Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to how the present case is ‘rarest of the rare case’ even though the accused has committed the gravest offence.
Kerala High Court said that there was no undue delay in filing the FIR, as the relationship was predicated on the promise of marriage
No doubt, offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused is of heinous nature, but guilt, if any, of the petitioner is yet to be established on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
‘No reason to interfere with the well-considered findings.’ The High Court’s and Trial Court’s decision for convicting the man for offence under Section 376 of IPC was upheld.
The State did not oppose the recall of the termination order but contended that the it cannot be directed to bear the medical expenses of the delivery.
The complaint was lodged by the victim’s mother, leading to the registration of a case under IPC and POCSO Act.
Asaram Bapu was sentenced to life imprisonment for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC for raping a sevika at Surat Ashram, in the name of her promotion as an orator for religious discourses.
The Court further pointed out that while considering the bail applications, the factors which are required to be considered are nature of offence, gravity thereof and societal impact etc.
In the earlier order, the Supreme Court directed CBI to file a status report on the progress in the investigation of the crime at RG Kar Medical College Hospital on 22-08-2024. The State of West Bengal was also directed to file a status report by 22-08-2024 on the progress of the investigation on the acts of vandalism which took place at the Hospital in the aftermath of the incident.
Supreme Court said that as more and more women join the work force, the nation cannot wait for another rape for things to change on the ground.
“The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given”- Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault). The decision was based on an amicable settlement between the parties, with no costs imposed on either side. This case underscores the court’s recognition of mutually agreed resolutions in certain criminal proceedings.
The complainant was adult enough to know that the law forbids a second marriage and there was no allegation in the complaint that applicant promised to divorce his first wife and then marry her.
The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the contentions of either party, as trial was pending in the matter.
“Effacing abominable offences through quashing process would not only send a wrong signal to the community, but may also accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or professional offenders, who can secure a “settlement” through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or other dubious means”
The Court noted that Section 90 of IPC does not define the term “consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as consent.
In the guise of loving the minor girl, the boy had poured some intoxicating substance in the tea which made the girl unconscious and had aggravated sexual intercourse with her.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
There was no occasion for the State to file the present appeal, as once it is on record that the prosecutrix was living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the respondent and the prosecutrix.
The Court held that while delay in reporting rape is not always material, in the present case, it is crucial due to the complainant’s history and the timing of her allegations.