Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Trial Court did not notice the facts that the offence was committed in 2014 and at that time there was no such punishment as rigorous imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in Section 6 of POCSO Act.
The Division Bench opined that in Section 498-A IPC cases, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences.
The High Court refused to interfere with the sentence imposed on convicts, even after noting inherent contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and placed major credence on the inconsistent statements of injure and her husband, to establish the liability.
Brij Bihari Prasad, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was murdered in 1998. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision and acquitted the accused persons.
The Court emphasised that in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. The presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused throughout the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court.
The prosecution case has crumbled like a house of cards. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the accused was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on murder and dacoity, dating back to the year 1953.
The victim’s family alleged that was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
The minor child, grandson of the deceased provided clear and cogent evidence being the sole eye-witness, stating that his father had strangulated the neck of the deceased for which the deceased struggled for life and then she became calm.
The Court stated that admittedly, the death is homicidal, and the doctor also found that the cause of death is injury, which was inflicted upon the deceased persons. Therefore, the ocular evidence corroborates with the medical evidence.
The Court emphasised that in our conservative society, even on account of family enmity, the future and career of a girl is not jeopardised, and such is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution.
Soumya Viswanathan was a journalist working with India Today when she was found dead in her car in Vasant Kunj in 2008
The Court stated that this is not a case of ransom because the appellants had not called the complainant’s wife to pay ransom, and it is possible that they were planning to receive the rest of the amount of the vehicle from ‘X’.
The Court observed that the parents of the victims were illiterate and that the appellant’s allegations of false implications and extortion on the victim’s family’s part did not inspire any confidence as per evidence on record.
“Once the theory of the prosecution about burning the police jeep is unbelievable, and there is no other evidence on the side of the prosecution to convict the appellants for the offences under Sections 3 or 4 of the TNPPDL Act, the case of the prosecution has to fall in toto”
“The Court below lost sight of the rudimentary principle governing rape and convicted the convict on the strength of the gospel that Indian women do not lie in such matters, which cannot be sustained, as the facts surrounding each and every case and the evidence available ought to form the basis of arriving at a finding, and the surrounding scenario cannot be the basis to render a finding.”
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
The Court opined that is important to acknowledge that individuals vary in their sensitivity and temperament. It is not solely the feelings of the deceased that would matter, but most importantly, the intention behind the act of the accused would also have to be discerned.
It is clarified that this order does not amount to acquittal but is merely suspension of conviction in peculiar circumstances of the case including the long political career of appellant and his age.
The case under 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 seems to be the outcome of a personal grudge and differences between both the parties.