<b>Part I of 7—Genesis:</b> 'The genesis of this case lies in a macabre incident that took place close to the noon time on 13th December, 2001 in which five heavily armed persons practically stormed the Parliament House complex and inflicted heavy ca
<b>Part 2 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> '...validity of sanction orders, non-addition of POTA offences at the beginning and framing of charges which need to be addressed before we embark on a discussion of other questions...'
<b>Part 3 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> '... disclosures made by the first two accused viz. Afzal and Shaukat ... leading to the discovery of the hideouts of the deceased terrorists and the recovery of a laptop computer, a mobile phone and cash o
<b>Part 4 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> Was he denied proper legal aid, thereby depriving him of effective defence in the course of trial? Was his valuable right of legal aid flowing from Articles 21 and 22 violated? The Supreme Court had categor
<b>Part 5 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> '... we find Shaukat Hussain Guru guilty under Section 123 IPC and sentence him to the maximum period of imprisonment of 10 years (rigorous) specified therein. He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25000
<b>Part 6 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> '...the untruthful pleas raised by him about his contacts with Shaukat and Afzal give rise to serious suspicion at least about his knowledge of the incident and his tacit approval of it ... suspicion howeve
<b>Part 7 of 7—Supreme Court Judgment:</b> '...The scanty evidence on record does not justify her conviction either on the charges framed against her or under Section 123 IPC for which she was held guilty by the trial Court....'
Signup for Outlook and get curated content to your inbox everyday.