0

Judicial Transparency and Bail Procedures: Lessons from the Supreme Court’s Ruling

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Case Title – Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha

Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024

Dated on – 19th January, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

 

 

Facts of the Case –

The appellant was arrested on 03.02.2022 for his alleged involvement in a case under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, related to the possession and transportation of 23.8 kg of Ganja. Following his arrest, his initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, on 04.02.2022. He subsequently filed a bail application (BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022) before the High Court, assigned to Judge ‘A’, which was also denied on 06.03.2023. During this period, his co-accused, Gangesh Kumar Thakur, successfully obtained bail on 17.01.2023 from Judge ‘B’.

Following the High Court’s denial, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court on 21.07.2023. While the SLP was pending, the appellant filed a second bail application, which was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 15.09.2023. Unaware of the SLP, the appellant filed another bail application before the High Court, which was granted on 11.10.2023 by Judge ‘B’.

On 06.12.2023, the appellant’s counsel informed the Supreme Court of the High Court’s recent bail order. The Supreme Court noted omissions in the High Court’s order regarding the appellant’s first bail application and the pending SLP. Consequently, the Supreme Court requested records and explanations from the involved parties, revealing that the High Court was not apprised of the earlier bail rejection or the SLP. This led to procedural discrepancies highlighted in the Supreme Court’s subsequent directives for handling similar future cases.

Legal Provision –

  • Section 439 of CrPC, 1973

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellant contended that his prolonged detention since 03.02.2022, in connection with the alleged possession and transportation of 23.8 kg of Ganja, warranted the grant of bail. He argued that the rejection of his initial bail application by the Sessions Judge and subsequently by the High Court (BLAPL No. 1855 of 2022) was unjust, especially in light of the fact that his co-accused, Gangesh Kumar Thakur, had been granted bail on 17.01.2023 under similar circumstances. The appellant maintained that the principle of parity should be applied to his case, entitling him to bail on the same grounds. Furthermore, he asserted that his second bail application, granted by the High Court on 11.10.2023, should stand, despite the procedural lapses in disclosing the pendency of his SLP before the Supreme Court and the rejection of his earlier bail application. He emphasized that the non-disclosure was not intentional and did not warrant the cancellation of his bail. The appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that the continuation of his detention was disproportionate and unjustified, given the circumstances and the bail granted to his co-accused.

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent contended that the appellant’s bail should not be granted due to the serious nature of the allegations under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, specifically Section 20(b)(ii)(C). They argued that the appellant was in conscious possession of a substantial quantity of Ganja, demonstrating a prima facie case against him. The respondent highlighted that the appellant’s initial bail application had been rightly rejected by both the Sessions Judge and the High Court, underscoring that no new circumstances justified the reconsideration of bail. Moreover, they pointed out procedural irregularities, noting that the appellant failed to disclose the pendency of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court when filing the second bail application before the High Court. This omission misled the High Court into granting bail on 11.10.2023 without considering the prior rejection and ongoing SLP. The respondent also emphasized that granting bail under these circumstances would undermine judicial propriety and the due process, as it would reward the appellant’s failure to disclose critical information, thus setting a detrimental precedent. Consequently, the respondent urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the appellant’s plea and uphold the legal process integrity.

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Supreme Court’s analysis focused on procedural integrity and judicial propriety in handling bail applications. The Court noted that the appellant had failed to disclose the pendency of his Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court while filing his second bail application before the High Court. This omission resulted in the High Court granting bail without being aware of the prior rejection and the ongoing SLP. The Court found that the appellant’s conduct in not disclosing critical information misled the judicial process, undermining the integrity and consistency of judicial proceedings.

The Court emphasized the importance of transparent and accurate disclosures in bail applications to avoid conflicting orders and ensure proper judicial review. It also reviewed the affidavit and reports from the Odisha Government and the High Court, which confirmed that the High Court was not informed about the pending SLP or the previous bail application dismissal. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of listing subsequent bail applications before the same judge who decided the earlier applications, as per the Standing Order No. 2 of 2023 from the Orissa High Court.

