Uncategorized Archives - Page 4 of 72

31 Jan

No further extension of imprisonment necessary after serving 8 years in prison: SC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: PRAMILA V STATE OF MP CHHATTISGARH

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 2012

Dated on: 23.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Facts of the case

In the present case an appeal is filed by Ms. Pramila against the orders of the Chhattisgarh HC which convicted the appellant for life imprisonment. The appellant was charged with the offence of murder and causing destruction of evidence while she was juvenile. Through the findings of the sessions court, it was established that the appellant was 17 years, 9 months and 14 days old when she committed the crime in 1988 at the time when the juvenile justice care and protection of the children act was not in force.

Issues

whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the offence and whether she should be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986?

Legal provision

The appellant in this case was charged with section 302, read with section 201 and 34 of the IPC. 302- charges of murder, 201- deliberately causing disappearance of the evidence and 34- joint liability in commission of a crime. Along with the provisions from IPC questions were also raised whether the appellant should be convicted under sec 22 and similar provision under sec 16 of the JJ act 1986 which prohibits the sentencing of juveniles to impressment and only allows a maximum sentencing to confinement to a special home.

Court analysis and judgement

The supreme court in the present case after reviewing various precedents and provisions of IPC and juvenile justice act 1986 as well as Juvenile case and protection act 2000 observed that the appellant has already undergone incarceration for a period of 8 years there will be no more purpose served by sending appellant before the Juvenile Justice board and came to the conclusion to set aside the orders of HC and allow the appeal of the Ms Pramila.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

28 Jan

Testimonies of witnesses in question for acquitting the accused in murder trial of his wife: SC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: DARSHAN SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 163 of 2010

Dated on: 5.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

Facts of the case

In this present case the late Amrik Kaur got married to Darshan Singh in 1988. Melo Kau, Amrik Kaur’s cousin sister, made the arrangements for their union. However, because of the reported extramarital relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, what started off as a happy marriage quickly descended into turmoil. According to the prosecution, the tense marriage served as a fertile foundation for a covert affair that lasted for an important three years. Allegations of the Night: The prosecution’s case is cantered on the dreadful events that transpired on the nights of May 18, 1999, and May 19, 1999. It claims that Amrik Kaur was purposefully poisoned by Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, who were motivated by a desire to kill her. Dismissing any possibility of suicide, the Trial Court declared the incident to be a homicide. It was predicated on the idea that Darshan Singh had a strong reason for planning the murder of his wife. The court gave great weight to the fact that both of the accused were there in the house on that pivotal night. The dismissal of the suicide theory was rooted in the absence of visible injuries on the deceased’s body, with the court asserting that this alone did not negate the possibility of a forceful administration of the poisonous substance. Subsequently in the High court cleared Rani Kaur conviction despite maintaining Darshan Singh’s conviction. The Court’s reasoning was based on the benefit of doubt that was given to Rani Kaur because there was no hard proof other than evidences testimony.

Legal proceeding

In the present case Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur faced charges under Section 302 r/w- punishment for murder Section 34- joint liability of criminals of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and circumstances, delivered a verdict that shook the accused a conviction for the offense under Section 302 r/w Section 34 as the court (Trial) came to the conclusion that the two in a joint act committed the act of murder and subsequently Life imprisonment was the consequential sentence imposed on both. But in the high court the co-accused (lady rani Kaur) escaped liability since the sole proof of her crime was dependent upon a statement testimonial.

Issues

Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the appellant and the co-accused in the house of the deceased on the night of the murder, based on the statement given in the testimony?

Whether the death of the deceased (Amrik Kaur) was caused by poisoning with aluminium phosphide, and whether it was a case of homicide or suicide?

Whether the appellant had a motive to kill his wife due to his illicit relationship with the co-accused?

Court Judgement and analysis

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and reversed the concurrent verdicts of guilt. The Court determined that the prosecution did not demonstrate the appellant’s and Rani Kaur’s presence in the residence firmly and convincingly, testimony. The Court further determined that the appellant had aroused doubts in the minds of the judges about his argument that the dead had committed suicide, and that the prosecution had failed to rule this out. The Court further found that the appellant could not be convicted purely based on his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that he deserved the benefit of doubt.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

25 Jan

SC grants extension for investigation and prolongs judicial custody of accused in terrorism case

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: STATE OF NCT OF DELHI v RAJ KUMAR @ LOVEPREET

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.) NO.2503 OF 2021)

Dated on: 3.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Facts of the case

In the present case between state of NCT Delhi (appellant) and Raj Kumar (Respondent), the respondent was faced a series of charges, which included offences under unlawful prevention and arms act due to which he was arrested immediately. The case stared off with respondent being held by police in custody for 3 days followed by a transfer to the judicial custody. Later the respondent was moved to Mandoli Jail, New Delhi where he was made to stay for 90 days during which investigation was allocated.

