Author: LEXPEEPS editor

Speedy Trial In Rape Cases: Its Importance and Prevalent Loopholes

Posted on

The present article has been written by Prateek Chandgothia, pursuing BA. LL.B. (1st year) from the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

India witnessed one of the gravest rape cases in December 2012 which shook the national capital and subsequently the whole of India. Wide-spread protests broke out through the country demanding the justice of the rape victim, who was designated with the title of Nirbhaya for the level of mental toughness and endurance portrayed by her. Various legislations were passed in the aftermath of the incident as the four accused were awarded the death penalty and were hanged to death on 20th March 2020. The 8-year long wait for justice paints a disturbing picture of the Indian criminal justice system and indicates the necessity of speedy trials in rape cases.

Legislative Analysis of Rape Laws

The Indian Penal Code criminalizes rape as a sexual offense under Section 375-377. Rape is defined under Section 375 of the IPC as “sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age.” The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act was enacted in 1983 which marked a paradigm shift like the rape laws in India by strengthening the position of women in such cases. Section 114A was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 which stated that it must be presumed that there is the absence of consent in certain prosecutions of rape if the victim says so. Furthermore, Section 228A was introduced in the IPC which makes it punishable to disclose the identity of the victim of certain offenses including rape. 

In the aftermath of the Nirbhaya Rape Case, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 was enacted. It expanded the scope of rape by including offenses like the use of criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe, voyeurism, stalking, use of unwelcome physical contact, words or gestures, demands, or requests for sexual favors, showing pornography against the will of a woman, or making sexual remarks. Along with the extension of the scope of rape, the punishments were also increased significantly through this amendment. The act increased jail terms in most sexual assault cases and also provided for the death penalty in rape cases that cause the death of the victim or leaves her in a vegetative state. The punishment of gang rape was increased to 20 years to life imprisonment from 10 years to life imprisonment. The punishment of stalking was set at imprisonment for 3 years and punishment for the acid attack was set at 10 years of imprisonment. The amendments were not confined to the Indian Penal Code as the 172nd Law Commission report led to amendments in the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Act of 2002 which further strengthened the position of women in rape cases. The new provision barred putting questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to her general ‘immoral character’ in rape or attempt to rape cases. However, the effect of these legislations has been negligible in terms of statistics as according to the National Crime Record Bureau, a woman is raped every 16 minutes and 88 rape cases are recorded daily. In 2019 alone, 32,033 rape cases were recorded. Therefore, these legislations have not deterred the occurrence of rape cases in India.

Fast Track Courts: A Reality Check

Fast Courts have been a part of the Indian legal system since 2000 which gained significance after the Nirbhaya Rape Case in 2012. The main objective of these courts was to deal with the crime against women, child trafficking under POCSO Act, crime against senior citizens, crime against the disabled, and other heinous crimes. As quoted by the 11th Finance Commission of 2000, the fast-track courts are recommended: “to substantially bring down, if not eliminate, pendency in the district and subordinate courts over the next five years”.

However, various statistics indicate an entirely contrasting situation. According to the NCRB data, trials in fast-track courts take longer than trials in regular courts. It is reported that out of more than 28,000 trials completed in India’s fast-track courts in 2018, only 22% took less than a year to complete. This is the lowest percentage among all kinds of courts including SC/ ST courts, Additional Session Judge Courts, District/ Session Judge Courts, POCSO Court, Sub-Judge Courts, Special Courts, and Special Judicial Magistrates. Furthermore, around 42% of the total trials took more than 3 years to complete, while 17% took more than five years to complete. These statistics indicate that the fast-track courts have failed in achieving the very objective for which they were established.