While recognizing the procedural lapses and the appellant’s misleading actions, the Supreme Court chose not to cancel the granted bail but imposed a token cost of ₹10,000 on the appellant, payable to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court within eight weeks. The Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous, directing the High Courts to correct procedural systems to prevent such issues in the future. A copy of the judgment was ordered to be sent to all High Courts for appropriate action, and the original record was returned to the High Court.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Anurag Das

Click here to read judgement

0

“The minor contradictions were insufficient to discredit the entire Prosecution’s case, The Supreme Court upheld a conviction in a Murder case spanning four decades”

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case title: Ramvir @ Saket Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Dated no.: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1258 of 2010

Order on: 16th April 2024

Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves the appeal filed by Ramvir @ Saket Singh (referred to as the appellant) against the judgment dated 27th July 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. The High Court had dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the judgment and order dated 9th November 1998 passed by the Vth Upper Sessions Judge, Bhind, Madhya Pradesh (referred to as the trial Court) in Session Case No. 70 of 1987. The trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellant for the murder of Kaptan Singh and the attempted murder of Indal Singh (PW-12).

The incidents in question occurred on 10th November 1985 in village Bhajai, District Bhind, Madhya Pradesh. The appellant was tried for the murders of Kaptan Singh and Kalyan Singh in two separate incidents, and for the attempted murder of Indal Singh in the incident where Kaptan Singh was killed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellants, through their counsel, vehemently denied the charges, claiming that the entire prosecution case was fabricated. They argued that the fatal injuries sustained by two members of their party were not adequately explained by the prosecution witnesses, casting doubt on the reliability of the entire case.

The appellants sought to benefit from the principle of ‘benefit of doubt,’ contending that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative, coupled with the acquittal of the complainant party in a related case, warranted acquittal for the appellant.

The defense counsel challenged the credibility of key prosecution witnesses, alleging bias due to their close relationship with the deceased. They argued that the testimonies lacked corroboration and should not be accepted as sole evidence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The prosecution vehemently contended that the case against the appellant was neither false nor fabricated. They argued that the eyewitness testimonies, particularly that of Indal Singh, provided a consistent narrative of the events leading to the crimes. The prosecution stressed that the testimonies were credible and trustworthy, backed by medical evidence and circumstantial details. The respondent refuted the appellant’s claim that the complainant party were the aggressors. They cited the outcome of a related cross-case, where members of the appellant’s party were found to be the aggressors, leading to the deaths of two individuals. This, the prosecution argued, established the pattern of violence initiated by the appellant’s side.

The prosecution highlighted the absence of injuries on the appellant despite the alleged crossfire, suggesting discrepancies in the appellant’s version of events. They argued that the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and medical reports, collectively pointed towards the guilt of the appellant.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of the IPC prescribes the Punishment for Murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 307 of the IPC prescribes Punishment for attempt to Murder: The punishment can extend up to 10 years and in case the victim is hurt, then the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life.

ISSUE –

  • Whether the prosecution’s case is based on false and fabricated evidence.
  • Whether the appellant can be acquitted based on the right of private defence.
  • Whether the witnesses for the prosecution are reliable.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and submissions presented before it. It noted the convictions in the cross-case involving members of the complainant party but highlighted that the High Court had acquitted them, affirming that the accused party was the aggressor.

The Court observed the testimony of eyewitnesses, especially Indal Singh (PW-12) and Raj Kumari (PW-7), as crucial. Despite being closely related to the deceased, their credibility was upheld, given the gravity of the incident. Their consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, substantiated the prosecution’s case.

Additionally, the Court dismissed trivial contradictions raised by the defense, emphasizing the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence.

