Apex court reiterates that absence of injuries on the private parts of victim is not always fatal to the prosecution case
The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of appellant for rape and assault, confirming the Hon’ble High Court’s decision which confirmed a five-year sentence under Section 376 and a six-month sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code of the Trial court. This case stemmed from an incident in 1984 where the prosecutrix was attacked and raped by the accused while she was at his home for tuition. Despite the defense’s claims of false implication and lack of medical evidence corroborating the assault, the Court found the prosecutrix’s testimony to be credible and reliable, emphasizing that the absence of physical injuries does not negate the occurrence of rape. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the character of the prosecutrix’s mother had no bearing on the case, and directed the competent authority to consider the accused’s case for remission in accordance with state policy.
Section 319 Cr.P.C: Court becomes functus officio once trial concluded and power to summon new accused under section 319 Cr.P.C is no longer vests with the said court
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the legality of summoning the appellants under Section 319 of the CrPC after the conclusion of the original trial, which had resulted in the conviction of co-accused. The Court held that the High Court was justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the Trial Court’s rejection of the application to summon the appellants, as the rejection was based on a misapplication of law. The Court emphasized that the order of the High Court relates back to the original order of the Trial Court, allowing the summoning order to be deemed as having been passed before the trial’s conclusion. It clarified that while Section 319 does not require a summoned person to be heard before being added as an accused, the right to a hearing arises if the High Court’s order is prejudicial to the proposed accused. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the summoning order to ensure the appellants face trial.
Once dying declaration is proved then failure to prove other facts is not relevant at all
Apex court upheld the convictions of the appellants for the murder of Nagender Yadav, based on the dying declarations made by the deceased (Nagender Yadav) to his wife and brother, which identified the assailants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible and consistent, despite challenges regarding the conditions under which the declarations were made and the identification of the accused. The court also noted that the presence of a street light and the prior acquaintance of the deceased with the accused supported the reliability of the identifications. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the trial court’s and High Court’s decisions, and the appellants were sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment, with a provision for fines and default sentences.
Successive bail application can be filed before different judge holding rooster [Reference Answered]
The Division Bench order addresses the procedure for successive bail applications arising from the same FIR, clarifying that such applications should be assigned to the Judge currently holding the roster. The order emphasizes the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, instructing that the new Judge should give due weight to the views of the previous Judge who dealt with earlier bail requests.
Alibi: Accused must prove the alibi after getting answer from the witness that the accused was not in police station
Hon’ble Supreme Court explained how to appreciate alibi and omissions.
Dying Declaration: Acquittal: Variances in dying declarations and no other evidence corroborates the dying declaration that accused set her on fire
Acquittal: Prosecution ought to have exhibited the original postal cover and not the copy even if it bore the signature of appellant
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by acquitting the appellant of charges related to forgery and conspiracy under the IPC. The appellant had been convicted based on the testimony of a handwriting expert regarding a postal cover allegedly containing a forged marksheet. However, the Court found that the original postal cover was never produced or exhibited in evidence, rendering the prosecution’s case unproven. The Court emphasized that without the primary evidence of the disputed document, the reliance on the handwriting expert’s report was insufficient to uphold the conviction. Consequently, the judgments of the trial court, appellate court, and High Court were quashed, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.
Acquittal: Seized weapons were not shown to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed the appeals by setting aside their convictions for the murder of Ahsan Ali under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, whose credibility was undermined due to his criminal antecedents and inconsistencies in his statements. The Court noted significant gaps in the investigation, including the failure to seize the motorcycle involved in the incident and the lack of corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not established a credible connection between the accused and the murder, thereby granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt and discharging their bail bonds.