It is essential to note that the mere establishment of fast-track courts is not sufficient in countering the inadvertent delays in the trial of the rape cases. Various inefficiencies have infested the working and establishment of the fast-track courts. Fast-track courts have been established under the centrally sponsored scheme of allocation of funds which is overseen by the Department of Justice. The scheme was established in 1993 stating that 60% of the funds must come from the center and 40% of the funds must come from the states. In 2020-21, Rs. 767 crores were approved for the construction of 1,023 fast-track courts under The POCSO act, 2012 based on the centrally sponsored scheme. The particular scheme leads to disparity in fund distribution among states which was evident when the Maharashtra Government sanctioned the construction of 138 courts with the expected cost of Rs. 100 crores. This extracts Rs. 60 crores as the share from the center leaving only on an average, a sum of Rs. 26 crores for the other states. 

Various veterans in the field of criminal law have pointed out various flaws in the mechanism of fast-track courts indicating that they are similar to the regular courts, if not worse. It is stated that the nomenclature of ‘fast-track’ courts exists just in the name and not in the functioning of the courts as the judges and the procedure are identical in nature. Various procedural inefficiencies have been pointed out like the witnesses not coming on time, lawyers not turning up and while the judges don’t have the power to discipline them, the bar councils don’t take any action against them. Recording of evidence is a major stage in a trial that concerns grave violations and plays a significant role in the delay in the delivery of judgment. The longer duration of trials in special fast-tracked courts has been justified by the serious and complicated nature of the cases they deal with as they require recording of more evidence than regular cases.

Effective legal assistance is an important factor missing from the remedies provided to sexual assault victims. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines for medico-legal care for survivors of sexual violence intending to standardize healthcare professionals’ examination and treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines provide scientific medical information and processes that aid in correcting pervasive myths. However, under the federal structure of India, health is a state subject and therefore, the states are not bound to follow the said guidelines. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a 1994 case ruled that police should provide sexual assault victims legal assistance and keep a list of legal aid options which do often not conform to. 

Moreover, victimization of the aggrieved is still prevalent at great lengths in the Indian Legal system and the social fabric of the country. The delay in judgment delivery often leads to the promotion of speculations which encourage issues like victim-blaming, dilution of passion towards a goal, increased mental agony for the victim and their family. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to recognize these flaws and implement corrective measures to ensure speedy trials in rape cases.

Conclusion 

Despite the progressive development in legislations and specialized fast-track courts, the main objective, which is a speedy trial, remains unachieved to this day. Various state and center initiatives have fallen through mainly because of the lack of monitoring mechanisms and frameworks. In view of this article, in order to ensure the implementation of speedy trials in rape cases can be a reality only if an efficient mechanism that involves suitable procedural laws and specialized judges, is implemented.  

Latest Posts

Archives

Online National Legal Document Drafting Competition by Legis Scriptor: Register by 27 June 2021.

Posted on

ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION:

Legis Scriptor is a transpiring team of ardent & fervent people across all the strata of the legal field, promoting academic excellence & ameliorating realms of knowledge to contribute in building skillful society. We endeavor to provide quality contemporary legal content concerning from tangled minute issues to issues of international concerns. We provide a platform to students across the length & breadth of the country to enhance their research & writing skills, which is the uttermost requirement of the today’s fast-evolving & zestful legal field.

ABOUT THE COMPETITION:

Every legal notice you serve, every reply you send, every petition you file in the court, every legal document relevant to a case, builds up your case. Every word you write and exchange with the opposite party eventually decides whether you will win or lose the case. Even before your counsel or you stand before the judge and open your mouth.

MODE OF THE COMPETITION:

Online

LANGUAGE:

English.

LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 Bail Application or,
 Anticipatory Bail Application or,
 Consumer Complaint or,
 Application for temporary injunction.

ELIGIBILITY:

 The students currently enrolled in either five years or three years LL.B. courses or LL.M. programs from any recognized University/ Law College/ College/ Institution are eligible for participation in the competition.
 There is no restriction on the number of entries from any college or university.

TEAM COMPOSITION:

 Each team shall consist of one individual or two individuals that qualify the eligibility criteria.
 Multiple teams are allowed from different University/ Law School/College/ Departments.

