Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

Kerala HC: In-Court ID is Mandatory, Substantive Proof Even if Witness Personally Knows Accused - (24 Sep 2025)

CRIMINAL

Kerala High Court set aside the conviction of three men for criminal trespass and mischief by fire, noting that the trial court failed to record any in-court identification by prosecution witnesses and that the prosecutor did not ask the witnesses to identify the accused during trial.

Tags : IDENTIFICATION   ACCUSED   SUBSTANTIVE PROOF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved