Supreme Court: Constitutional Safeguards Must Prevail Even in Terror Cases
The Supreme Court has reiterated that constitutional safeguards and settled principles of criminal jurisprudence cannot be compromised, even in terrorism-related cases. Observing that offences such as bomb blasts evoke public fear and outrage, the Court held that judges must remain committed to constitutional values. It emphasized that the seriousness of allegations cannot lower the standard of proof or justify departure from established legal principles. Guilt must always be determined solely on the basis of credible evidence and law. (Abdul Hameed v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 734)
Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case Over Lack of Reliable Evidence
The Allahabad High Court acquitted an 80-year-old man convicted under the POCSO Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted the unexplained five-day delay in filing the FIR, material contradictions in witness testimony, absence of allegations of penetrative assault in the original FIR, neutral medical evidence, and an unrebutted alibi. It ruled that these deficiencies created serious doubt regarding the prosecution’s case, warranting the accused’s acquittal. (Swamideen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026)
Supreme Court: Calls with Lover Proved Motive in Wife’s Murder
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband for murdering his wife, holding that frequent call exchanges with his alleged lover constituted strong circumstantial evidence establishing both the affair and motive. The Court found that longstanding marital discord and the wife’s opposition to the illicit relationship provided a clear motive for the crime. However, it dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the alleged lover, finding insufficient evidence to establish her criminal involvement. (Piyush Shyamdasani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 721)
Supreme Court: Disinheriting Wife in Favour of Stranger Raises Suspicion Over Will
The Supreme Court held that a Will excluding a wife, who shared a cordial relationship with the deceased, in favour of strangers or distant relatives raises serious suspicion about its genuineness. While clarifying that a Will need not state reasons for the bequest, the Court observed that false or unconvincing reasons may undermine its credibility. Finding multiple unexplained suspicious circumstances, the Court restored the lower courts’ findings and declared the disputed Will invalid. (Sardari Lal v. Bishan Dass & Ors., 2026)