The period framed for investigation lapsed after 90 days due to which the investigating officers sought extension for a period of two months siting multifaceted reasons and the trial court grated the extension for the same However, the operative part of the order highlighted that the extension was primarily sought due to pending mandatory sanction from the GNCT (Government of National Capital Territory) Delhi. Aggrieved by this decision the respondent filed for a bail application in the trial court where it was rejected. Undeterred, the respondent filed an appeal in the high court where his appeal relying upon precedents.

Legal provision

The present case involves various legal provisions a from different statues which are Sections 13/18/20 from unlawful activates and prevention act (UAPA): These sections charge the respondent with a number of charges including conspiracy, engaging in illegal activity, and belonging to a terrorist group.

Section 43D(2)(b) of (UAPA): Given the circumstances of the case, this section is essential. It contains clauses that allow the investigation period to be extended past the deadline set by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The justifications for the extension of investigation.

Sections 45(1) and 45(2) deal with getting approval for a prosecution. The State highlights the necessity of obtaining the outstanding section 45(2) sanction from the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCT Delhi).

Section 167(2) (CrPc): The High Court granted default bail to the respondent in accordance with this section. When the inquiry is not finished in the allotted period, it deals with the accused person’s release. Section 482: The High Court granted default bail based on a petition filed by the respondent under this provision to set aside the orders pertaining to the extension of the investigation term.

Issue

Whether the extension of the period of investigation beyond 90 days was valid and justified under section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA?

Court analysis and judgement

In the present case the Hon’ble SC after reviewing the matter held that the extension was allowed for legitimate reasons in accordance with section 43D(2)(b) of the UAPA and that the inquiry was finished within the extended term, setting aside the High Court’s ruling and restoring the Trial Court’s. in spite of providing several justifications for the request for an extension, including impending sanctions and an FSL report. The Supreme Court concludes that the High Court erred in relying on a TADA judgment, which had provisions that differed from those of the UAPA. The terrorist acts had an impact on both India and other countries, and the Supreme Court acknowledges the seriousness and magnitude of the offence and set aside the order of HC and allowed the appeal.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgement

23 Jan

Bharaitya Sakshya Bill, 2023 : Major changes as regards to documents and electronic record

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #criminallaws, #indianevidenceact, #law, #legalnews

Introduction :

The union government of India in August 2023 proposed three bills which plan to change the criminal laws of the country. It also includes the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is now likely to be the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The new bill introduces the ambit of electronic evidence and secondary evidence in a court of law. The definition of secondary evidence is expanded, including written evidence.

Following are the major changes made in the new bill.

S.NO	Nature	Indian Evidence Act	Bharatia Sakshya Abhiniyam
1	Short title	The Indian Evidence Act, 1972 – S(1)	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – S(1)
2	Application	Whole of India – S(1)	Applies to all judicial proceedings before any court except cases in front of an arbitrator. – S(1)
3	Documents	S(3) – Means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one means.	The document is inclusive of electronic and digital records. – S(2)(1)
4	Evidence	All statements the court permits including electronic record which is called as documentary evidence – S(3)	Evidence is inclusive of statements or any information given electronically or digitally -Section 2(1)
5	IT Act definitions	Omitted – S(3)	Whatsoever terms used as per the IT act will be referred to the Act itself. – S(2)
6	Confessions	S(28) and S(29) were omitted which spoke about confessions made under coercion or promise of secrecy.	Proviso clause which amalgamated both S(28) and S(29) together – Section 22
7	Relevancy of statements	Colonial references were removed – S(37)	Courts can now form opinions of a public fact based on electronic records or digital information. S(31)
8	Relevancy of statements with respect to any information contained in law books	The law book should be published or printed under the authority of the Government – S(38)	Addition of law books in e-form or digital form which the court can take into consideration. – S(32)
9	Facts of which court must take judicial notice	Colonial references such as acts passed by the Parliament of the UK, Proceedings of the parliament of UK, accession and the sign manual of the sovereign of UK or Ireland were omitted – S(57)	The court shall take notice of such as law including territorial operation, international treaties, conventions, parliament or state legislatures included – S(52)
10	Primary evidence	Section 62 – The scope of primary evidence was widened	Section 57 : 1. If an electronic or digital record is stored, and multiple copies are made of such files, each such copy would be regarded as primary evidence, provided there is an uniformity with the original document. 2. If electronic evidence is produced through custody, it will be considered as a primary evidence 3. Video recording which is recorded and transmitted is primary evidence 4. Temporary files are primary evidences if they are electronic in nature.
12	Secondary evidence	Certified copies, copies from the original, oral documents were secondary evidence – S(63)	Oral admissions, Written admissions, evidence of a person who has examined a document and is also skilled to examine such documents was added to the already existing scope of secondary evidence – S(58)
13	Admissibility of electronic record or digital signature	N/A	Treats electronic evidence as part of the documentary evidence- they have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as paper records.
14	Admissibility of electronic record	S(65B)(3) – storage of documents in multiple devices – omitted	1. Information contained in Semiconductor memory which is produced by a communication device or recorded in any other form was added in Section 65B(1), subsequently renamed as Section 63 2. The information can be stored in standalone mode, on a computer system or computer network or a computer resource or an intermediary.
15	Public and private documents	Covered under S(74) – Public documents which are publicly available such as records forming the sovereign, tribunals, public officers etc and any other documents are private documents as per S(75)	Public and private documents were covered in one Section – S(74)
16	Gazette publication in electronic form	The court shall presume genuineness of every gazetter publication in electronic form	Included digital record in its scope