REGISTRATION:

 There shall be a nominal registration fee of Rs. 299/- for Single participant, Rs. 399/- for the team of two individuals.
 Registration Link is given below- https://forms.gle/SYaQD95GkZGQwCYdA
 The registration fee shall be non-refundable and non-transferable in any circumstance.
The last date for registration is 05:00PM IST, 27th June, 2021.
 Only 30 registrations will be allowed to register in the competition on first-come- first serve basis.
Note: No approval from the respective institute of the participants is required for participation.

IMPORTANT DATES:

  • Last date of Registration: 05:00 PM IST, 27 th June, 2021
  • Date of Problem Released: 08:00PM IST, 27 th June, 2021
  • Last date for Document Submission: 30 th June, 2021
  • Date of Result Announcement: 04 th July, 2021

Payment Method:

Paytm UPI ID- 8851267359@paytm
Phone Pe UPI ID- 8851267359@ybl
Google Pay- 8851267359
Paytm- 8851267359
After the payment all participants are required to upload screenshots of the same on Google form given below while registration.
AWARDS: PRIZES WORTH RS. 15,000/-
WINNER – Prize money of Rs. 1500/- + Certificate of Excellence + Free Publication
Opportunity + Rs. 1500/- Voucher of Certificate Course of Memo Pundits.

Runner up- Prize money of Rs. 1000/- + Certificate of Excellence + Free Publication Opportunity + Rs. 1000/- Voucher (Certificate Course of Memo Pundits).
3rd Position – 10 th Position- Certificate of Merit + 50% discount in publication opportunity + Rs. 200/- Voucher (Certificate Course of Memo Pundits).
All the participants who will register for this event, will receive “CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION” + 25% discount in Publication Opportunity.

PERKS:

 All the participants will get publication opportunity.
 The general rules and principles of drafting legal documents.
 How to edit and review documents you have drafted.
 Fundamentals of good legal writing.
 Certificate of participation.
 Learn how to draft notices.
 Invaluable knowledge.

DOCUMENT SUBMISSION GUIDELINES:

Submission of Documents:

  1. Every participant or team registered for the competition would be required to prepare any one of the following documents:
    a.) Bail Application or,
    b.) Anticipatory Bail Application or,
    c.) Consumer Complaint or,
    d.) Application for temporary injunction.
  2. All documents must be submitted through Google Form till 11:59 P.M., till 30 th June, 2021 and the link of the google form for submission is mentioned below:
  3. Any submission made after the deadline specified shall attract a penalty of deduction of 0.50 marks per hour from the aggregate marks.
  4. No submission made after 24 hours of the deadline shall be accepted at any cost.

SAMPLE DOCUMENTS and PROBLEM:

All the participants will receive a sample format for the type of legal document they wish to prepare which will facilitate them in drafting. The respective problems for each document type will be provided to participants after registration.

FORMATTING GUIDELINES:

  1. All the legal documents must be submitted in Microsoft Word Document format (.doc/.docx) or PDF Format (.pdf).
  2. The legal document shall be typed on an A4 size page in Font type: Times New Roman, Font size: 12, 1.5-line spacing & 1-inch margin on each side.
  3. Footnoting is prohibited.

Official Brochure:

BrochureDownload

For More Information, Click on the link given below-
https://www.legisscriptor.com/
Contact us for any query:
E-mail: info.legisscriptor@gmail.com
WhatsApp number: 8851264387 (WHATSAPP ONLY)
Note: If in case of any query, participant can drop a message on WhatsApp on the number given above and they will receive a call from concerned authority in 24 hours to resolve their query.

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Call for Papers by NLUJ’s CALQ (Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Journal): Submit by 15th Aug 2021

Posted on

About the University:

National Law University, Jodhpur is one of India’s premier law schools, situated in the vibrant and colourful city of Jodhpur, Rajasthan. It was established in 1999 as part of a vision of excellence in legal education through innovative methods of learning and focus on interdisciplinary studies. The University offers two unique five-year integrated undergraduate programs, B.B.A., LL.B.(Hons.) and B.A., LL.B.(Hons.). These integrated programs include highly demanding honors courses in various facets of law such as Constitutional Law, Business Law, International Trade Law, Criminal Law, and Intellectual Property Rights Law.

