- An appellate court can intervene in a judgment of acquittal only if there are “compelling and substantial reasons,” such as perversity in the original judgment, for doing so. The court has the authority to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.
- Under Sections 306, 307, and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an accused person can seek a pardon at any time after case commitment but before judgment, with the condition of full disclosure of facts related to the offence.
- Common intention and common object, as defined by Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, are distinct. Common intention requires a pre-arranged plan, while common object does not.
- The burden of proving common intention lies on the prosecution and can be inferred from proved facts and circumstances. Mere presence among assailants can suffice if a common intention exists.
- For an approver's testimony to be reliable, it generally needs to be corroborated in material particulars. corroboration can come from other witnesses or even circumstantial evidence.
- Unreliable testimony from an approver cannot serve as the foundation for a conviction, even if attempts are made to corroborate it.
- Delays in reporting to the police in a murder case were deemed acceptable if the priority was medical treatment for the injured, as was the case with Approver Dey.
- Testimony from hostile witnesses can still be admissible if corroborated, with the court emphasizing the quality of the testimony over the quantity.
- In cases involving multiple assailants, it's natural for witnesses to not recognize or remember all individuals involved. Courts must carefully verify such witness accounts.
- Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for tendering a pardon to an accomplice to ensure that heinous crimes committed by multiple people can be adequately prosecuted, given the accomplice's full and true disclosure.