POCSO Act Imp. Judgments
1. Arjun Malge Vs. State of Maharashtra Bom HC 2021
Held : Notice of hearing of case and bail application is mandatory to victim.
2.Aparna Bhat vs. State of M P. Supreme Court 2021
Held: Notice to victim must. Bail conditions should not be arbitrary.
3.Nipun Saxena vs. Union of India Supreme Court 2019
Print PageThe Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, meaning "the burden of proof lies upon him who asserts, not upon him who denies," is a fundamental principle in legal systems around the world, including India. This principle is particularly significant in the context of the Indian legal framework, as it establishes the foundation for the burden of proof in both criminal and civil cases.
The Legal Framework
Before considering this question in the light of the evidential material on record, it will be worthwhile to remind ourselves of the general principles embodied in the Penal Code, governing the exercise of the right of private defence. {Para 12}
13. The Code excepts from the operation of its penal clauses large classes of acts done in good faith for the purpose of repelling unlawful aggression but this right has been regulated and circumscribed by several principles and limitations. The most salient of them concerned the defence of body are as under? Firstly, there is no right of private defence against an act which is not in itself an offence under the Code; Secondly, the right commences as soon as and not before a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit some offence although the offence may not have been committed and it is conterminous with the duration of such apprehension (Section 102). That is to say, right avails only against a danger imminent, present and real; Thirdly, it is a defensive and not & punitive or retributive right. Consequently, in no case the right extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of the defence. (Section 99). In other words, the injury which is inflicted by the person exercising the right should be commensurate with the injury with which he is threatened. At the same time, it is difficult to expect from a person exercising this right in good faith, to weigh "with golden scales" what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right Every reasonable allowance should be made for the bona fide defender "if he with the instinct of self-preservation strong upon him, pursues his defence a little further than may be strictly necessary in the circumstances to avert the attack." It would be wholly unrealistic to expect of a person under assault, to modulate his defence step by step according to the attack; Fourthly, the right extends to the killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is] a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the atrocious crimes enumerated in the six clauses of Section 100. For our purpose, only the first two clauses of Section 100 are relevant The combined effect of these two clauses is that taking the life of the assailant would be justified on the plea of private defence; if the assault causes reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to the person exercising the right. In other words, a person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may in the exercise of right of self-defence inflict any harm, even extending to death on his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened. This principle is also subject to the preceding rule that the harm or death inflicted to avert the danger is not substantially disproportionate to and incommensurate with the quality and character of the perilous act or threat intended to be repelled; Fifthly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat, for the person confronted with an impending peril to life or of grave bodily harm, except by inflicting death on the assailant ; Sixthly; the right being, in essence, a defensive right, does not accrue and avail where there is "time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities." (Section 99).
14. Before coming to the facts of the instant case, the principles governing the burden of proof where the accused sets up a plea of private defence, may also be seen, Section 105, Evidence Act enacts an exception to the general rule whereby in a criminal trial the burden of proving everything necessary to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, rests on the prosecution. According to the section, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code; or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Code or in any other Law, shall be on the accused person, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. But this Section does not neutralise or shift the general burden that lies on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the ingredients of the offence with which the accused stand charged. Therefore, where the charge about the accused is one of culpable homicide, the prosecution must prove beyond all manner of reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death with the requisite knowledge or intention described in Section 299 of the Penal Code. It is only after the prosecution so discharges its initial traditional burden establishing the complicity of the accused, that the question whether or not the accused had acted in the exercise of his right of private defence, arises. As pointed out by the Court in Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0068/1964 : 1964CriLJ472 , under Section 105, read with the definition of "shall presume" in Section 5, Evidence Act, the Court shall regard the absence of circumstances on the basis of which the benefit of an Exception (such as the one on which right of private defence is claimed), as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that they did exist. The accused has to rebut the presumption envisaged in the last limb of Section 105, by bringing on record evidential material before the Court sufficient for a prudent man to believe that the existence of such circumstances is probable. In other words, even under Section 105, the standard of proof required to establish those circumstances is that of a prudent man as laid down in Section 3, Evidence Act. But within that standard there are degrees of probability, and that is why under Section 105, the nature of burden on an accused person claiming the benefit of an Exception, is not as onerous as the general burden of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt cast on the prosecution. The accused may discharge his burden by establishing a mere balance of probabilities in his favour with regard to the said circumstances.
15. The material before the Court to establish such a preponderance of probability in favour of the defence plea may consist of oral or documentary evidence, admissions appearing in evidence led by the prosecution or elicited from prosecution witnesses in cross-examination presumptions, and the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, 1973.
16. Notwithstanding the failure of the accused to establish positively the existence of circumstances which would bring his case within an Exception, the circumstances proved by him may raise a reasonable doubt with regard to one or more of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself with which the accused stands charged. Thus, there may be cases where, despite the failure of the accused to discharge his burden under Section 105, the material brought on the record may, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, be enough to induce in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt with regard to the mens rea requisite for an offence under Section 299 of the Code (See Dahyabhai v. State of Gujarat (ibid) State of U. P. v. Ram Swarup MANU/SC/0218/1974 : 1974CriLJ1035 , Pratap v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0181/1975 : [1976]1SCR757 .
