miscarriage of justice - The Legal Chamber

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...

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: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration

The Supreme Court held that a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn an acquittal. It can only correct glaring errors. Finding no such error and that the dying declaration did not establish the charges, the Court restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on June 14, 2005, in which a woman sustained fatal burn injuries in a fire at her marital home. Her husband (Appellant 1) and another accused (Appellant 2) were charged under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants harassed the deceased and that the fire was a result of a deliberate act. The core of the prosecution's case was a dying declara...