Conclusion :

The major changes done in the Bill was in the format of the Act itself, such as numbering and clubbing redundant provisions together. Another major change done was the inclusion of digital records, electronic signatures and electronic records under the scope of documents which are admissible.

It is primitive to note that the Bill is in line with the Information Technology Act which presupposes the electronic record as a document itself.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

References :

The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023: An Overview of the changes to Indian Evidence Act, 18721 (3/3) – https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8ca4eb70-8e3f-4da8-a3a9-61b28e6e2aaa
Major Changes Made in the Bharatia Sakshya Act, 2023, as regards Documents – https://indianlawlive.net/2024/01/17/major-changes-made-in-the-bharatia-sakshya-act-1923-as-regards-documents/
Bharatiya Sakshya Bill: Implications of Proposed Changes to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – https://www.nls.ac.in/blog/bharatiya-sakshya-bill-implications-of-proposed-changes-to-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/

23 Jan

SEBI to continue investigation on volatility of Adani shares: SC

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: Vishal Tiwari v UOI

Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 162 of 2023

Dated on: 3.1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI

Facts of the case

In this present case the writ petition was filed by a bunch of petitioners before the supreme court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution – To seek enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The petition raised concern over the decrease in the number of investors volatility and wealth in the present share market due to fall in the share prices of the Adani Group companies. It was alleged that the Adani group manipulated their share price and violated the SEBI regulations and provisions of securities legislation.

In this contention, the petitioners contended that the SEBI overlooked upon the securities and exchange in India and failed to conduct a verified investigation into the market manipulation by the Adani Groups. Due to the mishandling of SEBI’s investigation the petitioners urged the transform of case to special investigation team or to an alternate agency.

Additionally, the petitioners have also raised concerns to the Supreme court about the composition of the opinion of expert committee in this matter. They alleged that certain members of this expert committee have a conflict of interest and may be predisposed to bias, thereby questioning the impartiality in the proceeding. Their claim also emphasis on the importance of the unbiased and objective evaluation of the allegation made against the Adani group.

Legal Provision

In the present case the petitioners filed a writ in the supreme court under the article 32 of the Indian constitution Article 32 of the Constitution: This article grants the right to constitutional remedies to the citizens of India, allowing them to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

Issues

1.Whether there was a regulatory failure by SEBI?

2.Whether the members of the Expert Committee had a conflict of interest?

3.What are the recommendations of the Expert Committee?

Court analysis and Judgement

The hon’ble court after analysing the merits of the case came to the conclusion that the SEBI did not fail in following the regulatory procedure and it acted promptly in conducting the investigation and took up appropriate actions and the court ordered for a restrictive time frame for the SEBI to complete its investigation and not extend it indefinitely. The court also observed that it cannot transfer the investigation from SEBI to another agency or a special investigation team as there is no strong evidence indicating that SEBI has portrayed inadequacy or bias in the investigation. The allegation against the expert committee and their conflict of interest is unsubstantiated and the court suggests to the government of India and SEBI to consider the suggestions made by the expert committee. Lastly the court disposed off the petition.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 72