0

“The High Court of Karnataka Grants Anticipatory Bail to Rape Accused Due to Lack of Evidence of Coercion or False Promises in Allegations.”

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , , , , , , ,

Case Title – Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number – Criminal Petition No. 2020/2024

Dated on – 18th April 2024

Quorum – Justice Rajendra Badamikar

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Varun Kumar, instituted a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in apprehension of his arrest in Crime No. 50/2024 of the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru. The present case concerns the allegations of offenses under Section 376(3) of the and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 4(2), 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Complainant in the present case (further referred herein as “Victim”) claimed that the Appellant started profaning her on Instagram, when she was in the minor age of 16 years old in 2018, despite her disinterest. The Victim accused the Appellant of frequently raping her from 2019 to 2023 in various locations on the pretence of uploading on social media, the intimate pictures taken by him of the Victim.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual and that it started when both were majors.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the family of the Victim is influential and is behind the allegations put forth on the Appellant.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case refused any coercion or false promise on the pretext of a marriage and affirms that their families initially were in support of their relationship and approved the same.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

  1. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant committed rape and exploitation under the pretence of love and marriage.
  2. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the influence of the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with witnesses and evidence.
  3. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the recent demise of her father, the Victim is vulnerable.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Rape of a woman under the age of Sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine as required for the medical expenditures as well as the expenditure of rehabilitation of the victim.
  2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Cheating as imprisonment for either description of a term which may extend to seven years as well as fine.
  3. Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault on a woman less than sixteen years of age as imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to the natural life of the person as well as fine.
  4. Section 5(L) of the POCSO ACT, 2012 defines Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault.
  5. Section 6 of the POCSO ACT, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on woman below the age of sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the carnal relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual or coerced?
  2. Whether the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with the evidences or witnesses?
  3. Whether the influence of the Appellant or the family background of the Victim affects the case?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, observed the consensual relationship between the Appellant and the Victim which lasted for several years. The court focused on the influential family background of the Victim and questioned the reliability of the allegations put forth against the Appellant and that the delay in instituting the complaint and the continued relationship between the Victim and the Appellant raised doubts on the legitimacy of the allegations against the Appellant. The court, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstance of the present case, grants the anticipatory bail to the Appellant, imposing certain conditions to ensure his coordination with the process of investigation.

“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

“Supreme Court Validates Lower Court’s Acquittal in Karnataka State Case.”

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case Number – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2520/2017

Dated on – 6th March,2017

Quorum – Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors., the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 initially met each other online in June 2014. The father of the Respondent No. 3, who is the Respondent No.2 in the present case, visited the appellant in Udaipur, the appellant who is a Chartered Accountant based in Hisar, was approached by the Respondent No.2 regarding a wedding proposal for his daughter, the Respondent No. 2 in the present case, who was at the time working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The engagement of the Respondent No. 3 and the appellant took place in Udaipur on 18th February,2015 followed by a wedding on the 21st of March,2015. However, on 10th October, 2015, the Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the appellant at the Hisar Police Station under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A similar complaint was also filed by the Respondent No. 2 at the Udaipur Police Station on the 15th of October,2015, five days later of the complaint, leading to the registration of FIR NO. 156 on the 1st of November,2015. Initially, the first FIR registered in Hisar implicated several family members of the appellant, but after conducting further investigation, only the appellant was proceeded with the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, the trail commenced against the appellant in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. Concurrently, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 before the High Court of Rajasthan and sought to quash the second FIR registered in Udaipur. However, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition on the 6th of March, 2017 citing the precedence of the complaint in Udaipur and lack of awareness by the Rajasthan Police regarding the earlier complaint in Hisar. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant appealed the case before the Supreme Court of India, which further stayed for investigation in the Udaipur FIR until further orders. Adhering to the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, the trial in Hisar concluded and the Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the 2nd of August, 2017. The judgment and the acquittal order revealed that the prosecution called upon several witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and other members of the police force. However, they were unable to bring forward the complainant and the victim to testify during the proceedings of the court, resulting in the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution and proceedings with the statement recording of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before ultimately acquitting the appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case pointed out two complaints, the acquittal judgments and the ostensible errors in the impugned orders and that these errors lead to the series of events, with the complaint at Udaipur was former than that at Hisar and secondly, the Rajasthan Police having no knowledge of the proceedings being conducted at Hisar.
  2. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complainants were well-aware of the multiplicity of the complaints registered in Hisar as well as the Udaipur Police Station but they did not take any requisite step to withdraw their complaint stating that it was wrongly registered in Hisar or that it may be transferred to Udaipur for the purpose of investigation.
  3. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the impugned proceeding were nothing but an abuse of the process of law and that the only motive of the complainant was to harass the appellant and make him face the prolonged trial of the courts.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the court at Hisar had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the present case as the offense was committed in Udaipur. Therefore, the acquittal judgment delivered by the Hisar Court was void.
  2. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complaint should have been looked into and investigated by the Rajasthan Police. However, because of the interim order issued by the court, the investigation had been stalled. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for Husband or Relative of Husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
  2. Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for using a false property mark
  3. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the power to examine the accused.

ISSUES

  1. The main issue in the present case revolves around whether the filing of two FIRs for the same incident is valid?
  2. Whether the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition was appropriate, considering the circumstance and timing of filing of the FIRs in both the jurisdictions?
  3. Whether the trial adhered to the principles of a fair and just trial and due process?
  4. Whether the acquittal was justified on the basis of the inability of the prosecution to present important witnesses?

 COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors., observed that the Respondent No. 2 and 3 were misusing their official powers by lodging complaints one after another. The court, further, observed that the deportment of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 of not presenting themselves before the Trial Court in Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint, signifies their sole intention to harass the appellant.  The court observed that even before this court, the respondent no. 2 and 3 vigorously opposed the quashing of the FIR in Udaipur. It was alleged in the FIR filed in Hisar that the Respondent No. 2 and 3 demanded a sum of Rupees 50,00,000 and an Innova Car while visiting the appellant. Thus, the court was of the opinion that the argument that no offense was committed in Hisar but only in Udaipur was incorrect. The court stated that the misuse of the state machinery for ulterior intentions and harassment of any individual warrants castigation. Therefore, the court imposed costs on Respondent No. 2 to compensate the appellant. The court in the present case, allowed appeal and quashed the order of the High Court as well as the proceedings registered as FIR No. 156/2015 dated 1st November,2015 at the Women Police Station, Udaipur are also quashed. The court ordered the Respondent No. 2 to pay costs of Rupees 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only), which was ordered to be deposited mandatorily with the Registrar of the Court within four weeks. The court stated that upon deposit of the total amount specified, % shall be paid to the appellant and another % shall be transferred to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee.

“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

If there are inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, failure to recover the weapon of crime would be fatal to the prosecution’s case: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Ram Singh Vs State of U.P

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 206 Of 2024

Decided on: 21.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

 

Hon’ble Justices stated that, “ When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non- examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.”

 

BRIEF FACTS:

In the present case, appellant Ram Singh fired a shot with a country-made pistol, killing the informant’s mother. In the sessions trial, appellant Ram Singh was convicted under Sections 301 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He also received a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 301/302 IPC and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, both sentences being served simultaneously.

As a result, the appellant’s appeal before the High Court of Judicature in Allahabad was dismissed. Consequently, the High Court confirmed the appellant’s conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The current appeal is against the high court’s order.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

Following a careful examination of the evidence, the court determined that the evidence presented by the eyewitnesses contains significant gaps. As a result, their evidence lacks credibility. Apart from that, no material witnesses have been questioned. Overall, the evidence presented on behalf of the prosecution cannot be considered complete proof, to the point where the failure to recover the weapon of offence, obtain a ballistic opinion, or examine a ballistic expert would be irrelevant.

The court on evidence for conviction ruled that the appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt because, according to us, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Any lingering doubt about an accused’s involvement in the crime for which he is accused must be considered by the court, and in such cases, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true when the trial court acquits the co-accused based on the same evidence.

 

“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 the judgement

0

It is not necessary for every person constituting an unlawful assembly to play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC: Supreme Court

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case title: Parshuram Vs State of M.P

Case no.: SLP (Crl.) No. 1718 of 2022

Decided on: 03.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice B.V Nagarathna, Hon’ble Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra.

 

Hon’ble Justices stated that “the Constitution Bench has held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. What has to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to be a member of an unlawful assembly, i.e. he has to be one of the persons constituting the assembly and that he had entertained the common object along with the other members of the assembly.”

 

BRIEF FACTS:

The complainant party’s buffalo had damaged the shed, which the appellant had built on the village passage for the cattle. As a result, the appellant had driven the buffalo away by beating it with a lathi. When the appellant and the other accused individuals arrived at the man’s home after that, the man fled the house in terror. After smashing through the doors, the accused people beat three people inside the house before leaving.

Furthermore, the accused individuals, armed with deadly weapons like a sword, barchi, lathi, and a domestic bomb, waylaid the complainant party and caused injuries as they were riding a tractor to the police station to file the complaint. Serious injuries were sustained during this and one has died, leading to the filing of a formal complaint for violations of Sections 302, 323, 452, 148, and 149 of the IPC. The trail court sentenced the accused and the High Court subsequently upheld the Trial Court’s decision, which led to the accused parties’ conviction. As a result, the Supreme Court is hearing this appeal.

 

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After carefully analysing the evidence, the court determined that the current appellants were clearly members of the unlawful assembly. Without a doubt, the present appellants play no specific role in assaulting the deceased.

Furthermore, based on the evidence presented, it is unclear whether the common purpose of the unlawful assembly was to cause the deceased’s death. It is entirely possible that the accused did not intend to cause the death of anyone from the complainant party. It is conceivable that the accused came together solely to teach the complainant party a lesson.

They therefore concluded that there is a benefit of doubt on appellant. The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would be unsustainable. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful assembly had the intent to kill the deceased. Part-II of Section 304 of the IPC replaces the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

 

 “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

Insufficient Evidence and Circumstantial Doubts Lead to Declaration of Acquittal of Accused: Supreme Court

Blog , ,

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1338 of 2010

Decided on:  5th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. NARASIMHA

Facts of the Case

In the present case, according to the Prosecution’s account, the deceased left his shop on a motorcycle to go to a market. When the deceased failed to return home that night, his wife informed the complainant. Seeking information about the deceased’s whereabouts, the complainant, accompanied by another prosecution witness, initiated a search. During the search, the complainant received information about a discovered dead body. Subsequently, the complainant and other prosecution witnesses reached the location and found the deceased with his throat bound by a piece of cloth. The complainant promptly reported the incident to the police, leading to the registration of an FIR. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment for the murder of the deceased. Dissatisfied with this verdict, the Appellant appealed to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which upheld the conviction and sentence. Subsequently, the Appellant sought relief from the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the High Court.

Issue

Whether the High Court’s ruling justified in the case of an individual accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Legal Provision

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court observed a substantial disparity between the allegations against the Appellant and the evidence presented by the prosecution. The circumstances outlined failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant; instead, they raised doubts, improbabilities, and inconsistencies. Emphasizing the need for caution when dealing with cases reliant on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of careful scrutiny. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused of all charges, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

“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- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

1 2 3 … 7