#Karnataka High Court Archives - Page 11 of 14

2 Aug

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Life Sentence In Murder Case; Says Eyewitness facts Contradictory, Should Be Backed With Supporting Material

Prime Legal

Blog #eyewitness, #Karnataka High Court, #murder

Title: K P Pushpesh & Others And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2016

Date of Order 21-06-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE K SOMASHEKHAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has acquitted three youths convicted and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for charges of murder, holding that there were material contradictions in the evidence of eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution failed to corroborate their evidence with any other material.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves the prosecution’s claim that, the deceased Nousheer was murdered by accused No. 1 to 3 due to ill-will between them and with a common intention. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 and 2 restrained Nousheer near the house of CW.6-Raman and assaulted him with a sickle, causing grievous injuries, resulting in his death. Accused No. 3 was alleged to have facilitated the murder by providing information about the movements of the deceased to accused Nos. 1 and 2.

The prosecution’s main evidence relied on two eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, who were neighbors and claimed to have seen the incident. However, the defense counsel contended that the trial court solely relied on the inconsistent testimony of these eyewitnesses, PW.22 and PW.24, without scrutinizing their evidence. The defense pointed out that the eyewitnesses did not attempt to prevent the accused from committing the crime, nor did they raise any alarm or inform the police about the incident. Additionally, they failed to identify the weapons allegedly used in the murder.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Court referred to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and said “On careful perusal of the evidence of this witness, we are of the opinion that there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsels for the appellants about the evidence deposed by these witnesses in respect of the incident witness by them, cannot be relied to the fullest extent to prove the guilt of the accused.” it further set aside life sentence in murder case; says eyewitness account contradictory, should be backed with supporting material.

“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- Shreya Sharma

Click here to see the judgement

2 Aug

Karnataka High Court held Second Wife Can’t Maintain Complaint Against Husband And In-Laws U/S 498A IPC

Prime Legal

Blog #IPC, #Karnataka High Court

Title: Kantharaju And State of Karnataka

Decided on: 17 July 2023

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1372 OF 2019

CORAM : HON’BLE JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

INTRODUCTION

In this case, the Karnataka High Court put forward that a complaint under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves a complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner, who is her husband and she is his second spouse. Initially, their marriage was harmonious, and they had a male child. However, after the complainant faced health issues, including paralysis, the petitioner began to harass her mentally and subject her to cruelty. He used abusive language, evicted her from their matrimonial home, and forced her to live on her own by running a petty shop. The petitioner even threatened to harm her and burn down the shop if she continued running it. Unable to tolerate the petitioner’s cruel behaviour, the complainant lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional authorities. he trial court convicted the petitioner under S. 498A of IPC. Later on the case was filed by the petitioner in High Court.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court allowed the petition filed by one Kantharaju and set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court convicting him for section 498-A on the complaint filed by his second wife.

The bench said, “The prosecution has to establish that the marriage of PW.1 (complainant) is legal or she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Unless, it is established that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, the Courts below ought to have acted upon the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that PW.1 was the second wife. Once PW.1 is considered as second wife of the petitioner, obviously, the complaint filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC ought not to have been entertained.”

The bench further elaborated that the provision 498-A said “Woman, under it means and includes, legally wedded wife. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was the second wife of the petitioner.”

Hence it was held by the court, the complaint filed by the second wife against the husband and her in-laws is not maintainable under the court of law.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

^{Click here to read the judgement}

1 Aug

Karnataka High Court says that the divorce cases should be decided by family courts within one year

Prime Legal

Blog #divorce, #judgement, #Karnataka High Court

Title: SRI. N RAJEEV AND SMT. C. DEEPA

Decided on: 26^th July 2023

WRIT PETITION NO. 14769 OF 2023

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court put forward a point in this judgement that the courts (trial courts) should make all efforts to try to dispose of matrimonial cases that involve fro the prayer for the dissolution or to nullify the marriage within one year. It provided an outer limit of one year.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the prolonged pendency of his matrimonial case, wherein he seeks a decree for the dissolution/nullity of his marriage with the respondent on fault grounds. The petitioner’s counsel argues that the right to speedy justice, recognized as a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 by the Apex Court, warrants a direction for the prompt resolution of the said case.

The court has dispensed with the need to serve notice to the respondent spouse, as no adverse order is being issued against her interests. Moreover, she will have ample opportunity to participate in the trial of the case before the lower court and will also benefit from the early resolution of the matter.

Court Analysis and Decision

Justice Krishna S Dixit observed “Matrimonial causes should be tried & disposed off on a war footing, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life.” He further pointed out the importance of early disposal and said “So that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may restructure their lives.”

It then opined “It hardly needs to be stated ‘life is lost in living’. Delay in disposal of such cases very badly affects the parties thereto, needs no deliberation.”

The court made the observation in response to a petition by N Rajeev, ordered the family court to resolve his 2016 marriage dissolution/nullity case within three months.

