Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The complainant, being a well-educated woman, preparing for Ph.D. entrance, cannot be considered a gullible or uninformed individual, and her conscious refusal to undergo medical examination despite the nature of allegations, is a relevant factor in the investigation.
It is unfortunate that despite directions from Supreme Court and this Court, the trial has not yet concluded. This was unacceptable, considering that such directions were passed while disposing of the bail application, and the accused is in judicial custody for over 10 years. Such prolonged delay in compliance with judicial directions defeats the very purpose of directing expeditious trial.
Public transport, which is meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency to an accused caught at the spot, may embolden any future for perpetrators.
A case was registered against PC George, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 196(1)(a), 299 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 120(o) of Kerala Police Act, 2011.
“It is a stark reminder of an unfortunate reality frequently observed by courts, where acts of sexual assault against children were often committed by individuals who occupy positions of trust or confidence in the child’s life. Such relationships of familiarity and trust not only provide perpetrators access to the child but also magnify the betrayal and lasting impact of the crime.”
“Youngsters are prone to commit mistakes/follies during their teens or young age for which they cannot be branded as deviant and wholly unreliable.”
“To trivialize a case of murder on the ground that the accused and the victim, being husband and wife, had an altercation and therefore, the husband being drunk at the spur of the moment, had killed her, is not only unacceptable but also shocking.”
The husband’s contention that the present case is not a case where the wife is hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, is not only unmerited but also cross the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital.
“The record shows that the petitioner (‘accused’) has committed heinous offences while he was on bail in other cases; and he has been convicted in the offences committed while on bail. When there is a long list of serious criminal involvements, the apprehension that the accused suffers from recidivism cannot be dismissed as imaginary.”
“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731 of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”
The Court stated that it is baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife has never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.
The Court directed that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on corroboration of retracted confession, dating back to the year 1954.
It is not the petitioner’s case that he was not supplied with the grounds of arrest at the time of the arrest and prior to the remand being sought. The remand application was detailed, and contained, effectively the same set of facts as were stated in the grounds of arrest.
In the present case, the complaint remained pending for several years and no application was filed by Respondent 2. Now, no purpose would be served by ordering the prosecution of the accused persons, after a long delay of 14 years, when Respondent 2 and his co-accused have already been convicted in a criminal trial, relating to the same occurrence.
The Court observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, is not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.
In the present case, there are concurrent findings that the accused persons abused the informant while he was discharging his duty in his office-cum-chamber and insulted him before public and subordinates. Further, the informant was pressurized to issue death certificate, which he was otherwise not agreeable to issue, after explaining the reasons.
Applicant along with other people, threatened the informant, a senior citizen aged about 71 years, to throw him off the train and kill him and even hit the informant on face, eyes, and stomach.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, confession of co-accused, dating back to the year 1954.
As parens patriae, the Court has the responsibility to safeguard the child’s interests and could not relinquish this duty by placing her welfare in the hands of relatives.