About the Journal:

The Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Journal (CALQ) is the flagship journal of the Centre for Constitutional Law and Administrative Law, published under the guidance of Prof. (Dr.) I.P Massey, Dean, Faculty of Law, National Law University Jodhpur. CALQ aims to promote scholarly excellence in the area of comparative constitutional and administrative law with a diligent editorial board, an eminent advisory board and an institution known for its academic excellence. Each issue contains articles, notes, case comments and book reviews based on contemporary issues of comparative constitutional and administrative law.

Theme:

The articles, notes and case comments must relate to the area of comparative constitutional law and administrative law.

Guidelines:

1. General Guidelines:

  1. The Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Journal [“Journal”] attempts to initiate and foster academic dialogue concerning the subject of Administrative Law and Constitutional Law keeping in mind a global perspective. Please note that all submissions must be topical to the scope and theme of the Journal.
  2. All submitted manuscripts shall be original. Any form of plagiarism would lead to immediate rejection of the submission.
  3. Submission of solicited manuscripts, on invitation from the Journal’s editors, guarantees publication of the same. However, if such solicited manuscript does not meet the Journal’s standards of quality scholarship, final discretion to publish the solicited manuscript vests with the Editorial Board [“Board”]
  4. The author(s) must inform the Board if the manuscript has also been submitted to another journal, website or forum. The Board must be notified immediately if an offer for publication from another journal, website or forum is accepted by the author(s).
  5. After the first publication of a manuscript with the Journal, permission for any subsequent publication in another forum must be obtained from the Board.
  6. All correspondence must be via e-mail, and should be addressed to the Managing Editor at: editorcalq[at]gmail[dot]com

2. Specific Guidelines:

2.1. Author(s)

  1. Each manuscript may have up to two authors, however co-authorship is not permitted for Book Reviews and Case Comments
  2. In case of joint authorship, the author from whom a submission is received by the Board, shall intimate the Board of the name, credentials and contact details of the intended co-author.

2.2. Citations and References

  1. All relevant sources shall be duly acknowledged as footnotes.
  2. Speaking footnotes are allowed
  3. The text and citation styles shall conform to the rules prescribed in The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th edition).

Submission Categories:

  1. Articles: Not exceeding 10,00 (Ten Thousand) words.
  2. Notes: Not exceeding 4000 (Four Thousand) words.
  3. Case Comment- Not exceeding 3000 (Three Thousand) words.
  4. Book Reviews- Not Exceeding 2000 (Two Thousand) words.

a) Articles: Articles must deal with issues of interest and relevance and must demonstrate a high-level of analysis. Articles of a purely descriptive nature are not preferred.

b) Notes: Notes should cover a recent development or should be issue specific. A Note functions as a more condensed and succinct Article.

c) Case Comments: Case comments entail a critical analysis of recent case laws and policy developments.

d) Book Reviews: Book Reviews entail providing a critical analysis and review of any book that deals with the subject matter of the Journal.

All manuscripts must necessarily be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 350 words.

Word Count:

Please note that the word limit would be considered excluding the footnotes, except when speaking footnotes are used. The journal may accept shorter or longer submission depending on the quality of the submission.

Formatting Specifications:

  1. The manuscript must be word-processed in Garamond.
  2. The main body text should be in font size 12 and footnotes in size 10.
  3. There should be line spacing of 1.5 between paragraphs and headings in the main body and line space of 1.0 in footnotes.
  4. Verbatim quotes must be put in double quotes and italicized with a 0.5” indent.
  5. The entire document, including footnotes, must be justified.

Language:

The Journal shall follow British English.