Written by- Shreya Sharma

Click here to view judgement

13 Jul

Kerala High Court Directs Respondent to Solemnize Marriage Based on Divorce Decree

Prime Legal

Blog #Karnataka High Court

Case Title : Arun A. v. Marriage Officer

Bench : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

Date : 7TH DAY OF JULY 2023

Facts:

The petitioner was an Indian citizen who is now a British citizen.
The petitioner got married to Anjana in 2011 but filed for divorce in the HM Courts and Tribunal Services in the UK.
The divorce decree was granted on November 30, 2022 (Ext.P8).
The petitioner submitted a notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Ext.P10) but the respondent did not act upon it.
The petitioner sent a legal notice (Ext.P11), but there was no response.

Judgement:

The petitioner requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the respondent to solemnise the marriage by accepting Ext.P10 notice immediately under the Special Marriage Act.
The petitioner also sought a declaration that the respondent is duty bound to accept Ext.P8 and allow the petitioner to register the marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
The court granted the requested relief and directed the respondent to solemnise the marriage based on Ext.P10 notice, taking note of Ext.P8 divorce decree.
The court dispensed with the production of filing translation of vernacular documents.
The court referred to a previous judgement (Ext.P14) related to the recognition of foreign judgments in matrimonial disputes.
The court stated that a foreign matrimonial judgement can be recognized in India if the jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court and the grounds on which relief is granted are in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married.
The court concluded that the petitioner and his divorced wife voluntarily and effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the UAE Personal Status Court and consented to the grant of divorce, and thus, the divorce certificate (Ext.P4) should be recognized.
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed Ext.P5 communication, and directed the respondent to solemnise the marriage based on Ext.P10 notice under the Special Marriage Act.

click here to view judgement

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

28 Jun

Karnataka High Court Urges Schools to Reassess ‘Harsh’ Disciplinary Measures Impacting Students’ Mental Health

Prime Legal

Blog # Mental Health, #Karnataka High Court, #Student

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Gauramma & Others V. State of Karnataka & ANR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4725 OF 2023

Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

Decided On 26-06-2023

Facts of the case-

Petitioners 1 to 3, namely the Principal, Director, and Hostel Warden of Karumbaiah Academy for Learning and Sports School, are accused in a case. The 2nd petitioner, who is the Director, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the school. The 1st petitioner is the Principal, and the 3rd petitioner is the Hostel Warden. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the father of a 15-year-old boy named Nihal Bidappa, who was a student at the school in the 9th grade.

According to the petition, Nihal Bidappa was described as a mischievous child and had undergone counseling on three occasions: 09-12-2021, 09-02-2022, and 09-08-2022. It is claimed that during the last counseling session, which involved Nihal and his mother, no supporting documents were provided. Subsequently, on 25-08-2022, during a random check by the class teacher, it was discovered that Nihal had alcohol in his bag, specifically a bottle of mineral water. He then submitted a written apology for this act. As a form of punishment, the school instructed Nihal not to attend classes for 21 days. Due to the upcoming exams, Nihal’s parents approached the school, pleading for their son to be allowed to continue attending classes to avoid jeopardizing his academic career. However, the school remained firm in its decision.

Nevertheless, the school agreed to let Nihal take the exams from home through an online link. Nihal waited in front of the computer from 10-10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. but did not receive the link, rendering him unable to participate in the exam. The time for completing the exam and submitting the answer papers had already passed. As a result, Nihal became frustrated and tragically took his own life between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m.

Following this incident, a complaint was filed with the local police, who classified it as an unnatural death and issued an Unnatural Death Report (UDR). Subsequent communications between the school and Nihal’s parents failed to yield a resolution. Consequently, the parents filed a private complaint on 28-12-2022, accusing the petitioners of instigating their son’s suicide. The learned Magistrate, through an order dated 29-12-2022, referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). As a result, a case was registered as Crime No. 125 of 2022, involving charges under Sections 305, 499 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 17 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act).

During the investigation, the police filed a ‘B’ report (closure report) before the concerned court. However, the complainant filed a protest petition against the closure report. The court, in its order dated 16-05-2023, rejected the ‘B’ report and took cognizance of the offenses punishable under Sections 305, 499 r/w 34 of the IPC. The court further directed the matter to be scheduled for recording the sworn statement of the complainant. This decision of taking cognizance and recording the sworn statement prompted the petitioners to approach the present court through this petition.

Judgement

The petition filed by the Principal and other officials of a school in Kodagu district, challenging the Magistrate court’s rejection of the ‘B summary report’ filed by the police regarding an alleged abetment to suicide of a student, has been dismissed by the Court. Upon examining the written apology submitted by the student, the bench expressed doubt about its authenticity, suggesting that it may have been dictated by someone else. The Court also noted that the parents were summoned to the school and reportedly counseled after the incident.

In reference to the report generated by the counselors three days after the boy’s death, the bench criticized the school for exploiting the boy’s death to create a report that portrayed him in a negative light, in an attempt to shift the blame onto him. The Court regarded this behavior as highly inappropriate and indicative of an uncaring attitude on the part of the educational institution.

The Court upheld the Magistrate court’s decision to reject the B report, emphasizing that all the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, based on documents attached to the criminal petition, were either generated after the boy’s death or far from the truth. The Court established the falsity of these submissions based on concrete evidence. Therefore, it concluded that this was not a case lacking instigation or provocation; rather, it was a case that appeared to involve both, at least prima facie.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Magistrate court’s order.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgement

1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14