#LegalJudgment Archives

30 Apr

The Supreme court criticized the notion of “blood money” and underscored that serious crimes like acid attacks should not be trivialized by monetary settlements.

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #BailCancellation, #LegalJudgment, #SupremeCourt, #SuspensionOfSentence, #VictimRights, ACIDATTACK

Case title: Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. & Anr.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3484-3488 of 2024)

Order on: 5^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice C.T. Ravikumar

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, the case of Shivani Tyagi versus the State of U.P. & Anr. (Criminal Appeal Nos.1957-1961 of 2024) has brought attention to the suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on bail, particularly in cases involving heinous crimes like acid attacks. Let’s delve into the facts, submissions, issues, court’s analysis, and the final judgment of this crucial case.

Shivani Tyagi, the appellant-victim, was subjected to a brutal acid attack resulting in severe injuries, including deep burns on her face, chest, and hands. The attack left her permanently disfigured, highlighting the grave consequences of such a heinous crime. The perpetrators, five in number, were convicted under Sections 307/149 and 326A/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

On behalf of Shivani Tyagi, the victim of the heinous acid attack, submissions were made regarding the severity of the crime and the need for judicial prudence in dealing with such cases. The appellant’s counsel argued that the impugned orders reflected a lack of consideration for the gravity of the offense and failed to adequately assess the relevant factors for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. It was emphasized that the permanent disfigurement caused by the acid attack warranted careful examination and serious consideration of all parameters.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents, representing the convicted individuals, made submissions regarding the offer of compensation and the delay in the appeal process. They argued that the offer of compensation, along with the period of incarceration and the likely delay in the appeal proceedings, justified the suspension of the sentence and grant of bail. However, the appellant contested that such factors alone could not override the seriousness of the offense and the need for proper judicial scrutiny.

Key Considerations by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments to underscore the importance of recording reasons for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 of the Cr.PC. It highlighted that in cases involving serious offenses, such as acid attacks, a careful assessment of relevant factors is imperative. Factors such as the nature and severity of the offense, the manner of its commission, and the gravity of the charges should be objectively evaluated.

Ruling and Implications:

After a meticulous examination of the impugned orders and the arguments presented by both parties, the Supreme Court concluded that the orders lacked proper consideration of the relevant factors. It emphasized that the seriousness of the offense, especially in cases of acid attacks resulting in permanent disfigurement, necessitates diligent scrutiny.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The Court deliberated on Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which deals with the suspension of sentence pending appeal and release on bail.

It emphasized the need for the appellate court to objectively assess the case and record reasons for granting suspension of sentence and bail. The Court cited previous judgments to highlight the importance of considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of tampering with evidence or threats to the victim.

ISSUE –

Whether the court properly applied the principles under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) in suspending the convicts’ sentence.
Whether the court adequately considered the gravity of the offense and other relevant factors before granting bail to the convicts.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed previous decisions and legal provisions related to the suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal. It emphasized that each case must be examined on its merits, especially in serious offenses like acid attacks. The court underscored the importance of considering factors such as the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and potential threat to the victim or witnesses.

The court, after a thorough examination of the facts and legal principles, held that the impugned order lacked proper application of mind and failed to consider the gravity of the offense adequately. Therefore, it set aside the order suspending the convicts’ sentence and canceling their bail. The appellants were directed to surrender before the trial court for committal to judicial custody within four days, failing which the convicts would be rearrested.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Shivani Tyagi case sets a significant precedent in cases involving acid attacks and other serious offenses. It underscores the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors before suspending a sentence or granting bail, ensuring justice for victims and maintaining social security. This ruling reaffirms the commitment of the judiciary to uphold the rights of victims and deter perpetrators of heinous crimes.

Despite an offer of compensation by the convicts, the victim refused to accept it, leading to a correction application. The court emphasized the severity of acid attacks, stating that no amount of compensation can truly address the trauma caused. It cited previous cases highlighting the psychological and physical impact of acid attacks and the need for stringent measures to prevent such crimes. The court also discussed the principles governing the cancellation of bail, emphasizing that bail should not be granted solely based on the accused’s ability to pay compensation. The court criticized the notion of “blood money” and underscored that serious crimes like acid attacks should not be trivialized by monetary settlements.

In the fight against such atrocities, justice must not only be served but also seen to be served, and the Shivani Tyagi case marks a crucial step towards achieving that goal.

