Recent Posts

Mere non- obtainment of medical fitness certificate will not deter Court from considering a properly recorded statement under Section 161 CrPC to be dying declaration, says Supreme Court while upholding conviction for murder
Justices Surya Kant & KV Viswanathan [08-07-2024]

Read Order: Dharmendra Kumar @ Dhamma v. State of Madhya Pradesh [SC- Criminal Appeal No. 2806/ 2024]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while appreciating that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the injured victim, who later died, instantly, a day after the incident.

 

 

 

The case pertains to a brutal incident that occurred on the night of June 20, 2004, in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, resulting in the death of two individuals, Devi Singh @ Tillu and Tularam. The prosecution's case heavily relied on the testimonies of two eyewitnesses, Usha Bai (PW-10) and Lallu Vishwakarma (PW-11). According to their statements, the incident unfolded when Usha Bai was overseeing the construction of her hut's wall by Tillu and Tularam. The accused, Ahmad and his wife, Kanija Bi, arrived at the scene and objected to the construction. The situation escalated when other accused persons, including the appellant Dharmendra @ Dhamma, joined and began verbally abusing and physically assaulting Tillu and Tularam.

 

 

The eyewitnesses testified that Tillu sought refuge in a nearby unoccupied hut belonging to Bhairav Shastri. However, the accused forcibly entered the hut, with Dharmendra @ Dhamma inflicting a knife blow to Tillu's abdomen. Tularam attempted to intervene but was also subjected to severe attacks. Both victims were rushed to the hospital, where Tillu succumbed to his injuries, and Tularam passed away five days later.

 

 

The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment, addressed various contentions raised by the appellant's counsel. The court found no substantial contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecution's case that would warrant overturning the conviction. The presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime and his active participation in the assault were established through the consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon used in the crime.

 

 

The top court also dismissed the argument regarding the inconclusive blood group classification on the recovered knife, stating that it is incumbent upon the accused to provide an explanation regarding the presence of human blood on the weapon and thatthe Appellant failed to do so.

 

 

“It is important in this case to appreciate that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement instantly, a day after the incident,” the top court noted in the judgement, adding that Tularam was able to convey his statement properly. Furthermore, on perusal of the statement, it is clear that the declarant Tularam was in a fit condition as not only did he properly explain the incident but has also markedly specified the role of the Appellant, the apex court held.

 

 

“From the above discussion, it is manifest that the mere non- obtainment of a medical fitness certificate will not deter this Court from considering a properly recorded statement under Section 161 CrPC to be a dying declaration,” the Bench observed.

 

 

The Supreme Court thereby was satisfied that there are no contradictions or discrepancies in the prosecution case of such a nature that would compel the court to take a view different than that of the Trial Court and the High Court. The appeal was thus dismissed.

 

Supreme Court dissolves 22-year-old marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown
Justices Vikram Nath & Satish C Sharma [10-07-2024]

Read Order: VIKAS KANAUJIA v. SARITA[SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7380 OF 2025]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024: The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to dissolve a 22-year-old marriage between two medical practitioners on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. The apex court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order which had earlier dismissed the husband's plea for divorce.

 

 

The couple, both medical doctors, had tied the knot in 2002 but lived together for barely 23 days before the wife left for her paternal home. Despite the husband's attempts, she refused to return. Over the years, the estranged couple fought multiple legal battles, including criminal cases, against each other. In 2006, the Family Court granted divorce to the husband on grounds of cruelty. However, the wife challenged this in the High Court which allowed her appeal in 2019. Aggrieved, the husband approached the Supreme Court.

 

 

The Supreme Court observed that the marriage had ceased to exist both in substance and reality, and the matrimonial bond was broken beyond repair. The court noted that the parties had lived together for a total of only 43 days in their 22 years of marriage. Mediation and conciliation proceedings had also failed. Relying on recent Constitution Bench judgments, the court held that it has the discretion under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown to do complete justice between the parties.

 

 

Finding this to be a fit case, the Supreme Court granted divorce, stating that continuation of the legal relationship was unjustified when there was no possibility of the parties living together. As both are professionally qualified doctors with sufficient earnings, no permanent alimony was awarded.

Arbitration Agreement survives discharge of contract: Supreme Court refers insurance claim dispute to arbitration
CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala & Manoj Misra [18-07-2024]

Read Order: SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. KRISH SPINNING[SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7821 OF 2024]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024:The Supreme Court has held that an arbitration agreement contained in a contract survives even after the contract is discharged by "accord and satisfaction" or full and final settlement.

 

 

A full bench comprising Chief Justice of India justice DY Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra was deciding appeals filed by SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd against orders of the Gujarat High Court appointing an arbitrator in a dispute raised by Krish Spinning regarding settlement of insurance claims.

