Supreme Court of India - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Key eyewitnesses turned hostile and their testimonies did not establish kidnapping or the 'last seen' theory. The Court emphasized that the foundational principles for convicting on circumstantial evidence were not satisfied, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the kidnapping and murder of Bhoominadhan, an auto-rickshaw driver from Nellore. The prosecution's case was that on the evening of 26th March 2016, the appellant-accused, Thammineni Bhaskar (A-1), along with his associates, forcibly dragged the deceased from his auto-rickshaw near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony and kidnapped him. The incident was allegedly witness...

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

Based on the principle of parity, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when a co-accused, prosecuted on identical evidence in a joint trial, is acquitted and the State does not challenge it, sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused would be unjust and inequitable. Facts Of The Case: On January 1, 2002, the State Task Force officials near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi, noticed two women, the appellant Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2) and Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (Accused No.1). Upon seeing the officials, the co-accused handed a yellow handbag to the appellant, after which both attempted to flee but were apprehended. A search of the bag revealed six packets containing a total of 5.5 kilograms of opium. The accused confessed to being involved in the opium trade...

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...

Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the extensive authority of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Karta to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity. The Supreme Court clarified that expenses from a daughter's marriage, even if incurred years prior, can create a financial necessity justifying a subsequent sale. The alienee discharges their burden by establishing a nexus to such necessity, and is not required to prove how the sale consideration was distributed amongst coparceners, as that lies within their special knowledge. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a piece of ancestral land belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), with the father as its Karta. The plaintiff, one of the sons, sued his father and brothers after the Karta sold the suit land to the appell...

Deception in Court Backfires: Supreme Court Awards Custody to Father in Habeas Corpus Case

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Deception in Court Backfires: Supreme Court Awards Custody to Father in Habeas Corpus Case

This Supreme Court judgment underscores that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding parental legal rights. It affirms the use of habeas corpus for child custody, directing interim custody to the natural guardian while prioritizing a stable environment and ordering the initiation of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Sandeep Kumar (father) and Latika Arora (mother) concerning their two children. In May 2021, the mother travelled to the UK with their daughter, 'Miss N', but left their son, 'Master K', in India with her parents without the father's knowledge or consent. The father, unaware of his son's whereabouts, initiated proceedings in the UK High ...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Calls it “Abuse of Process of Law”

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Property Dispute, Calls it “Abuse of Process of Law”

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that the continuation thereof amounted to an abuse of the process of law. The allegations, arising from a civil dispute over a loan and its guarantee, did not constitute a criminal offense, especially after the withdrawal of an earlier complaint on the same cause of action. Facts Of The Case: This case originated from an FIR registered against the appellant, Bhawana Jain, under Sections 406, 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC. The dispute concerned a plot purchased jointly by her deceased husband and the complainant, Respondent No. 2. After a mutual partition, the husband mortgaged his share to secure a bank loan, with the appellant acting as a guarantor. Following her husband's death in 2016, the complainant filed a private complaint...

You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case

5Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 195-A IPC, holding it unconstitutional for being applied retroactively, violating Article 20(1). However, it upheld the conviction under Section 506-B IPC for criminal intimidation. The Court directed the State to reconsider the deceased appellant's termination and terminal benefits, considering only the surviving conviction. Facts Of The Case: In 1999, a minor girl, who was a witness in a molestation case, set herself ablaze and subsequently died. Before her death, she alleged in a dying declaration that Sheikh Akhtar, a court official (Naib Nazir), and three others had threatened to kill her and her father if she did not compromise her court testimony. Based on this, Akhtar was convicted in 2007 by a Se...

Supreme Court Facilitates Settlement in Rape and Cheating Case, Orders Return of Money and Gold

5Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facilitates Settlement in Rape and Cheating Case, Orders Return of Money and Gold

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals concerning allegations under Sections 376, 406, and 506 of the IPC by facilitating a settlement. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum with the Trial Court and gold ornaments with the High Court Registrar for release to the prosecutrix, thereby resolving the disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR registered against the appellant-accused based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the prosecutrix. She alleged that the accused, who was assisting her with ongoing divorce proceedings, forcefully subjected her to sexual intercourse in December 2017 under the threat of disseminating her photographs. Subsequently, on multiple occasions in 2018, he established a physical relationship with her on the false ...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

5Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...