Submission Procedure:

  • The Author/s are required to email the manuscript to editorcalq[at]gmail[dot]com
  • The manuscript may be mailed in Microsoft Word (‘.doc’ or ‘.docx’) format.
  • The manuscript shall not contain any details of the author, and anonymity must be maintained.
  • The subject of the mail must clearly mention, ‘Submission for CALQ_Volume 6.1 [Article/Note/Case Comment/Book Review]’.
  • The mail must be addressed to the Managing Editor, providing the name of the author/s with the name of the institution affiliated to and the contact details in the body of the mail.
  • A mail confirming the receipt of the manuscript and subsequently its acceptance for publication would be duly conveyed to the author/s through the email id used by the author/s for correspondence.
  • The last date for submission is 11:59 p.m. (IST) on 15th August 2021

Contact Details:

All correspondence must be via e-mail, and should be addressed to the ‘Board of Editors’ at: editorcalq@gmail.com

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

VidhiGyaan [Law Fest-Moot Court Competition] by M.K.E.S College of Law: Register by 20th June 2021

Posted on

About VidhiGyaan:

‘VIDHIGYAAN’ is a law fest hosted and organised by the students and faculty of M.K.E.S College of Law. ‘VIDHIGYAAN’ provides an ideal platform for the students of various colleges to showcase their talents. It provides an opportunity for students to come together, interact, and get motivated with the experience gained through Participation & Competition. It endeavors to bring together the creativity, intellect and wackiness of youth.

About M.K.E.S:

Malad Kandivli Education Society’s (MKES College of Law) was established in the academic year 2014-2015. The Institute is affiliated to the University of Mumbai& the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, for conducting LL.B. (3 years) & B.L.S/LL.B. (5 years) Law courses.

Eligibility Criteria:

Competition is restricted to bonafide regular students of Law school/College/University. All participants must be students of 3 years /5 years law course in the academic year 2020-21.

Registration Procedure:

  • Teams must register themselves latest by 20th June 2020.
  • Registration form duly signed by participants and the Principal of the concerned college should be sent to vidhigyaanmkes[at]gmail.com.

Fees:

Local candidates: Rs. 800

Payment Details:

  • Name of Institution: M.K.E.S. College of Law
  • Bank Name: HDFC Bank
  • Bank Branch: Juhu Tara Road
  • Address: Shop No. 1, 2 & 3, Valencia Condominium 11, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz West, Maharashtra, Mumbai – 400049
  • IFSC Code: HDFC0001800
  • Account Number: 50100246844166

Awards:

Participants get a chance to excel at the Moot Court and to win a cash prize of up to ₹36,000*.

Important Dates:

  • Date of Competition: 3rd and 4th July, 2021
  • Last date for Registration: 20th June 2021
  • Submission of Memorials: 28th June 2021
  • Exchange of Memorials: 30th June 2021

Important Details:

BROCHURE-VIDHIGYAAN-2021Download
Annexure-II-Technical-Rules-2021Download
Amended-Moot-proposition-2021Download

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Supreme Court Dismissed the Bail Application of Former IGP Zahur Haider Zaidi

Posted on

The Supreme Court dismissed the bail application filed by suspended IGP Zahur Haidar Zaidi on Tuesday i.e. on 15 of June 2021, related to the custodial death of an accused in the case of gang rape and murder of a 16-year-old schoolgirl in Shimla in 2017. The Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the bail application of former IGP Zaidi.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the former IGP submitted that there is no case of murder made out against the accused. Only a case of the disappearance of evidence of offence under section 201 IPC is made against him.

The case is related to the custodial death of an accused, who was arrested in a case of alleged gang rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Shimla in 2017. Haider Zaidi was arrested on 29th August 2017, after CBI probe into the investigation.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

8th KIIT National Moot Court Competition: Apply by 27th June 2021

Posted on

About KIIT (D.U.):

KIIT Deemed to be University is situated in Bhubaneswar and is one of the premier self financing universities of the country. It caters to more than 30,000 students from all across the nation and 50 other countries through more than 100 Academic programs like MBA, Engineering, Law, Bio-Technology, Rural Management etc., in more than 23 World Class Campus comprising of more than 2500 Academic and Research Staff. Established in 1992 with 2 staff and 12 students, it has gained its prominence in the world today and is also categorized as Institute of Eminence since 2019. Other details may be found at www.kiit.ac.in

About the Competition:

In continuation of its seven preceding events, the 8th KIIT National Moot Court Competition in the virtual mode plans to uphold the same ethos and yet ameliorate the standards of intellectual stimulation. This is the first online edition of the KIIT National Moot Court Competition, and hence they are looking towards making it a grand success.