 

 

The insured, Krish Spinning, had suffered losses in two fire incidents at its factory premises in 2018. It alleged that for the first fire incident, as against the claimed loss of Rs. 1.76 crores, the insurer only paid Rs. 84.19 lakhs after wrongful deductions. Though Krish Spinning had signed a discharge voucher accepting this amount as full and final settlement, it later alleged this was done under financial duress as the claim for the second fire was pending. When Krish Spinning invoked arbitration for the balance claim amount, SBI General Insurance opposed it contending that the claim stood fully settled and no arbitrable dispute survived.

 

 

However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration agreement being independent of the substantive contract, continues to remain in existence for resolving any dispute pertaining to the settlement, unless the parties expressly agree otherwise. Whether the discharge of the contract was voluntary or under coercion would be an arbitrable dispute.

 

 

The Top Court noted that under the amended Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the scope of Court's examination is limited to determining existence of the arbitration agreement. Issues of accord and satisfaction, limitation etc. are to be left for the arbitral tribunal to decide as per the negative effect of competence-competence principle. Only in rare and exceptional cases where the claim is ex facie meritless and frivolous, the Court may refuse arbitration at the referral stage.

 

 

The apex court thus affirmed the appointment of the arbitrator by the High Court to adjudicate the disputes between SBI General Insurance and Krish Spinning.

Supreme Court upholds state ownership of land donated for veterinary hospital in 1958
Justices Vikram Nath & KV Viswanathan [10-07-2024]

Read Order: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS v. BHAGWANTPAL SINGH ALIAS BHAGWANT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS[SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7379 OF 2024]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024:The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the State of Punjab in a long-standing land dispute case against one Bhagwantpal Singh, dismissing the latter's suit for possession of a 2176.6 sq yard plot in Samana, Patiala.

 

 

The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the State challenging the Punjab & Haryana High Court order that had earlier restored possession of the land to Bhagwantpal Singh, son of the original owner Inder Singh.

 

 

The State contended that Inder Singh had donated the land way back in 1958 for constructing a veterinary hospital, which has been functional on the site since 1958-59. In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that Inder Singh did not object to the construction of the hospital during his lifetime, indicating that he had actually donated the land for public cause. The court noted that the suit filed by his son Bhagwantpal Singh in 2001, 43 years later, was clearly barred by the 12-year limitation period under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

 

 

The top court held that merely because Bhagwantpal Singh's name continued in the revenue records, it did not confer ownership rights, as such records are only for the purpose of realizing taxes. Since no declaration of ownership was sought, and only possession was prayed for, the suit was not maintainable after the title had already passed to the State upon the 1958 donation, the court said.

 

 

"It is unfortunate that after 43 years, his son filed the suit for possession without seeking declaration, as in case, he would have sought relief of declaration, the suit would have been further barred by time for the said relief also," the judgment stated.

 

 

The Supreme Court restored the decree of the first appellate court that had dismissed Bhagwantpal Singh's suit, setting aside the High Court order. The ruling upholds the State's ownership of the land based on the original donation and over 60 years of uninterrupted possession and usage for the veterinary hospital.

Supreme Court upholds conviction in 27-year-old murder case holding testimony of witnesses to be cogent, reliable & credible
Justices Abhay S Oka & Pankaj Mithal [08-07-2024]

Read Order: Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh[SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2132 OF 2011]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024: The Supreme Court hasupheldthe conviction for a 1997 murder by hacking with sickles, holding that only because an eye witness is a member of the deceased's family, per se, the evidence of such a witness cannot be discarded.

 

 

“If the evidence of an eyewitness who is a close relative of the deceased is cogent, reliable and credible, it can always be relied upon,” the Top Court held.

 

 

 

The incident, which took place on July 26, 1997, in Peddavadugur village, Andhra Pradesh, was a result of a suspected political rivalry between the accused and the deceased. According to the prosecution, Shiva Prasad Reddy, a practicing lawyer, had contested the election for the post of President of the Water Users Association against Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy. Despite losing the election, Reddy suspected that the deceased was responsible for a raid conducted by the Excise Police on his house, leading to the seizure of illicit brandy.

 

 

On the fateful day, Shiva Prasad Reddy was attacked and hacked to death by the accused and his accomplices, who were armed with hunting sickles. The attack was witnessed by the deceased's brothers, who were also threatened by the assailants. The Trial Court convicted Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy and five others for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court upheld the conviction, prompting Reddy to approach the Supreme Court.

 

 

The Supreme Court, after carefully examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the testimony of the deceased's brothers to be reliable and consistent. The top court also noted that the hunting sickles used in the crime were recovered at the instance of the accused, and the handles were found stained with human blood.

 

 

While dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court granted Thatireddigari Maheswara Reddy one month to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence. The court also directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to consider the appellant's case for grant of permanent remission, taking into account the fact that his co-accused have already been granted the same benefit.