“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 full Judgement

25 Apr

“Article 14 is not violated, Delhi High Court upholds JNU’s 80% Admission Quota for B.A. (Hons) First-Year in Foreign Languages Program”

Prime Legal

Blog, Delhi High Court #AcademicQuotas, #article14, #ConstitutionalValidity, #delhihighcourt, #EducationalPolicy, #HigherEducation, #JNUAdmissions, #JudicialAnalysis, #LegalJudgment

Case title: Vaibhav v. Jawaharlal Nehru University

Case no.: W.P.(C) 12771/2023

Dated on: 24^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice C. Hari Shankar

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Vaibhav, a Scheduled Caste (SC) student, challenged Clause 12 of the Admission Policy and Procedure of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for the B.A (Hons) course in Foreign Languages for the 2023-2024 academic session. Clause 12 segregated candidates into Code I and Code II based on whether they passed the Senior Secondary School Certificate (10+2) examination in the year of admission or the previous year. Vaibhav passed his Class XII examination in 2021 and applied for admission to the B.A. (Hons) Chinese course at JNU based on his Central University Entrance Test (CUET) scores. Despite being ranked 12th among SC category students in Code II, he was not admitted.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

Mr. Bhagabati Prasad Padhy represented Vaibhav, arguing that Clause 12’s distinction lacked a rational nexus with its objective and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He cited relevant case law to support his contention.

Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 117: The petitioner relied on this case to argue that the classification made by Clause 12 of the Admission Prospectus of JNU, which distinguished between students based on the year they cleared their Class XII examination, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case emphasizes that any classification must be based on intelligible differentia and must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952 SCC Online 1): This case was cited to argue that any classification must be based on a real and substantial distinction that bears a just and reasonable relation to the objective sought to be achieved. It highlights the principle that classification should not be arbitrary but must have a rational basis.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC, along with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Ms. Radhika Kurdukar, argued for JNU. Mr. Saha submits that the division of the candidates in Code-I and Code-II is legitimate and is in fact based on an intelligible differentia, having a rational nexus with the object of the distinction. The aim of creating this distinction, he submits is to ensure a fair and transparent admission process, giving preference to recent academic qualifications to streamline the procedure and provide opportunity to students who had recently completed their Senior Secondary examinations, so as to ensure that those possessing most upto date knowledge and skills are given priority.

Mr. Saha submits that the idea is to encourage freshers, even while ensuring that older candidates, who may have passed their Class XII examination much earlier in time, are not completely blocked. In order to draw a balance between the two categories of candidates, he submits that the JNU took a policy decision to reserve 80% of the seats for admission to B.A. (Hons) Chinese courses in Foreign Languages for candidates, who had cleared their Class XII that year or in the year immediately preceding the year in which the admission was being sought and 20% for the candidates, who had cleared their Class XII examination earlier.

Mr. Saha also submits that the judgments, on which Mr. Padhy places reliance, are completely distinguishable on facts and in law.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Clause 12 of the Admission Policy and Procedure of JNU for the academic session 2023-2024. The clause establishes quotas for admission to the B.A (Hons) First Year in Foreign Languages, with 80% of the seats earmarked for candidates who passed their Senior Secondary School Certificate (10+2) exam in the year of admission or the previous year (Code I), and the remaining 20% for candidates who meet the eligibility requirements but passed their exam earlier (Code II).

Article 14 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner argues that Clause 12 violates Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits discrimination.

ISSUE –

Whether Clause 12 of JNU’s Admission Policy violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Vaibhav’s challenge against the quota system is valid.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Justice C. Hari Shankar analyzed the validity of Clause 12, considering the constitutional principles and academic policy. While acknowledging the prima facie appearance of arbitrariness, the judge emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in academic matters. He noted that JNU’s decision aimed to balance the interests of freshers and older candidates.

The judge rejected Vaibhav’s challenge, asserting that the classification under Clause 12 was not arbitrary. He emphasized the importance of recent academic qualifications for collegiate courses and upheld JNU’s right to prioritize such candidates.

Regarding Vaibhav’s challenge against the quota system, the judge ruled it impermissible, citing the principle of estoppel. Vaibhav had previously sought admission under the same provision and failed.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed. The court upheld Clause 12 of JNU’s Admission Policy, emphasizing deference to academic policy and the principle of estoppel.

