Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The law… does not permit a retrospective resurrection of childhood once the individual steps into legal adulthood; and to permit otherwise would be to dilute the doctrinal rigour of age-based legal classifications and introduce subjectivity into a domain that demands exactitude.”
Failure to abide by Section 275(4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 alone would be sufficient to suffocate the case of the prosecution, since the same is not an inconsequential irregularity, rather it impacts the entire prosecution.
Kerala High Court made it clear that permission to conduct cross-examinations via video conferencing is not an automatic right. Such permission should only be granted if valid reasons are provided, and the absence of a specific provision in the rules should not prevent this.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The applicant bore sole responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the inability to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated delay tactics.
Section 311 CrPC allows the court to recall a witness if it is essential for a just decision of the case, but such power must be exercised judiciously and with caution.
The Court noted that though a witness was mandated to produce original bank documents, he committed a mistake in bringing only photocopies containing endorsement that the same were verified with the original.
“It is a collective duty of both husband and wife to wither the trivial issues which are normal in a matrimonial life and mutual respect to the decision of each other appears to be the hallmark of the society. Even the Constitution recognises equality in gender and, therefore, the husband to be put on higher degree than that of the wife is unacceptable.”
Supreme Court held the statement of an injured eyewitness to be an important piece of evidence, which cannot be easily discarded by a Court, and that minor discrepancies do not matter.
“Thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which the Court has explicitly warned against.”
“The accused has miserably failed to discharge his evidential burden, that fact will have to be taken to be proved by force of the presumption, without requiring anything more from the complainant”
“While balancing the right of the accused to a fair trial and upholding the intent of the legislation, the courts are duty bound to remain sensitive to the plight of the seven-year-old sexual assault victim.”
In the present case, though the wife had made allegation of extra-marital affair against her husband in her written statement, nonetheless, when the husband entered-into the witness box and tendered his affidavit in evidence, he did not whisper even a word in this regard.
Delhi High Court observed that what ultimately turned decisive was a voluntary acknowledgment by the appellant-professor of his acts of indiscretion in getting attracted by the charms of a young female student.
Supreme Court said that once there is no eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime because in a case of no direct evidence, motive has a major role.
Delhi High Court observed that the child who was being examined in the case at hand was in the category of a child witness who is vulnerable and a victim of sexual assault by her own father, and it was not a new phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence.
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.
Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Delhi High Court: In a case, wherein an appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Act)