Supreme Court grants bail to Nepal national accused in fake currency case after 9 years in jail
Justices JB Pardiwala& Ujjal Bhuyan [18-07-2024]

Read Order: SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @ JAVED ANSARI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2790 OF 2024]

 

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 18, 2024: The Supreme Court has granted bail to a Nepalese national who has been in custody in Uttar Pradesh for over 9 years in connection with a case related to possession and circulation of fake Indian currency notes.

 

 

Sheikh Iqbal Javed was arrested in February 2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) from the Indo-Nepal border and charged under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Fake currency notes totaling Rs. 26,03,500 were allegedly recovered from his possession.

 

 

A division bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the charges against the accused are grave, his continued incarceration cannot be justified, especially when the trial is proceeding at an extremely slow pace. As per the impugned High Court order, evidence of only two witnesses has been recorded in the case so far.

 

 

The Supreme Court observed that an accused has a fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are serious when there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude. The Top Court also distinguished certain earlier judgments which had taken a stricter view on bail in cases under special laws like UAPA and NDPS Act.

 

 

While granting bail, the Top Court has imposed certain conditions on the accused, including impounding of his passport, restriction on leaving the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court without permission, periodic appearance before the police and the court, and prohibition on tampering evidence or threatening witnesses.

‘There is nothing to presume at this stage that the deceased had given any provocation or that the accused was voluntarily provoked by the deceased’ : Delhi HC upholds murder charge against man accused of killing roommate during altercation
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna [10-07-2024]

Read Order: RAMDEV MUKHIYA @ RAMREKH v. STATE NCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- CRL.REV.P. 868/2024]

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 17, 2024: The Delhi High Court has upheld the charge of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)against a man accused of killing his roommate in a fit of rage following an argument.

 

The petitioner-accused had submitted that the charge against him was framed under section 302 IPC even though the FIR was registered under Section 304 IPC and the Charge Sheet has also been filed under Section 304 IPC. He also submitted that the facts of the case prima facie disclosed that it falls under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPCand the Charge under Section 302 IPC has been wrongly framed.

 

The High Court noted that the Law in this regard is absolutely clear and unambiguous that if the accused is able to establish that he had been provoked by the deceased without there being any corresponding provocation by the accused, then the death of a person may be held as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

 

The Bench however held that “there was an altercation but there is nothing to presume at this stage that the deceased had given any provocation or that the accused was voluntarily provoked by the deceased. It is a matter of Trial whether there was any grave and sudden provocation. At this stage facts on which the case is made, do not lead to any such interference.”

 

The High Court also held that Explanation to Section 300 I.P.C. also states that whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

 

“The charge has been rightly framed by the learned ASJ and the impugned Order calls for no interference,” the High Court stated in the order, thereby dismissing the petition.

 

Ramrekh, a resident of a rented premises in Delhi, was charged under Section 302 IPC for allegedly hitting his roommate, Manik, on the head with a piece of a broken pot, leading to his death. The incident occurred on May 16, 2023, when Ramrekh and Manik, along with other roommates, were having dinner together and had an argument that led to an altercation.

Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to woman accused of Rs. 1.65 crore spice trading scam
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna [08-07-2024]

Read Order: JYOTI GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI [DEL HC- BAIL APPLN. 2130/2024]

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 17, 2024: The Delhi High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a woman accused of involvement in a Rs. 1.65 crore spice trading scam.

 

A single-judge bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishnadismissed the bail application filed by Jyoti Gupta under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

 

According to the FIR registered at the South East Police Station in Delhi, Gupta, along with her husband Neeraj Dengre alias Neeraj Gupta and other co-accused, allegedly approached the complainant, Umesh Kumar Goel, proprietor of Kuru Agro Products, to defraud him of a large sum of money. The accused portrayed themselves as agents in the spice trading business and took orders for the supply of various items, assuring the complainant that the goods would be stored in the Sudarshan Cold Storage in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

 

However, the complainant alleged that the accused created a false paper trail, including the generation of fake invoices, to deceive him. No goods were actually delivered or stored in the cold storage as claimed. The complainant stated that he had paid a sum of Rs. 97,85,475 to the accused persons.

 

Jyoti Gupta, in her defense, claimed that she had no active participation in the alleged incident and her role was solely administrative, limited to signing documents at her husband's request without knowledge of the transactions. She further contended that her husband had merely introduced the complainant to various persons in the spice trade, after which they had direct dealings without his involvement.

 

Despite Gupta's claims of cooperation with the investigation, the police alleged that she had failed to join the investigation after the withdrawal of her first anticipatory bail application. The court also noted serious allegations of forged invoices and the money received by Gupta's firm, Kanishka Traders, which is yet to be traced and recovered. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Delhi High Court found no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail, thereby dismissing her application.

