Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.
The Complainant had filed a second FIR against the accused just after the parties had arrived at a settlement before the Court and the first FIR against the accused was quashed.
The Court said that the Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 370-A and 506 of the IPC, as it was successfully established by the Prosecution that the victim was a minor and the statement of the victim was clear, cogent, trustworthy.
The Court pointed out that merely because the petitioner provided monetary help to the woman, it cannot be said that they are married. Since the woman was already married, there is no case of breach of promise to marry either.
by Siddharth R. Gupta†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 54
Madras High Court said that this is a case which brings out the dark side of human behavior. It focuses our attention on the ugly facets of our society; the caste system, bigotry, inhuman treatment of persons belonging to the marginalised section etc.
The Commission also recommended that the scheme of punishment provided under Section 124-A should be amended to ensure that it is brought in parity with the other offences under Chapter VI of the IPC.
Section 438 was inserted in CrPC as it was seen that the influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them by detaining them in jail for some time. It is true, such powers are to be exercised in exceptional cases. The prosecution cannot be permitted to be converted into an arena to settle scores.
Allahabad High Court noted that last year, the Trial Court convicted Kamlesh Pawan and six others for protesting against the arrest of Akhilesh Yadav and attempting to burn the statue of the then UP Chief Minister, Mayawati.