Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of P.K. Lohra and Manoj Kumar Garg, JJ. allowed the application which was made on behalf of applicant petitioners for modification of order dated February 2018.

In the application, it was averred that while allowing the writ petition filed by petitioners, the Court had also directed the petitioners to deposit Provident Fund amount drawn by them with interest @ 6% within two months from the date of passing of order. It was further averred that subsequently endeavor was made by petitioners for seeking modification of the order and extension of the period for depositing the amount aforesaid, which was allowed by the Court and lastly the Court allowed various employees/petitioners to deposit the amount latest by 31st of August, 2018. The Counsel for the petitioners had informed the Court that petitioners had already deposited requisite PF amount with interest before 31st of August, 2018.

The Court directed the State Government to accept the same and proceed to carry out the directions of the judgment as was carried out in the case of other employees. [Shiv Singh Dulawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 158Order dated 19-02-2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta JJ., while delivering an order stated that the scheme proposed by National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for compensating the victims of sexual assault, acid attack and other crimes require modification to “some extent”.

Background of the scheme:

The Supreme Court of India in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 565 of 2012 had opined that “it would be appropriate if NALSA sets up a Committee of about 4 or 5 persons who can prepare Model Rules for Victim Compensation for sexual offences and acid attacks taking into account the submissions made by the learned Amicus. The learned Amicus, as well as the learned Solicitor General, have offered to assist the Committee as and when required. The Chairperson or the nominee of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women should be associated with the Committee.”

Further, the committee had finalized the “Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes” and submitted the same before the Supreme Court on 24-04-2018.

As per NALSA’s scheme, the victim of gangrape in any part of the country would now get a minimum compensation of Rs 5 lakhs and up to a maximum of Rs 10 lakhs. Similarly, in case of rape and unnatural sexual assault, the victim would get a minimum of Rs 4 lakhs and maximum of Rs 7 lakhs as compensation. The scheme also says that victim of acid attacks, in case of disfigurement of face, would get a minimum compensation of Rs 7 lakhs, while the upper limit would be Rs 8 lakhs. In acid attack cases, if the injury was more than 50 percent, a minimum compensation of Rs 5 lakhs would be given, while the maximum would be Rs 8 lakhs.

Hence, in the present order, the Supreme Court stated that slight modifications in the above-mentioned scheme were required in order to embed the “child victims” under it as well.


Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Modifying the earlier order, the Court said that a person will now be disqualified if he or she has been an Office Bearer of the BCCI or any State Cricket Association for a cumulative period of 18 years i.e. if he/she has served separate 9 years terms at BCCI and State Cricket Association.

Earlier on 02.01.2017, the Court had laid down various grounds for disqualification which included serving a cumulative period of 9 years as an Office Bearer of the BCCI. On 03.01.2017, the Court modified this disqualification and said that serving a cumulative period of 9 years as an Office Bearer of the BCCI or any State Cricket Association would lead to disqualification.

The names of the members of the Committee of Administrators are likely to be announced on 24.01.2017.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: While dealing with a death reference the Court cancelled the death sentence awarded by Trial Court to a person convicted for rape and murder of an Eight year old girl, by modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced him to ten years imprisonment. The court allowed the appeal in part and but did not approve the death sentence reference. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to death for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has also sentenced the appellant for the offence under Sections 363, 376(2)(f) and 201 IPC.

The division bench comprising of Nadira Patherya and Debi Prosad Dey JJ. said that “It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of this case that the convict had no intention to commit murder of the victim but the victim could not bear the violent onslaught of the convict at the time of commission of such offence under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The convict had also definite knowledge that by such action the victim could have died.  Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court we do hold that such offence of the convict would squarely fall within the purview of Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly we reduce the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Judge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 10(ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) i.d. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2(two) years.”

The Court further also set aside conviction under Section 201 IPC by stating: “Admittedly, the convict/appellant after commission of such offence concealed the dead body under water hyacinth of a pond in order to cause dis-appearance of the evidence of offence but ultimately the dead body was recovered pursuant to the information given by the convict/appellant. The convict/appellant also did not conceal the whereabouts of the dead body though initially he had concealed the dead body.  Therefore we do not find any applicability of Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.” However the Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed for the offence under Section 376(2)(f)  & 363 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench further said that, ‘we answer the death reference in the negative and modify the sentence awarded by learned trial Judge, as stated herein above and set aside the order of conviction and sentence against the convict in respect of the offence under Section 302 (by reducing the same under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code.’ [Binay Majhi v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No.857 of 2013, Decided on 19.05.2016]