Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Merely because a crime is heinous per se may not be a sufficient reason for the imposition of the death penalty without considering the mitigating factors and other circumstance”
While emphasising on the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony, the Calcutta High Court cautioned against its universal application and highlighted the need for evaluation based on the case’s circumstances.
“Only on the basis that the convict has committed a gruesome crime many years ago, it cannot be said that his temporary release on furlough would be against the interest of the society.”
Allahabad High Court said that there is a serious discrepancy in the eyewitness testimony. It does not match with other evidence, material and circumstances.
The Special Judge opined that the prosecutrix’s conduct of never disclosing anything about incident to anybody nor seeking anybody’s help during relevant period, cast a serious doubt on her version of events.
The Nithari murder case concerning with the rape and murder of several girl children between 2005-2006 sent shockwaves across the country.
“The objectivity of the judges is the key to fairness of justice and the decisions have to be objectively determined according to the law of land and not by moral principles of the judge concerned.”
Calcutta High Court held that the proximity between the last seen circumstance and the recovery of the victim’s body established a livelink between their presence and the rape and murder.
“Truth is the soul of justice. The sole idea of the criminal justice system is to see that justice is done. Justice will be said to be done when no innocent person is punished, and the guilty person is not allowed to go scot free.”
“The british concept of changing partner in every season cannot be considered to be hallmark of a stable and healthy society. The security and stability which the institution of marriage provides to an individual’s life cannot be expected from live-in-relationship.”
The applicant behind bars will be violative of Article 21 as the status of the applicant is merely that of a suspect till the outcome of the proceedings emanating therefrom as the applicant is innocent till proven guilty.
“A brother for a sister is a protector, confidant and a lifelong friend. They share a unique bond that nothing can replace. A sister is a treasure beyond measure for the brother whereas a brother is a hero in disguise and a role model for the sister”.
The Court was of the view that the depositions did not have the requisite sterling quality and inconsistencies in the same created serious doubt regarding the nature of the alleged sexual offence but also credibility of the deposition.
“Nothing has improved even after more than a decade of “Nirbhaya”. Women also have the right to life and liberty. They also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated”.
“The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and therefore, the same deserves to be upheld.”
It is very unfortunate that now a days, in maximum cases the women are using false rape FIRs as a weapon just to grab money from State, which should be stopped.
“During the said period of trial, there is no occasion for the applicant to keep him languishing behind the bars, as it would serve no purpose especially in view of the aforesaid and as it is a trite law that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”
This is one of the cases where the youth in this country are spoiling their lives due to lure of free relationship with the member of the opposite sex aping western culture and not finding any real soulmate in the end.
Bombay High Court observed that the appellant was aged 46 when the offence was committed and it has come in the evidence that he was residing with his wife and children. Still, he has ravished a small child aged six years and, therefore, no leniency can be shown against him.
The Court found that none of the acts of the convict would come within the definition of ‘rape’ under Section 375 of the IPC or ‘penetrative sexual assault’ under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.