When lack of material evidence on age requires conversion of Section 376(3) IPC to Section 376(1) — High Court of
High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirms that charge-sheets cannot be quashed at the initial stage for technical or repetitive defects, permitting
Yes – the Chhattisgarh High Court applies and affirms the Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial ruling that a complainant under Section
Reaffirming that Article 226 does not extend to fact-intensive private contracts, the Gauhati High Court follows Supreme Court precedents like
Clarifying the appellant’s right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372(2) CrPC, upholding the Supreme Court’s Celestium
Reaffirming the Requirement for a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence and the Limited Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence
Reaffirming the necessity of credible ocular and medical corroboration in IPC assault cases; High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms acquittal and
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, affirming the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran (2025 INSC 804),
Clarification of Victim Definition and Appeal Right under BNSS in Light of Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial Decision Summary Category
High Court of Chhattisgarh affirms existing precedent that indefinite delay caused by non-production of evidence warrants acquittal; binding on subordinate
Summary Category Data Case Name CRLA/559/2025 of Peram Ganesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh CNR APHC010425872025 Decision Date
High Court Upholds Supreme Court’s Celestium Financial Ruling, Grants 45-Day Liberty to File Appeal; Binding on Subordinate Courts in NI