When Can Contributory Negligence Be Attributed to a Deceased Victim in Motor Accident Claims? Reaffirming the Evidence Standard in Motor Accident Cases

The Chhattisgarh High Court, through a single-judge decision, clarified that contributory negligence must be strictly proved by the party alleging it, and cannot be presumed solely on the basis of police records or uncorroborated pleas—upholding established law and serving as binding precedent for Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Chhattisgarh.   Summary Category Data Case Name […]

Can Conviction for Rape Be Based Solely on the Testimony of the Prosecutrix if Her Testimony Is Inconsistent and Lacks Corroboration?

The High Court clarified that while the sole testimony of the prosecutrix may suffice for conviction if deemed of “sterling quality,” inconsistencies, lack of medical corroboration, and unexplained delay in reporting erode such testimony’s probative value. The judgment reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent, setting practical benchmarks for assessing prosecutrix credibility, and operates as binding authority […]

Does Mere General Allegations Without Specific Overt Acts Attract Joint Liability under Section 34 IPC in Attempt to Murder Cases? – High Court Clarifies and Limits Application

The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that in the absence of clear evidence of a common intention or specific overt acts, conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC is not sustainable. This judgment reaffirms established principles, limiting the scope of joint liability in criminal cases, and serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh.   Summary […]

When Can Conviction for Rape and House Trespass Be Set Aside for Lack of Clinching Evidence? — Reaffirmation of the “Benefit of Doubt” Principle in Criminal Appeals

Chhattisgarh High Court reiterates that conviction under Sections 376(1) and 450 IPC cannot be sustained when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; upholds and applies precedent clarifying evidentiary requirements—remains binding authority within state jurisdiction and persuasive more broadly.   Summary Category Data Case Name CRA/1055/2007 of MUNNA @ PARMESHWAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH […]

Can Successive Applications Under Section 156(3) CrPC Be Filed on the Same Facts After Dismissal of the First? High Court of Chhattisgarh Reaffirms Bar, Declares Such Practice an Abuse of Process

The High Court of Chhattisgarh holds that filing successive applications under Section 156(3) CrPC before different Magistrates on identical facts, without disclosing prior dismissal, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. The Court affirms existing precedent, clarifying that post-dismissal, the only remedy is revision, not re-filing. The judgment is binding authority for courts in Chhattisgarh […]

Is a Trainee Selected for Appointment but Yet to Join “a Government Servant” for Purpose of Compassionate Appointment? — High Court of Chhattisgarh’s Reaffirmation of Service Law Principles

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that only regular government servants whose appointment orders are issued and who are serving at the time of death are covered under compassionate appointment schemes; claim of dependents of prospective appointees undergoing pre-service training is not maintainable. This judgment upholds longstanding government circulars and offers binding authority for service matters relating […]

Can Convictions for Murder Based Solely on Weak and Uncorroborated Circumstantial Evidence Be Sustained? High Court Reiterates the Standard of Proof for Circumstantial Evidence Under Indian Criminal Law

The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that where the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete, uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions are present, and last-seen and forensic links are lacking, conviction cannot be sustained. The judgment upholds the established requirement that every circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. This decision […]

Does the Insurer Have a Primary “Pay and Recover” Liability for Compensation When the Driver Lacks a Valid Licence? Reaffirmation of Supreme Court Precedents by the Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court confirms that when a vehicle’s driver was unlicensed at the time of accident, the insurer must first pay the compensation to the claimants and may then recover the amount from the vehicle’s owner, in line with Supreme Court authorities. This judgment upholds binding precedent for Motor Accident Claim cases in Chhattisgarh, […]