The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit. It affirmed the conviction of the appellant, Ramvir @ Saket Singh, under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for the murder of Kaptan Singh and the attempted murder of Indal Singh. The Court’s thorough analysis and adherence to legal principles underscored the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

In summary, the case exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to justice through meticulous examination of facts and evidence, ensuring fair trial and upholding the rule of law.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View Judgement

0

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC should not be considered as an evidence: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2010

Decided on: 04.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Arvind Kumar.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This special leave appeal is based on the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s judgement and order dated July 23, 2009, in Criminal Appeal No.593-DB of 2000.

The deceased, Amrik Kaur, married the appellant, Darshan Singh, sometime in 1988. Melo Kaur, the deceased’s cousin sister, helped arrange the marriage. The prosecution claims that Darshan Singh’s illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2) strained their marital relationship. Several relatives had urged the appellant to end his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur allegedly had an illicit relationship for at least three years prior to the fateful day. The prosecution claims that on the intervening night of May 18, 1999, and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur administered poison and intentionally caused Amrik Kaur’s death.

Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were charged with violating Section 302 of the IPC in conjunction with Section 34. The Trial Court convicted both of the accused for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to life in prison. In the appeal, the High Court agreed with the Trial Court’s findings in relation to the appellant and acquitted Rani Kaur by giving her the benefit of the doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. What is the standard of proof to be met by an accused in support of his defence?
  2. If circumstantial evidence is the only basis for a conviction, what standards should be applied when assessing it?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

According to the court ruling on circumstantial evidence, the court cited the case of Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281 which held that a case involving circumstantial evidence typically follows this pattern: the circumstances from which the accused’s guilt is to be inferred must be persuasively and firmly established, they must have a clear tendency that unmistakably points to the accused’s guilt, and when the circumstances are considered cumulatively, they should form a chain so complete that there is no way out of the conclusion. According to the prosecution’s case, the illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur was the primary motivation for them to collaborate in the murder of the deceased. The testimony of witnesses provides sufficient evidence that they were in an illicit relationship. As a result, the situation has been clearly established.

When dealing with Melo Kaur’s illiteracy, the court ruled that the appreciation of evidence presented by such a witness must be treated differently than that of other witnesses. It cannot be subjected to a highly technical investigation, and undue emphasis should not be placed on imprecise details revealed in the evidence. If the deposition contains minor contradictions or inconsistencies, the testimony of a rustic/illiterate witness should not be ignored.

However, Melo kaur’s testimony suffers from more than just technical flaws; there are glaring omissions and improvements revealed during cross-examination that cannot be attributed to the individual deposition’s illiteracy. Minor contradictions and inconsistencies could have been overlooked because the recollection of exact details about location and time can be attributed to illiteracy, which is not the case here.

When discussing the standard of proof under Section 313 of the Crpc, the court cited the case of Pramila vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine SC 711 in which the court ruled that the standard of proof that an accused must meet in support of his defence under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus the prosecution bears the burden of proving the charge. The accused only needs to raise a question, and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused will not benefit from the situation.

The statement of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the accused.

The learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that no specific plea of alibi was made in the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Indeed, it is claimed that there is an implicit admission of his presence in the house. It is well established that an accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC is not ‘evidence’ because, first, it is not under oath, and second, the other party, i.e. the prosecution, is not given the opportunity to cross-examine the accused. It is well established law that a statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used as the sole basis for conviction. As a result, the appellant’s presence cannot be determined solely based on his statement, despite the lack of independent evidence presented by the prosecution.

Finally, the court ruled that we do not need to consider the evidence relating to other circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution because failure to prove a single circumstance convincingly can cause a break in the chain of circumstances. There cannot be a gap in the chain of events. When a conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, there should be no break in the chain of events. If the chain snaps, the accused has the benefit of the doubt. If some of the events in the chain can be explained by another reasonable hypothesis, then the accused is also entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As a result, the court allowed this appeal and set aside the lower court’s concurrent findings of conviction.

 

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

 

0

The Appellate courts should be cautious when intervening into convictions of lower courts: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Jitendra Kumar Mishra @ Jittu vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2011

Decided on: 05.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal.