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

22 Apr

“Supreme Court Revokes Bail: Incarceration Duration Not Sole Basis When Accused Involved in Further Offenses”

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #BailCancellation, #CourtAmbush, #CriminalAppeals, #CriminalConspiracy, #LegalJudgment, #MurderCase, #PoliceConstableMurder, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Anr.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) Nos. 7961-7963 of 2023)

Dated on: 19^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case revolves around an incident on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where the appellant, Jadunath Singh, filed a written report stating that the accused, Arvind Kumar, had illegally occupied a plot.
On the same day, armed with firearms, the accused, along with others, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and his companions, resulting in the death of two individuals and injury to another.
The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B.
In another case, on January 31, 2013, Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, while in custody, requested Constable Ajay Kumar to accompany them for a nature break. However, they ambushed Ajay Kumar, fatally shooting him as they left the court premises. Subsequently, they dumped his body outside a residence. This led to the registration of FIR Case Crime No. 60 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, with eight individuals, including Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, implicated in a conspiracy to murder Ajay Kumar. Both accused fled but were apprehended by the Special Task Force (STF) in Maharashtra, where they also engaged in gunfire with the police, prompting the filing of a separate FIR Case Crime No. 54 of 2013.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the accused were dangerous criminals, having committed multiple murders including that of a police constable, and their release would endanger the appellant and his family.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondents sought bail primarily based on their prolonged incarceration of more than 10 years and the fact that two co-accused had been granted bail earlier.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Sections 147 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sections 148 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Sections 149 of IPC, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Sections 120B of IPC, punishment of criminal conspiracy.

Sections 302 of IPC, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

ISSUE –

Whether the respondents, despite their lengthy incarceration, should be granted bail considering their involvement in multiple serious offenses, including murder.
Whether the High Court adequately considered all relevant factors before granting bail.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted bail primarily based on the duration of incarceration and the bail granted to two co-accused. However, crucial facts regarding the respondents’ involvement in the murder of a police constable and their subsequent resistance to arrest were not presented before the High Court.

The Court emphasized that the respondents’ conduct in a separate case warranted denial of bail despite their prolonged incarceration in the present case. While Arvind Kumar was not implicated in the murder case of the police constable, bail for the other two respondents was revoked.

The appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were allowed, and the impugned order granting them bail was set aside. They were given two weeks to surrender, failing which coercive measures would be taken.

This judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant facts and circumstances before granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and individuals with a history of criminal conduct.

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to view Judgement

17 Apr

“Supreme Court Emphasizes Weakness of Extra Judicial Confession; Acquits Defendant Dharambir in Murder Case”

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #CriminalJustice, #EvidenceLaw, #LegalJudgment, #MurderCase, #SupremeCourt, acquittal

Case title: Dharambir @ Dharma v. State of Haryana

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No.1858 of 2009

Order on: 16^th April 2024

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

FACTS OF THE CASE

On June 5, 1998, at around 8:30 a.m., the deceased, Karambir, along with his brother Krishan Kumar and others, went to Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. At approximately 11:30 a.m., the accused, Dharambir, who was also present there, stabbed Karambir in the chest, resulting in his death. The motive alleged was Dharambir’s suspicion that Karambir was involved in illicit relations with his wife.

Rohtas Singh, the Inspector/SHO of Police Station City Bhiwani, received information about the incident and initiated the investigation. The accused was arrested, and a chargesheet was filed against him under Section 302 IPC.

During the trial, the prosecution primarily relied on the testimonies of Krishan Kumar, the first informant, and Ram Kumar, who claimed an extra-judicial confession by the accused.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Dharambir’s counsel argued that Krishan Kumar’s testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies and contradictions. They pointed out discrepancies in Krishan Kumar’s account of the events, including the timing of the incident and the seating arrangements at the cinema hall.

Additionally, they highlighted that no blood stains were found on Krishan Kumar, raising doubts about his presence at the crime scene. Regarding the extrajudicial confession, they argued that it lacked credibility as it was contradicted by another witness, Piare Lal.

He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Pritinder Singh Alias Lovely v. State of Punjab and contended that an extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and since the testimony of the witness, Ram Kumar, before whom the accused allegedly made the extra judicial confession, has been contradicted by evidence of Piare Lal, there cannot be any justification to rely upon his evidence as well.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The State argued that Krishan Kumar’s testimony was trustworthy as he had no reason to falsely implicate Dharambir. They asserted that Ram Kumar’s testimony corroborated Krishan Kumar’s account, strengthening the prosecution’s case. The State contended that the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court supported the conviction and should not be overturned.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

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

ISSUE –

The core issue was the reliability of the prosecution’s key witnesses. The court analyzed the testimonies of Krishan Kumar and Ram Kumar, finding inconsistencies and improbabilities that cast doubt on their credibility. It noted contradictions in their accounts and lack of corroboration.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The appellant, Dharambir @ Dharma, was acquitted of the charge of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Supreme Court of India.

Given the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, especially the unreliable testimonies of the key witnesses, the court concluded that the guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted, and the appeal was allowed.

The court acquitted the appellant, Dharambir @ Dharma, of the murder charge, as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgments of the trial court and the high court were quashed, and the appellant was acquitted. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was discharged from bail.

This judgment underscores the importance of reliable evidence and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to View Judgement