Eligibility:

Students of three-year or five-year integrated law degree courses from any University/Law School/College/Department are eligible to participate in the Competition. However, a maximum of one Team shall be allowed to participate from any one University/Law School/College/Department.

Registration Procedure:

For provisional registration teams are required to send a mail to “kiitmoot2021@kls.ac.in” The teams interested in participating are required to confirm their participation by filling up the Google form. The link of which is: https://forms.gle/yv8bbp74sY2qYTJG6

The last date of final registration and payment is 27th June, 2021, (11:59 PM).

Teams interested in participating will send in the required registration amount of Rs. 3000/- via internet banking or any other mode in the following transaction details:

  • Name: KIIT School of Law
  • Account Number: 20139445354
  • IFSC: IDIB000K717
  • Account Type: Current
  • Bank: Indian Bank, KIIT Branch, Patia, Bhubaneswar

Submission Procedure:

The Written Submission has to be submitted only in soft copy. Each Team shall send a soft copy of the Written Submissions, via electronic mail, on or before July 10, 2021, by 17: 00 hours to: kiitmoot2021@kls.ac.in.

Awards:

  • Winning Team Award: The winning Team will receive a prize worth Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
  • First Runners-Up Team Award: The first runners-up Team will receive a prize worth Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only).
  • Second Runners up Team Award: The Second runners up Team will receive a prize worth Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only).
  • Best Student Advocate/Counsel: The Best Student Advocate/Counsel will receive a prize worth Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).  Best Memorial -The Team submitting the best memorial will receive a prize worth Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).

Deadlines:

  • Last date for Provisional Registration June 15th, 2021
  • Last Date of Registration June 27th, 2021
  • Last Date for Seeking Clarifications June 27th, 2021
  • Confirmation of Registration & Team code allotment June 30th, 2021
  • Release of Clarifications July 5th, 2021
  • Last date of Soft-copy written submissions July 10th, 2021
  • Dry- Run session in Zoom for participants July 13th, 2021
  • Compendium Submission July 14th, 2021
  • Inaugural function and Orientation of Participants followed by Draw of Lots & Memorial Exchange July 16th, 2021
  • Preliminary Round -1 & Preliminary Round – 2 followed by Draw of Lots & Memorial Exchange for Quarters July 17th, 2021
  • Quarter- Final Rounds followed by Draw of Lots & Memorial Exchange for Semis July 17th, 2021
  • Semi-Final Rounds, Final Rounds & Valedictory Ceremony July 18th, 2021

Contact Details:

Ankita Shaw: Student Convenor at KIIT Law School Moot Court Society: +91 9748274280

Official Links:

Brochure-Final-8th-KNMCCDownload
KVNMCC-Rules-and-TimelinesDownload
KNMCC-Moot-Proposition-FinalDownload

For regular updates, join us:

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/CdshAqpiV1FEogy5pBlY43

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Visit us for more such opportunities: http://lexpeeps.in/

Supreme Court Decided to hear the Petition Seeking CBI Probe into the Murder of two BJP Activists in West Bengal

Posted on

The petition filed requesting CBI probe into the case of murder of 2 BJP activists allegedly at the instance of Trinamool Congress leaders during the after poll violence is adjourned to 18th June by Supreme Court on Tuesday i.e. 15 of June 2021. The bench decided to hear the case on June 18th, after a request was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta regarding the matter. The Court was hearing a petition filed by Biswajit Sarkar, brother of deceased BJP member Avijit Sarkar who was brutally killed by TMC members during the after-poll violence in West Bengal.

The petition filed by Biswajit Sarkar sought the constitution of a Special Investigation Team(SIT) to investigate under the monitoring of the court the brutal murder of his brother and BJP booth worker Haran Adhikari allegedly at the behest of Trinamool Congress members.

