Nation Builders, Not Non-Earning Members: What ₹30,000 a Month Tells Us About India’s Invisible GDP Gap

Submitted by 

Shivang Goyal

BBALLB 

Christ (deemed to be University)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15kf_qwQbpe-ZIAhkHZkeYe2i__lzKnuM/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Barriers to Women in Leadership

Submitted by :

Prisha Khanna 

BBA LLB

CHRIST(DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY), DELHI NCR CAMPUS 

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R9YrJyi-8AzQYb7j9rKZtXo0POFEv8XB/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Beyond the Numbers: Moving from Gender Representation to True Inclusion

 Submitted by By Aditya Kumar  •  Student of Law, School of Law, Christ (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jb_Mn6msxMzaT0by9XJDtXL7f2Wnea3l/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Supreme Court: The benefit of discrepancy between medical evidence and the inquest report should be given to accused

 On this basis the learned trial Judge held that the bruise marks on scapular region and waist of the dead body noted in the Inquest Panchnama by the Investigating Police Officer,“were nothing but the marks of post-mortem stainings”. This view of the evidence taken by the trial court could not be said to be palpably wrong. Nor was the High Court fair enough to the medical officer, Dr Sati Punjabi, inasmuch as it held that she had failed to note some contusion marks mentioned in the Inquest Panchnama, through sheer‘inadvertence or by design’. The Police Officer who prepared the Inquest Panchnama was not an expert in medical jurisprudence. The possibility of his having mistaken the postmortem staining marks on the waist and shoulder of the deceased, for ante-mortem bruises, could not be ruled out. In any case, in such a situation, as a matter of judicial caution, the benefit of this discrepancy between medical evidence and the inquest report, on this point in issue, ought to have been given to the appellants.  {Para 4}

 In the court of Supreme court of India

Maula Bux And Others v. State Of Rajasthan .

Dated: Feb 15, 1980

CASE NO.Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1974.

Bench: Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice R.S. Sarkaria

 Citations:1983 SCC 1 379 . 1983 SCC CRI 199 .

Print Page