Interviewed by Dikshi Arora
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
The Supreme Court held that the Court cannot be limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death.
The Supreme Court was deciding the appeal against Allahabad High Court’s order wherein it had held that the petitioner could not continue to challenge the proceedings when he had not raised objections to the charge sheet or cognizance order in his first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Proof — Burden and Onus of proof — Recourse to S. 106 of the Evidence Act
“It is high time that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.”
Advocates — Senior Advocates — Designation of: Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766 for greater objectivity
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Rajasthan High Court seemed to have been primarily swayed by the delay in filing the complaint i.e. 13 months for granting bail in favour of the accused, without considering other important facts.
With Ex-RJD MP Prabhunath Singh’s highhandedness and the police, the public prosecutor and the Judiciary failing in their duty, the Supreme Court called the case an “exceptionally Painful Episode of Criminal Justice System”.
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Circumstantial Evidence — Generally: Principles reiterated relating to essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
Orissa High Court said that a criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’, engaging a new State Defence Council without providing him police papers is gross illegality.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Right to equality — Reasonable accommodation of disabled or differently-abled persons — Requirement of: There
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
The prayer seeking free public access to chargesheets and final reports was made relying on ruling in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473, wherein the Supreme Court had directed copies of FIRs to be published within 24 hours of their registration on the police websites or on the websites of the State Governments.
Supreme Court observed that the principles of Administration of Justice states that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done and free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.