Supreme Court's Verdict on Circumstantial Evidence In the intricate tapestry of evidence law, where shadows of doubt can unravel convictions, the Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of procedural rigor. On October 6, 2025, in Nazim and Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018), a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma acquitted three appellants in a grisly child murder case, spotlighting the frailties of circumstantial evidence , the "last seen" theory, the absence of Test Identification Parades (TIP), and the pivotal role of scientific evidence . This decision, authored by Justice S.C. Sharma, serves as a clarion call for courts to tread cautiously, ensuring that suspicion never masquerades as proof. As India grapples with evolving forensic capabilities and witness vulnerabilities, this judgment underscores the enduring principles governing convictions built on inference rat...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Omnibus Demand Notices Under Section 138 NI Act: What Cheque Dishonour Victims Must Know In a significant judgment dated December 12, 2023, the Supreme Court of India in Upasana Mishra v. Trek Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 3786 of 2023) has clarified the legal requirements for demand notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This ruling is a crucial development for anyone who has faced the frustration and financial loss caused by cheque dishonour. Facts of the Case The appellant, Ms. Upasana Mishra, issued a legal demand notice to the respondent company after a cheque was dishonoured. The notice demanded a lump sum amount of ₹6,50,000 which included: - The cheque amount (not specifically stated), - Interest at 12% per annum from the date of dishonour, - Damages of ₹50,000 per month, - Notice charges of ₹5,500. The notice did not clearly specify the exact cheque amount separately but made an omnibus demand com...