The petition also sought directions for an investigation into the acts of widespread violence which took place in West Bengal after the Trinamool Congress was elected to power for the second consecutive term on 2nd May. A 17 years old girl and a 60 years old lady from West Bengal have also moved the Supreme Court alleging that they were raped by All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) workers for supporting the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the West Bengal elections 2021.

Both these petitions were filed in a pending case filed by Biswajit Sarkar, the brother of deceased Bengal BJP worker Abhijit Sarkar, who was brutally murdered when violence broke out after the Mamata Banerjee led All India Trinamool Congress secured a victory over the BJP in the 2021 elections.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Supreme Court Maintains the Trial Court’s Order and Dismisses the Appeal

Posted on

-Report by Anuj Dhar

On 28th May, the Supreme Court of India maintained the Trial Court and the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal of the appellants in the impugned judgment of 28th May 2021. A bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose found the appellant guilty under Section 304 B but stated that Section 306 could not be proved.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Satbir Singh, the deceased, and appellant no.1 got married on 1st July 1994.
  • On 31st July 1995, Satbir was found dead after sustaining burn injuries.
  • The prosecution claims that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry by both the appellants.
  • On 11th December 1997, the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under offence punishable under Section 304B and 306, IPC.
  • On June 11th, 2008, the High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

Contentions of the Appellants

The legal counsel of the appellants approached the Supreme Court and submitted that the possibility of accidental fire has not been ruled out in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry. The protection has failed to prove that the demand for dowry if there was one, was made before the death of the deceased victim.

Contentions of the Respondents

The legal counsel of the state submitted that there was no additional material that the appellants showed which would merit the interference of the Supreme Court in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Emphasized upon the fact that the death of the deceased occurred within almost a year of marriage. Witnesses have consistently stated specific instances of the demand for dowry.

The Decision of The Supreme Court

The two issues at hand which required the perusal of the Supreme Court were:

  • If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 304B, IPC?
  • If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 306, IPC?

The court stated that since the death of the victim was due to burn injuries and was within 7 years of marriage, it satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC. The aforementioned witnesses were also found consistent and reliable and on that basis, it was held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.
A perusal of the provisions under Section 306 indicates that presumptions shall be attracted only if the fact of suicide has been established. The prosecution must also prove that the accused has played an active role in the commission of suicide. This being said, the court further stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove the factum of suicide beyond doubt.

The Supreme Court of India held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC.

Relevant Sections

  • Section 304B, Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 306, Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 113A, Evidence Act.
  • Section 113B, Evidence Act.
  • Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.

The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad Dismisses the Pre-Arrest Bail Application of Azam Khan

Posted on

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Allahabad, on last Friday, dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Azam Khan, the prominent leader of the Samajwadi Party and the Member of Parliament from his party. His motion was dismissed in kin with the unlawful appointment of more than one thousand clerks, stenographers, and engineers in the Jal Nigam of Uttar Pradesh, as he was the prime accused behind this unlawful act during his term as a minister in the SP government’s rule in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Petitioner’s Contention

The learned counsel of the applicant moved an application under section 438 of CrPC, i.e.- anticipatory bail, to avail some sort of relief from the Hon’ble High Court, on the account of being arrest arrested, and further taken into judicial custody in kin with the Case Crime No. 02 of 2018, charged under section 409, 420, 120-B, 201 and section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, Police Station SIT of Lucknow District. The learned counsel on behalf of the applicant also contended that mereloy6 serving the jail authorities with B-warrant and communicating the same to the accused, nowhere signifies that the applicant has been retained in custody and hence the bail application under section 438 of the CrPC is maintainable. The learned counsel even argued, that even if the issuance of B-warrant has been done and communicated to the accused, yet the accused is entitled to bail as the charge sheet concerning this case was filed after the prescribed period of Ninety Days, by the investigation team.

Respondent’s Contention

The learned counsel on behalf of the state, contended that the F.I.R. was filed on 25.04.2018 on the grounds of the inquiry set up by the Special Investigating Team U.P., Lucknow regarding the felonies of biased enrichment, the disappearance of documents and destroying them, so that it cannot be laid as a piece of evidence against the criminal conspiracy of conspiring 1300 people on the post of Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Clerk, and Stenographer.

