Bankey v State of Allahabad AIR 1960 ALL 131

CaseBankey v State of Allahabad, AIR 1960 All 131
CourtBefore Allahabad High Court
BenchJustice V.D. Bhargava
Decided on18 May, 1960
AbstractIn the present case, a complaint was filed against the accused who had infringed a women's modesty when there were no male members at the house. However, the accused was not successful in satisfying his immoral motives because of the presence of people in the neighborhood. There is a difference between sexual assault and rape. This difference has been explained thus, "When a person makes entry into an apartment occupied by a lady the first and foremost rational inference that can be drawn in the circumstances must be that it was with the intention of committing some offence in relation to that lady. If it is only making gestures and uttering words requesting her to agree to commit some sexual offence, or remove the petticoat or dhoti, then, in that event, it would amount only to an offence under Section 509, I. P. C., but if he proceeds further and thereafter tries forcibly to commit rape and does not stop only at intruding into the apartment and making gestures, those offences will be under Section 376 read with Section 511, I. P. C. and the last step would be when he actually Succeeds in committing rape."
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsSexual Intercourse, Sexual Assault, Rape, Indian Penal Code, Criminology.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Balak Ram v State of UP AIR 1974 SC 2165

CaseBalak Ram v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 2165
CourtSupreme Court of India
BenchH.R. Khanna and Y.V. Chandrachud JJ.
Author of the judgementY.V. Chandrachud J.
Decided on 16 Aug, 1974
AbstractIn the present case, shots were fired on Triveni Ben by Balak Ram on the instruction of other persons due to the matter of political rivalry. Three dying declarations were given by the victim. The present case deals with the correctness of the evidences and dying declaration taken into consideration by the High Court. It was held by the supreme court that the High Court has erred in accepting the evidences while the view taken by the trial court was found to be correct and thus upheld.
Author of the briefKunal Rawat
KeywordsDying Declaration, Evidence, Corroboration, etc.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Hunny v State of New Delhi (2017)

CaseHunny v State of Delhi, 2017
CourtIn the High Court of Delhi
BenchHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Decided On June 06, 2017
Advocate for the appellantMr.Tarun Khanna for Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Advocate for the respondentMs.Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor.
AbstractIn the present case delivered by the High Court of Delhi, the judge has relied upon the evidence given by the victim, 5 years old, with the support of the baby doll. The High Court upheld the conviction given by the trial court. The victim was kidnapped and was sexually assaulted and slapped by the appellant. Her internal medical examination was not allowed by the victim's mother in lieu of her dignity. But the evidence collected from the brother of the victim and independent witness resulted in conviction of the appellant for the offences under Indian Penal Code and POSCO Act.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsPOSCO, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Indian Evidence Act.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Kedarnath Singh V State of Bihar(1962): Section 124A and Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code are constitutionally valid.

CaseKedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
CourtHon’ble The Supreme Court of India
BenchBhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, J.R. Madholkar, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and S.K. Das, JJ.
Author of the judgmentChief Justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha
Decided On20/01/1962
Counsel for RespondentShri C. B. Agarwala, Shri Gopal Behari.
Counsel for appellantShri Sharma
Author of the briefMayank Gupta, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
Relevant lawsSection 124-A and Section 505 of The Indian Penal Code, Constitution of India.
KeywordsSedition, Public Mischeif, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2).

(more…)

Continue Reading

B.R. Kapur v State of Tamil Nadu (2001)

CaseB.R Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu
BenchS.P Bharucha, G.B Pattanaik, Y.K. Sabharwal, Ruma Pal, Brijesh Kumar, JJ. (In the Supreme Court of India)
Authors of the judgementG.B Pattnaik J. (Concurring), Brijesh Kumar J. (Concurring)
Counsels appearing in the caseSoli Sorabjee (Attorney-General), Harish N. Salve (Solicitor General), Ashok N. Desai, Anil B. Divan, R.Mohan, F.S Nariman, P.P Rao, K.K Venugopal, M.Rama Jois and many others.
Date of judgementSeptember 21st, 2001
Articles/Sections Related:Articles 164(4), (1) & (2), 163(1), 173, 191 and 177. Section 8(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951.
AbstractThe petitioners have argued that the second respondent is ineligible to continue as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The court while accepting their contention ruled against the arguments put forward by the respondents. It declared that the appointment of the second respondent is unconstitutional and as such, a writ of Quo-warranto can be issued. It further observed that the governor need not appoint as a Chief Minister anyone who is elected as the legislature leader of a majority party and that the immunity given to the actions of the governor under A.361 does not extend to the appointees of the governor, in this case, the second respondent.
Author of the briefRohith Ittireddy, Student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

(more…)

Continue Reading

Smt Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v State of Orissa and Others (1993)