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1973
Decided On: 10.12.1979
Yogendra Morarji Vs. State of Gujarat
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.A. Desai, O. Chinnappa Reddy and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ.
Author: R.S. Sarkaria, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Appeal (crl.) 808 of 2002
Decided On: 13.08.2002
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.B. Shah and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Author: B.P. Singh, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0670/2002,AIR 2002 SC 2907,2002 INSC 332.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/08/supreme-court-all-grounds-that-may-be.html
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 6291 of 2019
Decided On: 14.08.2019
Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Indu Malhotra and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.
Author: Indu Malhotra, J.
Citation: 2019 (4) TAC 3, MANU/SC/1096/2019.
https://www.lawweb.in/2024/04/supreme-court-sum-of-rs-40000-is-to-be.html
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal Nos. 19-20 of 2021
Decided On: 05.01.2021
Kirti and Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant, S. Abdul Nazeer and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Authored By : Surya Kant, N.V. Ramana
Surya Kant, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0004/2021.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.2512 OF 2024
ARVIND KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. Vs GIRISH PANDEY & ANR.
Dated: FEBRUARY 16, 2024.
In India, the procedures for trial of civil suits before a regular civil court and those under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, are distinct. The differences are mainly due to the nature of the disputes they handle and the procedural requirements aimed at expediting commercial litigation. Here’s a detailed comparison:
Nature of Disputes:
Pleadings:
1) Supreme court: No automatic arrest in offence U/S 498A of IPC
c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the Accused for grant of bail.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Miscellaneous Application No. 1849 of 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Author: M.M. Sundresh, J.
Decided On: 11.07.2022.
https://www.lawweb.in/2022/08/whether-accused-is-entitled-to-bail-if.html
TOP SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF 2022
Q.1. What is definition of “Dishonestly”?
Ans. Whoever does anything with intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss to any person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”. [Section 24, Indian Penal Code, 1860]
Q.2. What is the principle of “res gestae”?
Ans. Group of facts forming part of the same transaction is called res gestae. [Section 6, Indian Evidence Act, 1872]
Print PageQ No. 1 :- How many times preamble of constitution was amended?
Ans:- The Preamble has been amended only once so far, in 1976, by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. The amendment added three new words:
Q 1:- In which case did the Supreme Court rule that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA Act 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest?
ANS:- In the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that mere non-cooperation with summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 is not sufficient to warrant arrest.
Print Page
S 26 of Hindu Marriage Act :- Custody of children:- In any proceeding under this Act, the court may from time to time pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it deems fit just and proper with respect to custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, where ever possible.
1) Child's Best Interests: The paramount consideration is the best interests of the child. The judge will assess how various custody arrangements may promote the child's physical, emotional, and psychological well-being.
2) Child's Age and Preference: The child's age and maturity are significant factors. Older and more mature children may have their preferences considered, but the judge will ultimately determine if those preferences are in the child's best interests.
"Corpus delicti" and "doli capax" are legal concepts related to criminal law and are often used to determine whether a crime has occurred and whether a person is capable of criminal intent. Here's an explanation of each concept:
1. Corpus Delicti:
Definition: "Corpus delicti" is a Latin term that means "the body of the crime." It refers to the principle that before a person can be convicted of a crime, it must be established that a crime has actually occurred. In other words, it is the proof or evidence that a crime has been committed, and it typically consists of two elements: the occurrence of the prohibited act (actus reus) and the presence of criminal intent (mens rea).
Real and demonstrative evidence are two distinct types of evidence used in legal proceedings, each serving a different purpose and having specific characteristics. Here's a distinction between them:
Real Evidence:
1) Definition: Real evidence, also known as physical evidence or tangible evidence, refers to actual objects or physical items that are directly related to the case. It includes items, substances, or tangible materials that can be presented in court.
Examples: Real evidence can include weapons, documents, photographs, drugs, clothing, murder weapons, and physical objects involved in the alleged crime, such as a stolen item or a damaged vehicle.
The Guardian and Wards 1890 is a secular act that applies to every citizen and communities of India while Hindu minority and guardianship Act 1956 of 1965 is applicable only to Hindus and subsets of Hindus such as Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Lingayat, Arya Samaj, Followers of Brahmo, Followers of Prarthana Samaj, and Virashiva.
Other religious communities such as Muslims, Parsis and Christians do not fall within the scope of this law. This law is added to the Law of Guardians and Wards of 1860 and does not replace the latter. GWA 1890 covers the procedure on how to petition courts for the appointment of a guardian.
Print Page2. Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly—
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
at or before 4[or any time after the marriage] 5[in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
Explanation I.—6[* * *]
Explanation II.—The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Print Page2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age;
(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child;
(e) “district court” means, in any area for which a Family Court established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) exists, such Family Court, and in any area for which there is no Family Court but a city civil court exists, that court and in any other area, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes any other civil court which may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in this Act;
(f) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is to be deemed not to have attained his majority.
Print Page