read with
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6901

Masalti v. State of UP 1964 mob lynching 2 or 3 witnesses required.

Exception to the rule of Quality of witness over quantity of witnesses.

MASALTI v. State of U.P. 1964

Mr. Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be
enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual
to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of this test. If at all the  prosecution may be entitled to say thltt the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not been applied; they might as well have been convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of. witnesses who give such evidence. But, sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.

For 302 read with 149 mob crimes as used to dealt in IPC, this principle of 2 or 3 witnesses was applicable, the question is whether principle will remain applicable in mob lynching offence under section 103 of BNS?

Answer for this question will come when we read the distinction between 149/ 302 IPC and 103(2) of BNS becaus ein one various essentials of 149 has to be fulfilled but not in another.


#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

Delhi High court judgement on CLAT PG requirement for jobs in PSUs.

In view of the reasons given and discussions made above, we are fully convinced that the impugned „recruitment criteria‟ where selection for appointment to the post in question is to be made on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score – 2022 onwards, is legally not tenable being hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

🔪🔎 Purpose of Section 27 IEA/ proviso to section 23 BSA

🔮 Myth busted- To lift ban on 25/26 IEA

The essential purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not to render admissible a “confession” in the “disclosure statement” made by an accused to a Police Officer.

👨‍⚖️ Case- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947

If in a “disclosure statement” there is a “confession" such a “confession” is inadmissible

💯 Result- If the inculpatory part of the “disclosure statement” is so excluded, then what remains is a mere statement to P.O.

👉 Consequence of Statement-
Will not hit the Ban Under section 162(1) Cr.P.C because of 162(2).

🤔 What is “whether it amounts to a confession or not”

If confession is excluded then why this language ☝️

✅ Answer- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947

1. Disclosure statement does not constitute gist of offence only a corroborative piece of evidence other need to be proved.

2. BUT if possession” or “concealment” of the incriminating object itself constitutes the gist of the offence disclosure statement” would be admissible notwithstanding the fact that statement amounts to a “confession”

📒 Laws in which when Section 27 Statement amounts to Confession

1. Opium Act, 1978,
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
3. Explosives Act, 1884,
4. Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
5. Public Gambling Act, 1867,
6. Gold Control Act, 1968, 7. Narcotic Drugs Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

🎬 Illustration—

Larance says; I have killed Soloman with a Gun and the Gun is placed in the farm house.

1. Confession- Bold Highlighted part
2. Statement of S. 27- Underline.
3. Statement Amounts to confession for S. 25 Arms Act, 1959

👩‍⚖️Conclusion- Majority of Cases statement does not Amounts to confession but only when concealement and possesion of object itself consitutues offence then amounts to confession.

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

👩‍🏭🤫 Section 27 Contract act

https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6330
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6409
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/4743
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/2458

Non-Compete Clause Can't Curtail Right Of Employee To Get Employment After Notice Period: Delhi High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/non-compete-clause-cant-curtail-right-of-employee-to-get-employment-after-notice-period-delhi-high-court-295802

AI In Policing: Framing Issue Of Regulation
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/ai-policing-framing-issue-regulation-305808

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025:Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-judgment-half-yearly-digest-2025-pocso-act-305837

N.K JAIN|Law of Precedents
https://justicenagendrakjain.com/Law_of_Precedents4.php

#Dicernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK
#Precedent@CurrentLegalGK

RATIO DECIDENDI OF PLURALITY OPINIONS

Shayara bano conundrum

#Precedent@CurrentLegalGK

The Madhya Pradesh Government has strongly defended its decision to raise reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from 14% to 27%, telling the Supreme Court that backward communities collectively make up more than 85% of the State's population and remain severely disadvantaged despite their overwhelming demographic presence.

50% limit is diluted altogether by these Data on marginalised population ratio which every state government can table.

What's your say on this issue, keep the discussion on legal aspects only.

@CurrentLegalGK

Landmark dissenting judgments by legal luminaries

⛓️‍💥🗡️Object of BNS

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh,

"that one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just, proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the crime and manner in which the offence is committed. The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the Accused on any consideration whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings.

#BNS@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025: Property Law
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-judgments-half-yearly-digest-2025-property-law-305887

POCSO DIGEST
@CurrentLegalGK

'Property law digest 2025 half yearly'
@CurrentLegalGK