Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The evidence of a child witness can easily be influenced by the elders in the family. Acceptance of the child witness evidence would be dangerous in the present circumstances of the case as the evidence appears to be a result of tutoring. Not examining the father and grandfather of the victim, who were sleeping by the side of the victim girl is fatal to the prosecution case”.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Top criminal cases on quashing of proceedings, arrest, bail, acquittal, and more.
“The medical evidence on record does not support the allegation made by prosecutrix and there is no other corroboration of the version of the victim.”
“The prime object of FIR, from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged activity to enable them to take suitable steps to trace and book the guilty. FIR is an important document, though not a substantial piece of evidence, and may be put in evidence to support or contradict the evidence of its maker viz., the informant.”
The accused was arrested in 2012 on the suspicion of murdering his wife, mother and 2-year-old daughter. In 2016, the Trial Court convicted him and imposed death penalty which was confirmed by Bombay High Court
Brij Bihari Prasad, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was murdered in 1998. The High Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision and acquitted the accused persons.
The Court emphasised that in order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. The presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused throughout the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court.
“Madras High Court said that, in the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish that there indeed was a crime. In fact, there is an abuse of judicial process when the victim set a criminal law in motion, perhaps with a false FIR”
Apart from the right to get Exit Permit, the Chinese woman needs to be adequately compensated for the mental agony, trauma, and sufferings undergone by her due to the conduct of Respondent 2, Union of India. Thus, Respondent 2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs 10,00,000 as compensation.
In a high-stakes murder case, the Calcutta High Court’s division bench delivered a split verdict. Justice Soumen Sen commuted the death sentence to 30 years of imprisonment, while Justice Partha Sarathi Sen ordered an outright acquittal. The case has now been referred to the Chief Justice for further directions.
“If the Investigating Agency decides not to prefer the appeal against acquitted person, then a person who has interest in the case, which primarily involves misconduct of a public servant who happened to be an elected member in the democratic process, in which, that person is a voter, have a say, and he cannot be deprived of the advantage of perusing the records and arrive at a conclusion.”
“The Court below lost sight of the rudimentary principle governing rape and convicted the convict on the strength of the gospel that Indian women do not lie in such matters, which cannot be sustained, as the facts surrounding each and every case and the evidence available ought to form the basis of arriving at a finding, and the surrounding scenario cannot be the basis to render a finding.”
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
The Court noted that the conviction was solely based on last seen evidence and it was not corroborated with any evidence, hence it could not be said to be just and proper.
“Call Details Record of the victim would have reflected her location which could have even strengthened the case of prosecution but is not explicable as to why such valuable piece of evidence was not bothered to be collected. Thus, a golden opportunity went begging.”
Supreme Court, while refusing to interfere with the acquittal order, also pointed out the fact that all 6 people had been acquitted twice by the different Benches of Bombay High Court.
“While human emotions know no bounds and rules, but definitely human sensibilities emanating from mind shall have prevailed for an educated person like appellant to have reigned his affections for third person, with scant regard for respondent who reposed complete faith by entering into vows of marriage.”
Supreme Court commented that “the criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment” as happened in the instant matter which started in 1993 and came to an end in 2024, after 30 years of suffering.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.