May 5, 2011
Democratic war
Democratic war: "The Lokpal should be headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court with impeccable integrity. There has to be a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court"
Dhan Bahadur @ Raju Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi on 25 February, 2011
Hon’ble Court observed as under
'it is clear that prosecutrix was not a normal child and was suffering from mild mental retardation and was not in a position to communicate properly. For this reason, non-examination of prosecutrix in court will not be fatal in this case....it cannot be expected that witness will absorb all the details and reproduce it in the testimony. In State v. Saravanan and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152, Supreme Court has held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. '
May 4, 2011
State of UP Vs Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 Supreme Court
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under
"To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of IPC nor the Explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC. That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on the victim and she was subjected to sexual assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her."May 3, 2011
State of Gujarat Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr AIR 1987 SC 1321,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under
"...To deny the opportunity to remove the formal defect was to abort a case against an alleged economic offender. Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."May 2, 2011
State of Bihar and Ors Vs Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors AIR 1983 SC 684
Evidence Act- Document- admissibility vs value -"Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and the weight of its probative value may be nil."
In Ramrajsingh Vs State of MP and another (2009) 6 SCC 729
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under
"To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The description should be clear. It is true that precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be reproduced and the court can always come to a conclusion in facts of each case. But still in the absence of any averment or specific evidence the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable."May 1, 2011
Subodh S Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M Shah & Another, VII (2008) SLT 127
CrPC- complaint - amendment- complaint petition was sought to be amended by adding Section 420 of IPC in the complaint. It was held by the Court that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)