 FACTS OF THE CASE:

Four individuals, Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya, were sentenced to life in prison under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC in a judgement and order dated September 15, 2008, by the 13th Additional Session Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur, M.P. The fine for each of the four was Rs. 5,000. If the fine was not paid, the inmates would have to serve an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.

Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, and Banti Isai and Ajayya filed appeals, and all three of them succeeded in having the conviction and sentence from the Session Trial upheld. The appeals were both dismissed by the High Court.

The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC, against which Amit Mishra, Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Banti Isai, and Ajayya have filed the current appeals.

On August 7, 2011, leave to appeal was granted for both appeals after they were tagged. While the appeal was still pending, Amit Mishra, one of the appellants, passed away. Consequently, the only person filing the appeal is the appellant, Jitendra Kumar Mishra.

At roughly 8:45 p.m. on June 8, 2007, the incident happened in front of the Machchu Hotel, which is under the control of the Ghamapur Police Station in Jabalpur and is close to the Shukla Hotel. Rajendra Yadav perished in the aforementioned incident. It is alleged that he was beaten and assaulted by all four accused while leaving the Machchu Hotel with his friends Virendra Verma and Amit Jha. The accused are said to have used a knife along with other weapons like a sickle and kesia.

Rajkumar Yadav, the deceased’s brother, and Usha Rani Yadav, his mother, received information regarding the alleged beating and assault of the deceased Pappu from Virendra Kumar.

They brought the dead to the Ghamapur Police Station in a rickshaw. Before pronounced him dead, complainant Rajkumar Yadav brought the deceased to Victoria Hospital in Jabalpur for medical attention.

The prosecution’s starting point is the decedent’s dying declaration. It’s the last statement made orally. The deceased made it for his brother Rajkumar Yadav and mother Usha Rani Yadav.

The deceased said that Banti Isai, Manja, and Ajay attacked him with knives, daggers, and kasia, respectively, and that Jittu grabbed both of his hands. The last line of the statement above answers the question the deceased’s mother asked after seeing her son lying in a pool of blood on the road.

One of the eyewitnesses, Rahul Yadav, has given testimony in addition to the previously mentioned dying declaration.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The court convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The crime of murder is covered in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Section 302 of the Code, however, stipulates the punishment for the offender. This Section states that a murderer will either receive life in prison or the death penalty in addition to a fine.

Section 34 of the IPC defines the acts committed by several people in furtherance of a common intention. The section states that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court found that the one Rahul Yadav is a relative of the deceased Pappu Yadav and thus cannot be considered a free and independent witness. The evidence shows that he has a criminal background. He is involved in one of the cases filed under Sections 324 and 326 IPC. Given his background, his testimony must be treated with extreme caution and cannot be relied on blindly without taking into account any available corroborating evidence on record.

The court said that the deceased did not mention in his alleged dying declaration or the statement given to his brother and mother that someone attempted to save him or that the above witness Rahul Yadav came to his aid but was forced to flee. Furthermore, the FIR does not mention the presence of Rahul Yadav. All of these factors cast serious doubt on the presence of Rahul Yadav, and the conviction cannot be based solely on his testimony.

The FIR stated that Virendra and Amit Jha, the deceased’s friends who were present at the time of the incident, witnessed the incident.

And the deceased Rajkumar Yadav’s brother works as a lawyer. The deceased’s brother and mother had rushed to the scene after receiving information about the incident from Virendra Kumar, who had gone to their house after witnessing the accused persons assaulting the deceased. All of this could have taken 15-25 minutes, implying that by the time they arrived at the scene, the deceased would not have survived long enough to make a declaration. There is no specific material piece of evidence to establish that the deceased was alive and in a position to speak when his brother and mother arrived at the spot. In these circumstances, the dying declaration cannot be accepted as correct without supporting evidence. There is no evidence to support the said dying declaration.

It also said that the appellate court should proceed cautiously in interfering with the conviction recorded by the courts below; however, where the evidence on record indicates that the prosecution has failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that a plausible view other than the one expressed by the courts below can be taken, the appellate court should not hesitate to grant the accused persons the benefit of the doubt.