It was further perceptible that the present F.I.R. was lodged against the other four by the conducting Investigation Officer. While the applicant was taken into custody concerning another case with F.I.R. No. 980 of 2019, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Civil Lines, District Rampur, an F.I.R. No. 392 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Azeem Nagar, District Rampur and put in District Jail, Sitapur. There is sheer evidence of a B-warrant issued by the court, which was received by the Jail Authorities and communicated the same to the applicant within a day. The facts and figured were laid down. Given all the facts and analysis, the applicant is considered to be in custody concerning the current F.I.R. No. 2 of 2018 and issued B-Warrant issued by the competent court under the provisions of Section 267(1) CrPC.

The Court’s Order

The division bench of Hon’ble High Court, headed by Justice Rajeev Singh, reject the motion of filing the anticipatory bail application of the accused, Azam Khan, and observed while doing, that the accused is already under detention and a B-warrant has been issued against him by the competent court under the section 267 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and has also been duly communicated to him. The Court further highlighted the fact that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused on the grounds of preliminary investigation, carried forward by the SIT, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The accused was held liable for the unlawful appointment of more than a thousand engineers, clerks, and stenographers giving them unjust enrichment, doing forgery, conspiracy, and destroying pieces of evidence for the same. The court also stated that “It is also evident that B-warrant was issued by the competent court on 18.11.2020 was received by the Jail Authorities of District Jail Sitapur who communicated the same to the applicant on 19.11.2020”. The division bench of the court also took into consideration, the case of Bobby (Paramveer) and Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which they highlighted the key feature that while the Criminal Court issues the B-warrant, it has to satisfy the fact that the issuance of the same is just and proper. The issuance of the same means that the accused is already under detention. Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that the application moved by the accused, Azam Khan under section 438 of the CrPC is not maintainable, yet the court opened a way for the accused to move under regular bail if he so desires.

In fisherman Killing Case Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceeding

Posted on

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

The Supreme Court had ordered closure in the fisherman killing case against two Italian marines who were accused of killing the fisherman.

Facts

On 15 February 2012, two Indian fishermen Salvatore Girone and Massimiliano were killed off on the coast of Kerala, India. It was alleged that the two Italian marines aboard the Italian-flagged commercial oil tanker MB Enrics Lexie killed the fishermen. Italian said that they opened fire on the fisherman thinking they were pirates. After the incident, the Indian Navy detained the two Italian marines. There was diplomatic tension between the two nations. When it was found that there are no formal charges for detention, the two Italian marines were released after two and four years.

Petitioner’s Contention

On 23 February 2012, a petition was filed by the Italian Consul General and the two accused Marines to stay in Kerala High Court. The petition submitted that Kerala police had no authority to conduct an investigation in the case and that courts in India had no jurisdiction as the incident had occurred beyond Indian territorial waters. So petitioners were seeking to quash court proceedings.

Judgment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed against all the FIRs two Italian Marines. The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and M.R Shah said the killing was accidental, as there was an understanding that they considered fishermen as pirates. The beach also, observed that the State of Kerala, the heirs of the deceased as well as the owner of the boat has agreed to accept the compensation amount offered by the Italian government. So, the order that the amount of will is transferred from Supreme Court registry to Kerala High Court. The amount of Rs. 4 crores to be given to each victim’s family and Rs. 2 crores to the owner of the boat.

Key Highlight

  • The case was taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015. Where Italy’s said that Indians could not try the marines as a crime. In July 2020, Netherland had ruled that Indians could proceed with it as a crime.

What charges were remanded to judicial custody?

Two Italian corps marines, one class Massimiliano Latoree and another Salvatore Girone, were remanded to judicial custody for interrogation on homicide under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

How much compensation is given by the Italian government?

The compensation provided by the Italian government is 10 crores.

Who was included on the bench?

The bench included Justice Indira Banerjee and M.R Sha.