CaseSmt Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera v State of Orissa and Others, AIR 1993 SC 1960
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchJustice Jagdish Sharan Verma, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice, N. Venkatachala
Author of the judgementJustice J.S. Verma
Decided on24th March 1993
Counsel for PetitionerM.S. Ganesh
Counsel for Respondentltaf Ahmed, Addl. Solicitor General, A.K. Panda and Naresh Kumar Sharma.
AbstractThe present case deals with the concept of custodial death in India. According to the factual matrix, the person was inflicted with several injuries while in custody which resulted in his death. Then the police officials in order to cover the death put him on the railway track and tried to protect themselves by presenting false evidence. Thus the present case also deals with the practices observed by the police officials who are supposed to be the protectors of life and liberty of the people.
Author of the BriefAditya Gor, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsCustodial Death, Article 32, Indian Constitution, Compensation, Public Law, Private Law, Article 21, Right to Life.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Anil Sharma & Others V State of Jharkhand(2004): Section 34 of IPC is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence.

CaseAnil Sharma & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT
Author of the JudgementArijit Pasayat
Date of Judgement30 April 2004
AbstractIn the present case, an appeal has been made by the appellants who are accused of murder in a jail. All the four appellants have been convicted by the Trial court. This conviction was further upheld by the High Court and thus they have appealed before the Supreme Court. In the instant case, supreme court deals with the concept of joint liability of the accused. The court also takes into consideration the alleged recording of evidence.
Author of the BriefParth Oberoi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsIndian Evidence Act, Indian Penal Code, Murder, FIR, Witnesses, Criminal Conspiracy, Joint Liability.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Police Reforms Case): Guidelines framed by the Supreme Court of India on Police Reforms.

CasePrakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of
India And Ors (Police Reforms Case)
Case NumberWrit Petition (civil) 310 of 1996
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
Court approached underArticle 32 of the Indian Constitution
Date of Judgement22/09/2006
BenchY.K. Sabharwal,
C.K. Thakker
& P.K. Balasubramanyan
Author of the judgementY.K. Sabharwal, CJI.
AbstractIn the present case, the three judge bench of the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines with regards to New Police Act. In the instant brief, the author takes into consideration the cases referred, the acts/commission reports considered, the reason behind such guidelines and the effects of the judgement.
Author of the BriefMadhav Chandan, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsPolice reforms, Compliance, Writ, Indian Police
Act,1861, National Police Commission, Rule of
Law, Law Commission 154th report, Malimath
Committee on Reforms.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Smt. Triveniben v The State of Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 142

CaseSmt. Triveniben v State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 142
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchG.L. Oza (J), Jagannatha Shetty (J), K.N. Singh (J), L.M. Sharma (J), M.M. Dutt (J).
Author of the judgementG.L. Oza (J) and K. Jagannatha Shetty (J).
Counsel for PetitionersR. K. Jain, Senior Advocate (With Ms Urmila Sirur, Mohd. Naseem, Rakesh K. Khanna, P. K. Jain, Mukul Mudgal, Sanjay Parikh, B.P. Singh, P. Krishna Rao, B. K. Prasad, Ms Malini Podwal and Lalit Kumar Gupta)
Counsel for RespondentsB. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, V. C. Mahajan and T. U. Gupta, Senior Advocates. (With Ms A Subhashini, A. K. Srivastava, M. N. Shroff and Mahabir Singh)
Decided on February 7, 1989.
AbstractIn the present case there was an delay in the execution of death sentence awarded against the appellant. It was the appellant's contention that owing to this delay, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment. The Honourable Supreme Court of India dealt with some important issues concerned and finally reduced the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment. The explanation given to the term 'delay' and the aspects relating to it are noteworthy.
Author of the BriefVishesh Sharma, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsDeath Penalty, Constitution of India, Double Jeopardy, Fundamental Rights.

(more…)

Continue Reading

PREM CHAND V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS, 1981 SCR (1) 1262

Case Prem Chand v. Union of India & Others, 1981 SCR (1) 1262
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchKRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
Author of the judgementJustice V.R. Krishna Iyer
Petitioner’s CounselA.S. Sohal, M.C. Dhingra
Respondent’s Counsel: M.M. Abdul Khader, N, Nettar, M.N. Shroff
Date of Judgement11 November 1980
AbstractIn the present case, an externment order was passed by the commissioner of police against a person who refused to continue as a stock witness of police. The important acts concerning the present judgement is Delhi Police Act. The provisions relevant are Section 47 and 50 of the said act. The court also took into consideration Fundamental Rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India.
Author of the briefAbhay Tyagi, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsExternment Order, Delhi Police Act, Fundamental Rights, Constitution of India.

(more…)

Continue Reading
Close Menu