Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that the applicant has a bright future and is apprehensive of the stigma of conviction that may ruin his future, therefore, it was expedient to release him on probation under the Section 4 benefit
“The Parliament, after considering a spate of reports highlighting the flourishing human organ trade in India and the consequential exploitation of the economically vulnerable segments of the society through organ removal, and illegal transplants, for prohibiting the unethical practice, enacted the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994”
The impugned judgment of the Sessions Court had observed that if a court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the court and is found reliable and trustworthy, then the court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.
The Delhi High Court opined that true justice, and the ends of justice would not be served by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.
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.
“Persons who indulge in forgery and fabrication, especially, in respect of documentary evidence which relied upon heavily that too in order to obtain an ex-parte inunction cannot be allowed to go scot-free.”
The applicant contended that their gender identity and medical condition made them vulnerable to harassment and ridicule in society and in jail.
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
The Court opined that given the serious nature of allegations, petitioner(s) did not deserve the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
The Court referred to Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770, wherein it was held that the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the syndicate commits organised crime either individually or jointly.
The High Court quashed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board remanding the accused minor to an Observation Home.
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 Delhi High Court stated that the period of sentence served by a convict is only one of the several factors that are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence.
“If any part of the offence or even one instance of the overt act is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required”
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
The Court noted that cognizance of the offence was not taken by the Trial Court as stipulated by Section 2(d) of the MCOCA, therefore, the accused persons could not be prosecuted on the charges of S. 3 MCOCA.
‘While the victim/complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision’
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
“Request for the addition of the charge under section 370 IPC, as it stood prior to 2013, cannot be made at the instance of the prosecution. An addition of charge has to be done by the Court based upon its own satisfaction and not at the behest of any of the parties to the trial”