Trace Your Case

Author: admin

Categories
Distribution of Legislative Competence

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka AIR 1990 SC 2072

ISSUE:

Whether the doctrine of pith and substance applies in cases of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution between Union and State legislations enacted under different entries of the same List of the Constitution?

Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, are repugnant to Sections 73, 74, and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under Article 254 of the Constitution?

RULE:

In order to decide whether there is any repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution between a Union legislation and State legislation, the doctrine of pith and substance is the appropriate test.

As per the doctrine of pith and substance, if the dominant intention of the Union and State legislation are different, then they cannot be said to be repugnant even if they refer to some allied subjects, as the subject matter is different.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Severe Offences

K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217

ISSUE:

Whether the accused was guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased under Section 306 IPC based on evidence of cruelty?

Whether the accused committed dowry death under Section 304B IPC by subjecting the deceased to cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry?

Whether the absence of a specific charge under Section 306 IPC affects the validity of the conviction under that section?

RULE:

Abetment of Suicide (Section 306 IPC): Abetment of suicide is established if the accused’s conduct constitutes cruelty under Section 498A IPC, leading the victim to commit suicide. The presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act supports conviction when suicide occurs within seven years of marriage.

Dowry Death (Section 304B IPC): A dowry death requires proof that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death, and the cruelty must be directly linked to demands for dowry. The absence of this connection precludes conviction under this section.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Nature ad functions of criminal procedure

Kishan Seva Sahkari Samithi Ltd. v. Bachan Singh, (1993) Cri LJ 2540 (All)

ISSUE:

Whether the order passed by the Learned Special Judge suffers from manifest error of law?

Whether the learned Special Judge had jurisdiction to drop the proceedings?

RULE:

Sections 228 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that once a Sessions Judge frames charges against an accused, he has to either acquit or convict the accused and has no power to drop the proceedings.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Uncategorized

Maria Monica Susairaj v. The State of Maharashtra, (2009) Cri LJ 2075 (Bom)

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive a copy of her confessional statement prior to the filling of the charge sheet?

RULE:

There is no prohibition in law to supply a copy or a certified copy of a confessional statement of an accused, to the accused, at any stage before filing of charge sheet.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Moti Ram and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1594

ISSUE:

Whether courts can release an accused without any surety under CrPC?

Whether the bail should take into account the socio-economic status of the accused?

Whether a surety can be rejected on the ground that the surety is in a different district or state?

RULE:

Bail includes release without sureties and must be guided by principles of social justice.

Courts must prioritise access to justice in granting bail to prevent arbitrariness and ensure personal liberty.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 1444

ISSUE:

Whether the Magistrate wrongly granted bail to the accused charged for an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment?

RULE:

Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that only the High Court and Sessions Court can grant bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence. Any other Court can grant bail only if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has committed the offence.

While granting bail, a Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, and similar other considerations.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9 SCALE 165

ISSUE:

Whether the High Court, while granting bail, failed to adequately consider the criminal antecedents of the accused and the gravity of the offense, thus making the order perverse and unsustainable?

Whether the High Court erred in prioritizing the period of custody over societal concerns and the nature of the alleged crime in granting bail?

Whether the grant of bail was justified despite the accused being a history-sheeter with numerous pending cases, including serious offenses?

RULE:

The discretion to grant bail must consider the gravity of the offense, criminal antecedents, societal interest, and evidence on record. A perverse or unreasoned order is liable to be set aside.

Individual liberty is subordinate to societal concerns in cases of heinous crimes or when public safety is at risk.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Framing of Charge and Elements of Fair Trial

Dalbir Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 5 SCC 334

ISSUE:

Whether the accused can be convicted under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) despite no specific charge being framed under that section?

Whether the conduct of the accused constituted cruelty under Section 498-A IPC based on evidence of harassment and dowry demands?

Whether procedural irregularities, like absence of a charge under Section 306 IPC, invalidate the conviction if no prejudice is caused to the accused?

RULE:

Conviction without a specific charge: A conviction under Section 306 IPC is valid even without a specific charge if the accused had notice of the allegations, a fair opportunity to defend, and no failure of justice occurred.

Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC: Persistent harassment and dowry-related demands leading to mental or physical distress amount to cruelty under Section 498-A IPC, as evidenced by credible testimony and corroborative documents.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565

ISSUE:

Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is subject to rigid limitations or dependent on the discretion of the courts based on case-specific facts?

Whether the imposition of blanket restrictions on anticipatory bail violates the individual's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Whether considerations under Section 437 apply to anticipatory bail applications under Section 438?

RULE:

Judicial Discretion in Anticipatory Bail: Courts have wide discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, guided by the facts and circumstances of each case, without being restricted by rigid, predetermined rules or conditions.

Balancing Liberty and Investigation: The provision must be interpreted to protect individual liberty while ensuring it does not unduly hinder legitimate police investigations, with conditions imposed as necessary to maintain this balance.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Framing of Charge and Elements of Fair Trial

Kahan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1971 SC 983

ISSUE:

Whether the appellants were guilty of the murder of Moti Ram and Balak Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, based on the evidence presented by the prosecution?

Whether the framing of alternative charges caused prejudice to the appellants and vitiated the trial?

Whether the plea of self-defence raised by the appellants was credible and sustainable in light of the evidence?

RULE:

Procedural Defects and Prejudice: Procedural defects, such as errors in framing charges, do not invalidate a trial unless actual prejudice to the accused is demonstrated, as justice is not to be frustrated by technicalities.

Self-Defence Evaluation: A plea of self-defence is valid only when supported by credible, consistent evidence, and it will be rejected if found contradictory or disproved by the prosecution's case.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here