Tag: #SupremeCourt

The Father of Jaipal Bhullar who is Bhupinder Singh had filed a petition in Supreme Court constructing allegations against Punjab and Haryana Police stating that his son’s death is not a case of the encounter instead it is a case of custodial death.

Jaipal Singh Bhinder was one of the most wanted drug smugglers and gangsters in Punjab. There have been more than 50 criminal cases filed against him and after killing two police officers in Ludhiana in May Punjab police have been eyeing him. According to Punjab police they got the news that he and his partner Jaspreet is hiding in Kolkata in a flat and when police got into the flat the gangsters started firing and in that firing, he was shot to death. But according to Jaipal Bhullar father’s this version of the story is fabricated by Punjab police and it’s not the true version.

According to his father, it’s a case of custodial death as when the dead body of his son was handed to him he had noticed various injuries caused on the body which may not occur in case of an encounter. He also accused that the postmortem report has been influenced by police. In the petition, he also requested to conduct another postmortem.

Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the petition and so the petitioner moved to Supreme Court. Because of this serious contention of Petitioner Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Indira Banerjee and MR Shah have ordered Calcutta High Court to take up the matter and conduct the second autopsy as demanded by the Petitioner.

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

The Tarak Mehta fame actress Munmun Dutta’s FIR for her alleged remarks hurting the sentiments of the SC community was ordered to be stayed by the Supreme Court.

A division bench led by Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian issued a notice against a plea filed by Dutta against the FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the petition filed by Dutta, she sought a stay on the FIRs against her while clubbing and consolidating the FIRs registered in various states. Puneet Bali, a senior advocate, represented Dutta and submitted that since Dutta is Bengali, she was unaware of the real meaning of the said word. To which the bench contended, “That is not true. You may not be informed. Everyone knows the meaning. The same word is used in Bangla.”

The Bench directed a stay on 5 FIRs registered on her in different states along with issuing a notice in the petition. The matter has been listed in court after 6 weeks.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

PS Murthi, an 87-year-old and the father of 5 children, was allotted a plot by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 26th May 1972, where he built a two-story house for him and his family.

Murthi lived peacefully with his wife and his fourth son i.e Laxmi Rajah. On the demise of the Murthi’s wife, PS Vijay and PS Suraj started demanding a share in the properties, forcefully took possession of the ground floor of the house, and allegedly ill-treated their father on many accounts.

The 87-year-old filed a contempt petition before the Madras High Court against his two sons for wilful breach of undertaking dated 28.12.2019 given to the court of V Metropolitan Magistrate of Egmore, Chennai. The mentioned undertaking was for the petitioners to vacate the Murthi’s house, to save themselves from a criminal complaint filed by their father for the ill-treatment he was sustained by his sons.

As per the Madras High Court order date 04.06.2021, PS Vijay and PS Suraj were found guilty under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and were sentenced to undergo 3 months of imprisonment or pay a fine of Rs.2000. and undergo imprisonment for one week.

The Supreme Court of India, on June 11th, noted the submission made by the counsel of the petitioners who had till June 13th to vacate the premises and was asked to file a compliance affidavit on June 14th, 2021.

On June 15th, the counsel of the petitioner, Anup Kumar, stated that June 14th i.e. Sunday was a complete lockdown and thus, was the reason for their breach of undertaking. The counsel further asked for 7-15 days to vacate the premises. The apex court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and stated that the sons will vacate the property on or before June 17th and the court further refused to grant them any protection for arrest.

-Report by Anuj Dhar

The exercise instructions dated 21st June 2021 that got here into pressure with instantaneous impact said that the Magistrates having jurisdiction to attempt offenses below the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 “shall document cogent and enough reasons” earlier than changing a grievance below sec. 138 of the N.I. Act from precis trial to summons trial in exercising of energy below the second one proviso of sec. 143 of N.I.Act.

“Due care and a warning will be exercised in this regard and the conversion of precise trial to summons trial shall now no longer be in a mechanical manner.” It stated.

Furthermore, it stated: “While engaging in the sort of inquiry below Section 202 Cr.P.C., the proof of witnesses on behalf of the complainant will be authorized to be taken on affidavit. In appropriate cases, the Magistrate might also additionally limit the inquiry to the exam of files for pleasure as to the sufficiency of grounds for proceeding below the stated provision.”

Other instructions issued are as follows:

• Trial Court shall deal with the provider of summons in a single grievance below Section 138 N.I. Act forming a part of a transaction, as a deemed provider in admiration of all proceedings filed before the equal Court relating to dishonor of cheques issued as a part of the equal transaction.
• Section 258 of Cr.P.C. has no applicability to proceedings below Section 138 of N.I.Act. The words “as a long way as might also additionally be” in Section 143 are used most effectively in admire of applicability of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the precise manner to be observed for trials below the stated Code
• Trial Courts don’t have any inherent energy to check or take into account the problem of summons on the subject of the grievance filed below Section 138 of N.I. Act. However, the equal shall now no longer affect the energy of the Trial Court below Section 322 of Cr. P.C to revisit the order of difficulty of the system in case it’s far added to the court’s observation appropriate that it lacks jurisdiction to attempt the grievance 
• The Appellate Courts earlier than which appeals in opposition to the judgments in grievance below Section 138 of N.I. Acts are pending and are directed to take some time to settle the dispute via mediation.

Report by – Manaswa Sharma

The Delhi High Court in its judgments dated fifteenth June found that offences below the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) aren’t made out clear against student leaders Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha whale, and Devangana Kalita within the Delhi riots conspiracy case.

In the 3 separate orders delivered permitting the bail applications of Tanha, whale, and Kalita, the court has undertaken a factual examination of the allegations to determine if a prima facie case is formed out against them for the needs of Section 43D(5) of UAPA. However, a judicature bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, once a preliminary analysis of the charge sheet discovered that the allegations don’t represent the alleged UAPA offences concerning terrorist activities(Sections 15,17 and 18). Therefore, the division bench aforesaid that the rigor of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA against the grant of bail wasn’t attracted against the accused, and thus they were entitled to grant of bail below the normal principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

These 3 student leaders have spent over an amount of 1 year in Tihar jail, even amid the 2 deadly waves of the COVID pandemic. The profit of interim bail on account of the pandemic wasn’t on the market to them as they were defendants below the UAPA. After Natasha narwal lost her father Mahavir narwal to COVID last month, the judicature had granted her interim bail for 3 weeks to perform the observance rites.

-Report by Manaswa Sharma

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

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

-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.

-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.

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing two separate pleas requesting the Centre and the states to provide Rs. 4 lakh as compensation to the families of the victims of this deadly virus.

Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, one of the two petitioners, contended that under Section 12(iii) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, every family whose member died due to a disaster is entitled to compensation worth Rs. 4 lakh. The legal team of Reepak Kaushal, the second petitioner, argued that since a large number of people have succumbed to the novelty virus, proper issuance of death certificates need to be issued, as only the aggrieved families can claim the aforementioned compensation under Section 12(iii).

On June 11th, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the Supreme Court that the issues raised in the please, seeking compensation for the affected families, are genuine and are under consideration of the Central government.

The Supreme Court has given the Centre 10 days to file a reply and thereafter the matter will be heard. The court has also said that there should be a uniform policy in place for issuing death certificates to the victims of the virus and the doctor’s certification ascribing the death to a different reason rather than covid is not fair.

The matter has been listed on June 21 for the next hearing.

-Report by Anuj Dhar