Failure of Justice - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

21Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clears Way for Occupation Certificate, Bans Construction on Recreational Plot

The Supreme Court set aside the concurrent convictions, holding that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC vitiates a fair trial. The trial court's failure to put each material circumstance individually to the appellants caused prejudice. The Court remanded the matter for de novo examination from the stage of recording Section 313 statements, emphasizing this mandatory procedural requirement. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on March 31, 2016, when the informant, Kachan Pasi, along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi, and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi, were returning from their fields. They were allegedly surrounded by several accused persons, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court—Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi, and Gidik Pasi. The accu...

Supreme Court Rules :Procedural Lapses Can’t Be A Safe Haven For Rapists

The Supreme Court held that procedural irregularities, such as defective charge framing or improper joint trial under Section 223 CrPC, do not automatically vitiate the proceedings unless a failure of justice is proven. The Court emphasized that minor inconsistencies and procedural lapses should not be elevated to the level of reasonable doubt to acquit an accused, especially in heinous offences, if the core prosecution evidence remains credible and consistent. The conviction was restored as no prejudice was established. Facts Of The Case: In 2016, a few months after the Holi festival, the appellant's minor daughter began experiencing health issues. Her deteriorating condition led her mother to take her to a hospital in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh, for treatment. On July 1, 2016, a medic...

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...