Case Analysis - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough

The Supreme Court upheld that a rape conviction can be based solely on the sole, credible testimony of the prosecutrix. Corroboration through medical evidence is not a legal necessity. The absence of injuries does not disprove the offense, especially when the victim's account is consistent and inspires confidence. Facts Of The Case: On April 3, 2018, at approximately noon, a 15-year-old victim and her 11-year-old brother were alone at their home in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, as their parents had gone to a nearby village to attend a funeral. The appellant-accused, Deepak Kumar Sahu, who was known to the family and lived in the neighbourhood, entered the house. Finding the victim alone, he sent her younger brother away to buy chewing tobacco. Once the brother left, the accused forced the v...

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

22May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: When Can an Arbitral Award Be Challenged for Lack of Jurisdiction?

The Supreme Court ruled that an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, cannot be annulled solely for lack of jurisdiction if no plea was raised before the tribunal under Section 16(2). It harmonized conflicting precedents, holding that objections under Section 34 must show strong grounds, and upheld the finality of awards where jurisdictional challenges were untimely. The judgment clarifies that the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Act 1983, does not automatically override arbitration agreements unless jurisdictional objections are raised at the appropriate stage. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a contractual dispute between M/s Gayatri Projects Limited and Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation regarding road construction works in Madhya Pradesh. The parties...

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 195 CrPC Doesn’t Protect Post-Proceeding Forgery”: Courts Records Safety

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 195 CrPC does not bar prosecution for tampering with court records after proceedings conclude, as such acts no longer affect "proceedings in court" under Section 195(1)(b). It held that fabricating documents in record rooms post-withdrawal constitutes standalone offences under IPC, not requiring court-sanctioned complaints. The judgment clarified that Section 195 applies only when offences directly impact live judicial proceedings or documents in active court custody, distinguishing between administrative record-keeping and judicial administration of justice. The Court affirmed that FIRs remain valid for post-proceeding forgeries. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2005 FIR lodged by the Registrar of Bharuch District Court against Parshotta...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

17May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...