Skip to main content

Translate

Featured

The Nuremberg Trials: A Tribunal that Redefined Justice in the 20th Century

"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored." — Justice Robert H. Jackson , Chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg Introduction: Judging the Wounds of War The year was 1945. The world lay shattered after the Second World War, the most catastrophic conflict in human history. Tens of millions were dead. Cities were razed. But beyond the physical devastation, the war had exposed something even more terrifying — a glimpse into the potential depravity of human nature when law and morality are abandoned. The Allied powers, victorious but morally burdened, faced an unprecedented question: How does one hold an entire regime accountable for atrocities so vast that they defy comprehension? The answer emerged in a courtroom in Nuremberg , Germany, where history witnessed not revenge, but justice — structured, principled, and visionary. The Nuremberg Trials were not ju...
Post a Comment
Read more
Labels

Latest Judgements - March 04, 2025

 


SC: Conviction Based Solely on Handwriting Expert’s Opinion Without Corroboration is Risky

Latest Judgements - March 04, 2025: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India in C. Kamalakkannan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 309) has held that convicting an accused based solely on a handwriting expert’s opinion, without any corroborative evidence, is legally unsound and hazardous.

Case Background

The case revolved around allegations of forgery, where the prosecution heavily relied on a handwriting expert’s analysis to establish the accused’s involvement. However, no independent corroborative evidence was presented to support the claim. Despite this, the trial court and the High Court convicted the accused based primarily on the expert’s testimony.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Apex Court reiterated that while expert opinions can be valuable in judicial proceedings, they cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The Court emphasized the following key principles:

  • Expert testimony requires corroboration – A handwriting expert’s opinion, like any forensic evidence, is not fool proof and must be supported by independent evidence.
  • Caution in relying on forensic opinions – Courts must be mindful that scientific analyses, including handwriting examinations, are susceptible to errors.
  • Holistic evaluation of evidence – Conviction must be based on a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence rather than relying entirely on expert testimony.

Verdict and Legal Precedent

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant’s conviction, reinforcing the well-established legal position that forensic opinions should aid the judicial process but not be the sole deciding factor in a criminal trial. This ruling serves as a vital precedent, ensuring that expert opinions are used responsibly in the justice system.

This judgment once again highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle of fair trial and preventing wrongful convictions based on uncorroborated forensic testimony.

Latest Judgements - March 04, 2025

Stay tuned with the Lex Regula Latest Judgements for latest updates!



Labels:
Hi there, I'm Rahul Mukherjee. A legal professional with a strong foundation in Criminal Law, Civil Law, Human Rights Law etc. I am passionate about legal advocacy, social justice, and community services. Also I provide my services free of cost to people in need through various NGOs. Thank you very much. Hope to see you soon!

Comments

Post a Comment

Search in Wikipedia

Search results

Total Visits