Dowry Death: Since witnesses stating the dowry demand only before the court (significant omission) would not establish section 304B IPC
This judgment was preferred against the appellants’ conviction. The Apex court found significant contradictions and omissions in the testimony of key witnesses, particularly concerning the alleged demand for dowry. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-2, were deemed insufficient to establish the charges against the appellants. Consequently, the High Court’s previous judgment and the Sessions Court’s ruling were quashed, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants and cancellation of their bail bonds.
No provision for interim bail under law and is not permissible for the purposes of contesting elections much less for campaigning
The petitioner, Mohd. Tahir Hussain, who is in custody in connection with multiple criminal cases, including rioting and the murder of Ankit Sharma, an official from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioner applied for interim bail to participate in the Delhi Assembly Elections, having previously contested elections as a councilor for the Aam Aadmi Party and now with the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen. The High Court denied his application for interim bail but allowed conditional custody parole for filing nomination papers. The Supreme Court’s order reflects concerns about the petitioner’s criminal involvement, stating that the right to campaign is not covered by any fundamental rights or statutes, though the petitioner’s citizenship rights are recognized.
Community service or compensation? Though appellant is eager to do community service the lack of opportunities leads to a direction to pay compensation
The appeal is against the High Court’s conviction under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the conviction while modifying the sentence, allowing the appellant to be sentenced for the period already undergone and directing him to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation to the de facto complainant, Sridevi (PW-4). The Court emphasized the need for compliance with the compensation order within six months and considered the appellant’s experience in information technology, suggesting potential community service opportunities as part of the sentencing considerations. The appeal was partly allowed, and the High Court’s impugned judgment was set aside.
Employer-Employee: Complaint (employee) does not indicate that the appellants (employers) used filthy language
This judgment concerns allegations made by the complainant against the appellants regarding harassment, coercion to resign, and physical assault related to workplace incidents. The appellants contest the validity of the charges, arguing that the complaints lack essential elements of the offences, are vague, and were initiated to exert pressure for monetary gain. They assert that the complaints do not specifically attribute any roles to them, particularly for the second accused, who allegedly was not present during the incidents. The court considered the merits of the allegations, the nature of the charges, and the appropriateness of the criminal proceedings, ultimately determining if sufficient grounds existed to proceed with the case based on the available evidence.
Quashed: Summoning order should not be vague and must be a speaking one
A complaint has been filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint, filed by the Drugs Inspector, alleged that the appellants manufactured and distributed a drug that was declared “Not of Standard Quality” based on an analytical report. The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal, emphasizing that the Magistrate must apply their mind to the facts and law before issuing a summons, and noted that the summoning order lacked any reasoning, leading to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed on this procedural ground, regardless of the substantive claims made by the appellants. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court’s order and the trial court’s summoning order, thereby allowing the appeal.
Omissions: Witness does not recall if he told the police he was standing fifteen feet away during the incident
It emphasizes the presence of material omissions and contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, PW-4 and PW-5, which undermine their credibility. The court underscored that the only evidence against the appellant was the recovery of a knife, and the doubts surrounding its evidentiary value were echoed in prior legal precedents. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment and the trial court’s order were quashed, leading to the appellant’s acquittal after more than twelve years of incarceration, with an instruction for immediate release unless required for another case. The appeal was allowed.
Elicited portions through contradiction as per section 145 IEA from sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C statements are not substantive evidence
This judgment addresses the appeals arising from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s order in Criminal Revision Application No. 194 of 2006 in which Hon’ble High Court had reversed the acquittal of the appellants for the offense of murder and imposed a life sentence which was challenged in the present case. Apex court in this judgment emphasizes the principle that a High Court, as a revisional court, cannot convert a finding of acquittal into conviction nor order a retrial without exceptional circumstances justifying such interference. The Court emphasized the violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellants were not given an opportunity to defend themselves during the High Court proceedings. The Supreme Court ordered the release of the appellants on bail and directed the State Government to pay them compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 each for the wrongful detention they suffered.
No affidavit no Suspension of sentence?
In this judgment, the Hon’ble Madras High Court overturned the conviction and life sentence of Sasikumar (appellant/accused), who had been found guilty of murdering his father, Mr. Sivaji, by the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on the motive of financial disputes regarding the purchase of a lorry, and the recovery of blood-stained clothing and a bill hook from the accused. However, the court found that the key eyewitnesses had turned hostile, and there was insufficient evidence to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime. The court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot replace proof, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not sustainable, resulting in Sasikumar’s acquittal and release from custody.
