Delhi High Court
63,002 judgments
Md. Naeem v. State
The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction under Section 397 IPC holding that a dummy knife is not a deadly weapon, while upholding other robbery convictions and reducing the fine imposed on the appellant.
Mohd. Sameer @ Raghu v. State of NCT of Delhi; Mohd. Mustafa @ Vicky v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for robbery and related offences, holding that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine credible identification and recovery supporting the prosecution case.
Mohd. Sameer @ Raghu v. State of NCT of Delhi; Mohd. Mustafa @ Vicky v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of two appellants for robbery and related offences, holding that minor discrepancies in evidence do not undermine credible identification and recovery, and dismissed their appeals.
Gulam Rasul v. State
Delhi High Court set aside conviction under Section 397 IPC for lack of proof that the surgical blade was a deadly weapon, upheld robbery conviction under Section 392 IPC, and reduced sentence accordingly.
Mayur Pasricha v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld anticipatory bail granted with a condition of voluntary payment by accused in a forgery and cheating case, dismissing the revision petition challenging the bail terms.
3998bdc5c7fb08cf7a7708d6b742ae832bd9dee809a36289ab4409f14f23ce3b
The Delhi High Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions by referring to its earlier judgment dated June 1, 2018, without elaborating on the substantive issues.
Sanjay Thapa v. State
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of Sanjay Thapa, upholding his conviction and sentence for armed robbery on a running train under Sections 392/397 and 411 IPC based on credible witness identification and corroborative evidence.
Harvinder Singh @ Raju v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of four appellants for robbery under Sections 395 and 397 IPC based on strong circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen property and call records despite absence of direct eyewitness identification.
Jite v. State
The Delhi High Court modified the appellant's conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, holding the offence was committed in a sudden fight without premeditation.
Mehboob v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dacoity and criminal conspiracy but set aside convictions for receiving stolen property, clarifying that perpetrators of dacoity cannot be convicted under Section 412 IPC.
Mehboob v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dacoity and criminal conspiracy, set aside convictions for receiving stolen property, and clarified that perpetrators of dacoity cannot be convicted under Section 412 IPC.
Harvinder Singh @ Raju v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Sections 395 and 397 IPC based on circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen property and mobile call data, dismissing appeals challenging identification and sentence.
Harvinder Singh @ Raju v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for robbery under Sections 395 and 397 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and recovery of looted property despite absence of direct identification and delayed TIP.
Mehboob v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dacoity and criminal conspiracy, set aside convictions for receiving stolen property, and clarified that principal offenders cannot be convicted under Section 412 IPC.
Ashok v. State (GNCT of Delhi)
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC, affirming the mandatory presumption of guilt under Section 113B Indian Evidence Act upon proof of cruelty related to dowry soon before death.
Khel Bahadur v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for robbery with a deadly weapon, affirming that credible identification and lawful recovery suffice to prove guilt despite minor improvements in testimony.
Ajay v. State; Ratan alias Tanu v. State
The Delhi High Court acquitted appellants convicted for robbery and arms offences due to contradictions in the sole eyewitness's testimony, emphasizing the necessity of reliable and corroborated evidence for conviction.
Jamadar Ojha v. State
The Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC for dowry death, affirming the mandatory presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act and rejecting the appellant's alibi and sentence enhancement plea.
Harvinder Singh @ Raju v. State NCT of Delhi
The Delhi High Court upheld convictions under Sections 395 and 397 IPC based on strong circumstantial evidence and recoveries despite absence of direct identification through Test Identification Parade.
Mehboob v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Delhi High Court upheld convictions for dacoity and criminal conspiracy, set aside convictions for receiving stolen property, and clarified legal principles on involvement of accused and admissibility of evidence.