Given the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court believes that the lower courts should have given the appellants the benefit of the doubt. As a result, they believe that the appellants’ conviction and sentence are reversible, and they do so by granting the benefit of the doubt.

 

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

0

Legal Conundrum: POCSO Act vs. SC/ST Act – The Bombay High Court’s Perspective

Blog , , ,

Case Title – Dinanath Manik Katkar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2589 of 2023

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.

Decided on: 13th September 2023

Introduction

In a recent landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court weighed the conflicting provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sending ripples through the legal community. The court’s decision hinges on the critical issue of anticipatory bail when allegations under the POCSO Act are not prima facie established against the accused. In this blog, we delve into the background, the court’s decision, and the implications of this ruling.

Facts of the case

The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case under multiple IPC sections, the POCSO Act of 2012, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) of 1989, and the Atrocities Act. The atrocities based on caste, sexual harassment, and violence were among the charges. The trial judge rejected the accused’s request for anticipatory bail. He therefore went to the high court. Instead of filing an appeal under Section 14A of the Atrocities Act, he requested anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.

The Legal Conundrum

The crux of the matter lies in the conflict between these two statutes when an individual accused of a sexual offense against a child seeks anticipatory bail. The question at hand is whether the provisions of anticipatory bail in the POCSO Act should prevail over the SC/ST Act when allegations under the POCSO Act are not prima facie established.

In its recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has held that the provisions of anticipatory bail in the POCSO Act would not prevail over the provisions of appeal in the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act if the allegations under the POCSO Act are not prima facie made out against the accused.

The court reasoned that the SC/ST Act, being a special legislation, must be given precedence in cases involving individuals from these marginalized communities. It cited the principle of harmonious construction of statutes and the need to protect the rights and interests of SC/ST communities as the basis for its decision.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals from SC/ST communities. It ensures that the special provisions of the SC/ST Act are not diluted when cases involve multiple statutes. This ruling sets a legal precedent that may influence similar cases in other jurisdictions. Courts in India may consider this decision when dealing with conflicts between different statutes. The judgment highlights the significance of interpreting laws in a manner that upholds the principles and objectives of each statute, especially when they seem to overlap. The Bombay High Court’s decision provides clarity on the legal procedures to be followed when allegations under the POCSO Act are not immediately substantiated, especially when an accused seeks anticipatory bail.

The Atrocities Act’s Section 14A supersedes the Criminal Procedure Code by stating that any judgement, sentence, or order, as well as the granting or refusing of bail by a Special Court, may be appealed to the High Court. An accused person under the Atrocities Act is prohibited from filing an anticipatory bail application under section 438 of the CrPC, according to section 18 of the Act. In the event of any conflict, the POCSO Act’s non-obstante clause, included in Section 42A, will take precedence over all other laws.

The court stated that when two statutes contain non-obstante clauses, the later enactment is deemed to prevail since it is inferred that the legislature was aware of the earlier statute and decided to give the later statute superseding force. The court made it clear that in order for this concept to be applicable, the offences that are punishable by the later law (in this example, the POCSO Act) must be prima facie proven. Some claims involved crimes covered by the Atrocities Act, like insulting a Scheduled Caste member’s modesty and caste-based abuse. Additionally, it was claimed that the defendant purposefully videotaped girls dancing in a procession. The court concluded that this did not constitute a prima facie case under the POCSO Act.

In order to avoid violating Section 438 of the CrPC, the court instructed the petitioner to submit an appeal as provided for in Section 14A of the Atrocities Act.

The applicant was granted permission by the court to turn the anticipatory bail application into an Atrocities Act appeal. The court allowed the applicant the freedom to bring up the issue before the relevant bench and ordered the necessary changes to be made as soon as possible.

“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- Shivanshi Singh, NMIMS Law School Mumbai

 

Click here to view your Judgement

1 2