Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The prosecutrix is not an accomplice but rather the victim and the sole injured witness of the assault, and thus her evidence assumes great evidentiary value. But where she declines to identify the perpetrators, she is either a consenting party, or the persons being tried are not the actual perpetrators.”
The present case is of year 2005, the judgment was delivered on 29-5-2006 and now it has been more than 19 years which has passed. Therefore, it will not be in the interest of the accused to remit or remand the matter to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the accused concerned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
“In a democracy, of the people, by the people, and for the people, peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Simply because an individual took to the streets to protest in order to safeguard their rights when their interests were affected does not imply that they have committed offences.”
“Even otherwise Section 67 of the IT Act is for obscene material and not for provocative material. The words “lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest” mean relating to sexual interest and desire, therefore, Section 67 IT Act does not prescribe any punishment for other provocative material.”
“In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, an onerous duty is cast upon the Courts to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of his liberty.”
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Civil suit — Maintainability — Issue of territorial jurisdiction — Adjudication of, as preliminary issue
“The fact that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe may have caused some discomfort among the Trustees, leading to the denial of access. Such conduct by the Trustees is unacceptable.”
“It does not appeal to logic and probability that persons in the mob of Muslim Community will raise slogan of “Jai Shree Ram” or they will beat a Muslim person, while acting as part of a mob in a communal riot between Hindu and Muslim.”
Considering the nature of the alleged offences and the available evidence, the Calcutta High Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner to proceed to trial.
It is not that democracy and sovereignty are at crossroads. It is only that democratic rights have to be exercised in a lawful manner, so that order in society, which sovereignty has to uphold at all costs, is not lost.
The Supreme Court doubted the prosecution’s story due to various lacunas existing in it, the manner in which the investigation was conducted and the material inconsistency in the statements of the eyewitnesses.
Prior to being appointed as Allahabad High Court’s 50th Chief Justice, Justice Pritinker Diwaker had been working as the High Court’s Acting Chief Justice after elevation of former Chief Justice, Rajesh Bindal
Supreme Court noted that one of the reasons for overcrowding of jails given by the Allahabad High Court in the impugned order cannot be considered for releasing on bail in the offences of serious nature
“A protest cannot be allowed to endanger others, damage property, restrict essential services and such a protest cannot receive constitutional protection. The acts of violence and violent speech that instigates violence and endangers rule of law, damage public property and peace are not protected under the Indian Constitution.” opined the Delhi High Court
Allahabad High Court released Nandi on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to deposition of fine
Ansad Badruddin and Firoz Khan, members of PFI were denied bail by Allahabad High Court, as various contraband articles were recovered from their possession, including a diary disclosing their aim and object of fighting against Hindu religious organisations and to promote the ideology of PFI.
Kerala High Court: In a case relating to a complaint for offences under Sections 143, 147, 149 and 283 of
Karkardooma Court, Delhi: In a case filed by the State against the two accused Yogender Singh and Suraj under Section 147/148/149/427/436 Penal
Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Karnataka High Court's reversal of acquittal of 2 out of the 22 accused
Kerala High Court: Calling it to be ‘moral policing’ K. Haripal, J., addressed a matter wherein a man had taken a lady