Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The prosecution case has crumbled like a house of cards. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the accused was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon.
The report submitted by the Committee nowhere suggests that prescription of irrational combination of medicines by applicant is responsible for brain hemorrhage and consequential death of complainant’s wife.
by Arjun V. Harihar*
It was stated that to attract Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused must cheat and dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter, or destroy a part of valuable property.
It is alleged that the local MLA-the petitioner and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization from the petitioner’s mobile number.
The Court stated that mere fact that at present hospitalisation was not required and the applicant can be treated on outpatient basis did not disentitle the applicant from grant of medical bail.
The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is sine qua non for the offence under Section 153-A1 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 stated that a person who tried to commit suicide, enjoyed a statutory presumption about mental stress and having regard to such presumption, is excluded from being put on trial.
Prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences were punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC. However, despite disclosing commission of cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR.
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.
The Court stated that admittedly, the death is homicidal, and the doctor also found that the cause of death is injury, which was inflicted upon the deceased persons. Therefore, the ocular evidence corroborates with the medical evidence.
The physical contact made by the accused with the girls coupled with the words uttered by him could only lead to one inference that the touch was with sexual intent.
The Court referred to Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer that “to be poor, in this land of Daridranayan, is no crime, and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means”.
The Court noted that apart from one WhatsApp message, which was not incriminating, nothing else was found from the raid at the petitioner house. Still the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2½ years.
“Though an attempt was made to portray the incidents that led to the registration of the crime as one having transnational ramifications based upon the affidavit of the State Government filed in the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the circumstances do not persuade this Court to rely on the said averment to direct a CBI investigation”
The Court stated that allowing the proceedings to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The unusual condition, which was imposed and later, was not modified, clearly shows that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.
The Court stated that this is not a case of ransom because the appellants had not called the complainant’s wife to pay ransom, and it is possible that they were planning to receive the rest of the amount of the vehicle from ‘X’.
The Court referred to Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770, wherein it was held that the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the syndicate commits organised crime either individually or jointly.