Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court did not express anything on the merits of the case and released the accused considering the period in custody and reasonable time for conclusion of Trial.
“The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at.”
The Ministry of Coal’s policy was concerned with end use and the end use for the Baidyanath Ayurved being ‘power’ was in conformity with the MoC’s policy.
However, the Commission was of the view that it is not advisable to tinker with the existing age of consent under the POCSO Act.
The circumstances and the witness statements proved the husband’s complicity in killing wife beyond reasonable doubt.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on the credibility of injured eyewitnesses.
Delhi High Court mentioned that children born from the wedlock will be free to pursue their legal rights in accordance with the law. The parties have entered a settlement only regarding their rights and titles leaving open the the rights, titles, and interests of the children to pursue their legal remedies as per law.
“If the conclusion of the Trial Court is a plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused”.
“The crime committed may be cruel or ruthless but the evidence on record has to be evaluated dispassionately and objectively to see whether the accused is responsible for the said crime or he is innocent”.
The courts should strive to strike a balance between the rights of accused and the practicalities of the legal process. In cases, if the trial can proceed effectively with the accused remaining present before the court through alternative means, the court should be flexible in considering prayers made to this effect by the accused.
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.
“FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and the delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR”.
“Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law and it may be either civil or criminal depending upon the nature and gravity of the negligence. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise, reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular”.
“The delay in lodging FIR in cases of child rape should be taken with much sensitivity and the Courts concerned must judiciously weigh all the surrounding factors which led to such delay as discarding the otherwise meritorious case of the victim merely because there was failure to knock at the portals of justice in a time-bound manner would mean nothing but adding a pinch of salt to the victim’s injury.”
“Sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC concerns a public servant who ‘is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty’ whereas, the offences contemplated in the PC Act, 1988 are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties.”
The Court stated that if the victim, who is a grown-up woman and having experience of sex, fails to offer sufficient resistance to the accused who was attempting to have sex with her, the Court may find that there was no force, or the said act was not against her will.
The Court found that there was absence of concrete proof of age of the minor victim, therefore, the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was not proved, instead the appellant was convicted under Section 376(1) of the IPC.
The Court pointed out that ‘woman’ as per S. 498-A, IPC means and includes a legally wedded wife.
The Supreme Court said that due consideration must be given to the facts which are suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offences alleged against an accused.
The Additional Sessions Judge had sentenced the Rape Convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under section 376(1) of the IPC.