0

Friendliness does not amount to consent for a physical relationship: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently denied the anticipatory bail application of a man accused of impregnating a lady under the pretence of marriage, observing that a girl’s simple friendship with a male does not permit him to misinterpret it as her agreement to create a sexual relationship with her through Justice Bharati Dangre in the case of Ashish Ashok Chakor v. State of Maharashtra (ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1676 OF 2022)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The brief facts of the case are that  A 22-year-old woman who had only recently met the current applicant was the complainant. The applicant is accused of having forced sexual contact with her sometime in the year 2019 while she and her friend were at a third friend’s residential property. When she objected, he said that he liked her and would marry her regardless. The deed was then performed several times after that.

The complainant has described numerous instances where they engaged in sexual activity after the applicant promised to marry her. The complainant became pregnant and was discovered to be six weeks along. The applicant was called right afterwards, but he declined to accept responsibility and instead accused her of having a poor character and being involved with someone else.

JUDGEMENT:

According to the court, a sexual relationship was repeatedly established under the promise of marriage. However, the applicant claimed infidelity when the girl became pregnant, but on their final date—which was described in the complaint—he once more had forcible sex with her.

A boy cannot take a girl for granted and assume that she is willing to have a physical relationship with him just because they are friendly. It was held that a man cannot claim his friendship with a person of different sex as justification to force himself upon her when she expressly refuses copulation. Every woman expects “Respect” in a relationship, whether it be a friendship built on shared affection or a romantic one. Here, the applicant is accused of continuing a sexual relationship under the guise of marriage, but when the complainant became pregnant, he left, claiming that the pregnancy was brought on by her relationships with other people. Thus, the application was rejected.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY REETI SHETTY

Click here to view judgement

0

Court directs State to affix reflectors on all animal carts : Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Rameshwar Vyas in the case of General Manager Rajasthan State Road Transport Corp., Jaipur & Anr. v. Sonu & Anr. with other connected matters (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 429/2019) directed the State to affix reflectors on all animal carts

BRIEF FACTS: The instant appeals were filed by the appellants against the judgement & award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner whereby, the tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,500/-, Rs. 22,306/- & Rs. 19,100/- respectively along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of application. As above appeals arose from a common judgement, the same were being decided by common judgement. The claim petition was filed by the claimants with the averments that on 12.11.2005 at about 02:00 PM they were going on Camel Cart from Palana village to Bikaner. When they reached 15 kms. near Bikaner at 03:00 AM, a Bus being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, came from behind and hit the Camel Cart. Resultantly the camel died on the spot and Smt. Bano, Sonu and Fataram sustained grievous injuries, for which, claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/-, Rs. 2,27,000/-& Rs. 7,50,000/- respectively. The claim petition was opposed by the appellants herein with the averments that the accident took place on account of rash & negligent driving by the driver of Camel Cart. 

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: After considering the evidence, the Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in fastening liability of the accident on roadways bus driver. The court further remarked that it was true that the accident could have been avoided if reflectors were affixed on the back side of Camel Car. Further, with the intent to save several human lives from road accidents the Court deemed it fit to direct the State Government to evolve mechanisms so as to ensure affixing of reflectors on all types of Animal Carts, Tractor Trolleys and similar types of rides on road. 

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

0

Bail granted to murder accused who was in custody since 2015 along with her minor daughter: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Manoj Kumar Garg in the case of Simorna W/o Jitendra Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 4909/2022) bail granted to murder accused who was in custody since 2015 along with her minor daughter.

BRIEF FACTS: The present second bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who was in judicial custody for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120-B & 201 of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. The first bail application was dismissed on 15.12.2016 by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was a lady and she was injail since 02.06.2015 along with her minor daughter, who was aged about three years at that time and the trial of the case was yet pending. Counsel further submitted that the trial proceedings were not being concluded on account of failure of the witnesses in appearing before the trial court. 

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The court deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. was allowed and it was directed that petitioner be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.126/2015, Police Station Kuri Bhagtasni, District Jodhpur provided she executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for her appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trail.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

0

Under Section 23(4) Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, manufacturer is entitled to receive one sample of seized goods : Rajasthan High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan, through learned judge, Justice Birendra Kumar in the case of  Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1657/2021) held that under Section 23(4) Of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, manufacturer is entitled to receive one sample of seized goods

BRIEF FACTS:  The Drug Inspector sent a notice to the petitioner  stating therein that certain drugs were seized from the drugstore Community Health Centre, Kota. The housekeeper informed that he had procured the said Drugs from the District Drug Warehouse, Kota and DDW informed that the petitioner was the manufacturer of the said Drugs. The Inspector informed the petitioner that the Drugs were not of standard quality, for the reasons mentioned in the notice. The petitioner filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota for supplying one portion of the sample of the Drugs out of total four samples required to be prepared in view of the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT: The court observed that a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 23(4)(iii), it was clear that one part of the sample shall be sent to the person, whose name and address has been disclosed under Section 18A as manufacturer. Section 18A of the Act requires disclosure of the name of the manufacturer and not only of the Stockists. The court remarked that notice to the petitioner revealed that the name of the petitioner was disclosed as manufacturer under Section 18A and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for one sample of the seized Drugs to protect/defend his right and interest in the pending proceedings.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – AMRUTHA K

Click here to read Judgement

0

Source and authenticity are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic records sought to be used as evidence : Tripura High Court

The Tripura High Court in the case of Shri Khakchang Jamatia vs State Of Tripura (CRL.A (J) NO.10 OF 2020) upheld that source and authenticity are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic records sought to be used as evidence.

Facts of the case : An ejahar was lodged by one Birkumar Jamatia, father of the deceased with the officer-in-charge Killa P.S. stating that on 02.12.2015 at about 4.00 p.m his daughter, Binata Jamatia left for Maharani Jamtala Bazar from her house but she did not return. So, the informant with his relatives made a search for her but on 05.12.2015, at about 8.00 to 8.30 a.m, one Siddi Kumar Jamatia of his village informed that the dead body of his daughter was found on the northern side of the new road. So, the informant went there and found the dead body of his daughter lying near a tree. He also alleged that there was blood in various places on the road. He also found the mobile, urna, money bag of his daughter, and one knife. He suspected that someone had killed his daughter.

On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused-Khakchang Jamatia having found prima facie evidence for the commission of offense under Section 302/201 of IPC. 

The appellant herein argued that the call data record between the accused and the deceased as relied upon by the prosecution is not certified. In this regard, learned Sr. counsel as relied upon Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Judgment :  Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, there must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement. The person needs only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic records sought to be used as evidence. 

The call data record between the accused and the deceased prove that on 02.12.2015, at around 4.00 P.M., the victim girl received a phone call from the accused.

The call data record between the accused and the deceased, the fact that witnesses had seen the deceased and the accused in the company of each other just before the incident in the evening, the strength of the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., circumstantial evidence all put together completes the chain and link is not missing. Accused was convicted.

JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY

Click here to view the judgment

1 2 3 909
Open chat