Delhi High Court finds man guilty of Contempt for abusing judicial process for personal gain
Justices Pratibha M Singh & Amit Sharma [05-07-2024]

Read Order: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. PRADEEP AGGARWAL[DEL HC- CONT.CAS.(CRL) 1/2023]

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 17, 2024: The Delhi High Court has held a man named Pradeep Aggarwal guilty of criminal contempt of court for abusing the judicial process in an attempt to extract money from the respondents in a writ petition.

 

Mr. Aggarwal had filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking action against alleged unauthorized construction on certain lands in Burari, Delhi. However, investigation by the police revealed that Mr. Aggarwal had demanded Rs. 50 lakhs from the respondents in order to withdraw the writ petition. Call recordings confirmed these demands.

 

The high court found that Mr. Aggarwal had filed the petition for personal gain and leverage, showing utter disregard and abuse of the court's process. His conduct was held to be grossly contemptuous as it interfered with the administration of justice and lowered the dignity of the court.

 

"Such acts not only challenge the authority of the Court but also undermine public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judicial process," the court observed in its detailed order.

 

The Division Bench held that contempt law serves to protect the judiciary against acts that disrespect or impede its functioning. Considering the medical condition, age and apology tendered by the contemnor, the court took a lenient view on sentencing. Mr. Aggarwal was ordered to remain in court till its rising for the day and also deposit Rs. 1 lakh with the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee within a week.

Supreme Court dissolves marriage on ground of irretrievable breakdown, orders Rs. 2 crore alimony
Justice Vikram Nath & PK Mishra [15-07-2024]

Read Order: KIRAN JYOT MAINI v. ANISH PRAMOD PATEL [SC- CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2915-2918 OF 2024]

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 17, 2024: The Supreme Court has invoked its Article 142 powers to dissolve the marriage between Kiran Jyot Maini and Anish Pramod Patel, citing irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

 

A Division Bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, also ordered the husband to pay Rs. 2 crores as one-time permanent alimony to the wife within four months.

 

The couple got married in April 2015 but differences arose within a year, with the wife filing a domestic violence case against the husband in 2016. Despite multiple attempts at mediation and reconciliation over the past 9 years of separation, the marriage could not be salvaged. Both parties mutually agreed before the Supreme Court that the marriage exists only on paper now with no scope for reunion.

 

The Court examined the financial status and needs of both parties in detail. The husband, employed as Vice President at Deutsche Bank, earns over Rs. 8 lakh per month. The wife works as an HR Head drawing a salary of Rs. 1.39 lakh per month. Considering their qualifications, standard of living, dependents and the husband's higher income, the Court arrived at Rs. 2 crores as a fair and balanced permanent alimony amount.

 

The apex court reiterated the legal position that there is no fixed formula for determining maintenance and courts must holistically consider the status, needs, qualifications, and income of parties. The objective is to ensure the financial independence of the wife and children post-divorce.

 

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has provided much needed clarity on determination of permanent alimony in divorce cases and paved the way for a clean break between parties where the marriage has broken down beyond repair. The Court used its extraordinary Article 142 powers to render complete justice between the parties.

Delhi HC denies bail to alleged narco-terrorist linked to ISI and Khalistani extremists
Justice Subramonium Prasad [04-07-2024]

Read Order: MD. AYUB PATHAN v. THE STATE OF NCT DELHI [DEL HC - BAIL APPLN. 2258/2024]

 

LE Correspondent

 

New Delhi, July 17, 2024: The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail plea of Md. Ayub Pathan, who was arrested in connection with a case involving narco-terrorism and alleged links to Pakistan's ISI and Khalistani extremist groups.

 

According to the FIR, the Special Cell of Delhi Police received information that ISI, through its K2 desk (Kashmir - Khalistan), had been funding targeted killings of Hindu right-wing leaders using proceeds from drug trafficking. The drugs were allegedly being pushed by Hizbul Mujahiddin cadres and over-ground workers based in Kashmir, and supplied to their Khalistani counterparts in Punjab for distribution.

 

The police apprehended Pathan along with four others in a raid on December 7, 2020. Pathan and another accused, Shabir Ahmad Gojri, were found carrying backpacks containing a total of over 1.7 kg of heroin, which is considered a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. The other three accused - Gurjit Singh Bhaa, Sukhdeep Singh Bhura, and Reyaz Ahmad Rather - were allegedly carrying pistols and opened fire on the police to evade arrest.

 

Pathan had approached the High Court seeking regular bail till the pendency of the case. However, A single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail can be granted only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

 

The high court observed that Pathan was found with persons who are now being tried under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and that the co-accused had fired several rounds at the police before being apprehended. Given the commercial quantity of heroin recovered and the sequence of events, the court opined that there are reasonable grounds to believe Pathan is guilty under the NDPS Act and likely to abscond and commit further offenses if released. Rejecting Pathan's bail plea, the High Court dismissed the application along with any pending applications.