Indian criminal law - The Legal Chamber

Can’t Claim Juvenile Benefit Based on Weak Evidence: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

29Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Can’t Claim Juvenile Benefit Based on Weak Evidence: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that a school transfer certificate based solely on an oral declaration, without corroborating proof, is unreliable for determining juvenility. When such evidence conflicts with official documents like a family register, voter list, and medical opinion, the latter must be given precedence to prevent the abuse of benevolent legislation. Facts Of The Case: On August 31, 2011, the appellant's brother, Rajesh, was shot and killed. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against Liliu Singh and his son, Devi Singh (Respondent No. 2), under Sections 302 (murder) and 452 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident allegedly occurred after Liliu Singh and Devi Singh forcibly entered the appellant's house and manhandled his wife. When Rajesh went to confro...

Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of SC/ST Act: No Prosecution Without Caste-Based Intent

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It ruled that mere allegations of caste-based malice were insufficient without concrete evidence. The Court emphasized that prosecution under the Act requires proof of intent linked to the victim's caste, preventing misuse for personal vendettas. Legal infirmities in the complaint and lack of prima facie case justified the quashing under Section 482 CrPC. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a land allotment dispute in Duvva village, where the appellant, Konde Nageshwar Rao, alleged that Respondent No. 2, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), manipulated the allotment of plots reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) beneficiaries to upper-caste ind...

Supreme Court Verdict : Police Can’t Serve Appearance Notices via WhatsApp

The Supreme Court dismissed the application seeking modification of its earlier order, holding that electronic communication (e.g., WhatsApp) is not a valid mode for serving notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court emphasized that such notices, which impact personal liberty, must adhere strictly to prescribed modes of service under the BNSS. It clarified that while electronic service is permissible for court summons under Sections 63, 64, and 71 of the BNSS, the same cannot be extended to investigative notices under Section 35, as the legislative intent excludes electronic modes for this purpose. The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case aro...