|
Name
of the Case
|
Held
|
|
Vinod Dua v. Union of India (LL 2021 SC 266)
|
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and
Vineet Saran while quashing the FIR against senior journalist Vinod Dua for
sedition observed, ” Every Journalist will be entitled to protection in
terms of Kedar Nath Singh , as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505
of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said
Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in
Kedar Nath Singh .” In the case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of
Bihar(1962), the Supreme Court had read down Section 124A IPC and held that
the application of the provision should be limited to “acts involving intention
or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order; or
incitement to violence”
|
|
Kahkashan Kausar v. Sonam v.
State of Bihar (2022 SCC Online SC 162)
|
The Supreme Court observed that
the purpose of section 498A of the IPC was to prevent cruelty inflicted on a
woman by her husband and in-laws by permitting speedy state intervention.
They also pointed out that, with the rise in matrimonial litigation in the
country, there has been a greater temptation to abuse rules like these to
settle personal scores with the spouse and his relatives. Also, the Bench
observed that the Court had already indicated its worry about the misuse of
legislation, and that if it is left unchecked, it will result in the misuse
of the legal process. The Court cautioned that when there is no prima facie
case against the husband’s family and in-laws, the courts should not pursue
them. For the proceedings to proceed, there must be sufficient proof or
specific allegations
|
|
Anbazhagan v. State Represented
By The Inspector Of Police 2023 SCC Online SC 857
|
The Supreme Court concluded that
the appellant’s guilt should be considered under Section 304 Part II of the
IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. As a result,
the appellant will serve a rigorous imprisonment term of five years. It’s
important to note that the court’s ruling aims to strike a balance between
holding the appellant accountable for his actions and ensuring that the
punishment is proportionate to the degree of culpability established during
the trial. Primarily, the court provided a detailed explanation of the fine
distinction between the terms ‘intent’ and ‘knowledge’, Section 299 and
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the judgment
|
|
RIT Foundation v. Union of India
(Delhi High Court) (2022 SCC Online Del 1404)
|
In this case Justice Rajiv
Shakdher and Justice C. Hari Shanka gave a split opinion on marital rape.
Justice Hari Shanka observed that the petitioners’ case is premised on a
fundamentally erroneous postulate, for which there is no support available,
either statutory or precedential, that every act of non-consensual sex by any
man with any woman is rape. The Exception 2 of Section 375 IPC does not
violate Article 14, but is based on an intelligible differentia having a
rational nexus with the object both of the impugned Exception as well as
Section 375 itself.
Justice Rajiv Shakdher observed
that the impugned provisions [i.e. Exception 2 to Section 375 (MRE) and
Section 376B of the IPC as also Section 198B of the Code], insofar as they
concern a husband/separated husband having sexual communion/intercourse with
his wife (who is not under 18 years of age), albeit, without her consent, are
violative of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and, hence,
are struck down
|
|
Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
(LL 2021 SC 262
|
A Bench of CJI NV Ramana and
Justice Aniruddha Bose observed that the phrase “soon before” as
appearing in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be construed to
mean ‘immediately before’. The prosecution must establish existence of “proximate
and live link” between the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for
dowry demand by the husband or his relatives. It also observed that Section
304 B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as
homicidal or suicidal or accidental. The bench observed thus while dismissing
the appeal led by accused who were convicted under Section 304B IPC. Section
304B (1) provides that ‘dowry death’ is where death of a woman is caused by
burning or bodily injuries or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances,
within seven years of marriage, and it is shown that soon before her death,
she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of
her husband, in connection with demand for dowry.
|
|
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State Of Karnataka
|
The Supreme Court vide its recent judgment passed by a two
judge Bench ruled a word uttered in a fit ofanger or emotion without
intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
|
|
Apoorva Arora v. State, AIR 2024 SC 1775
|
FIR Launched – Complaint filed alleging obscenity in the
web series ”College Romance” leading to FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the
IT Act and Section 292 of IPC. High Court Upheld FIR, refusing to quash it. Supreme
Court – Quashed FIR, ruling that vulgar and profane language did not
constitute obscenity as defined by the law, emphasising the need forcontent
to be passionate or appeal to prurient interests to be deemed obscene.
|
|
Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3924 OF
2023
|
The case involved – a trial judge – who delivered a
judgment in a POCSO case within concise time frame – prompting criticism from
the Patna High Court – for potential procedural lapses – denial of fair trial
rights to the accused. The Supreme Court upheld these concerns – stressing
judicial diligence – fair trial procedures – and adherence to safeguards for
judicial integrity – It dismissed the judges appeal – supporting
recommendations for judicial training and possible reassignment to prevent
future lapses.
|
JURISEDGE
Share post:
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we have covered Landmark Series on Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. Now, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Indian Penal Code and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Administrative Law
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Constitutional Law
The Indian Penal Code and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita stands as a cornerstone of criminal law in India, governing a vast array of offenses and setting the framework for criminal justice in the country. This blog delves into some of the most significant judgments related to the IPC from recent years, offering insights into how the judiciary has interpreted and applied various provisions. From the protection of journalistic freedom to the nuanced understanding of matrimonial cruelty, these cases not only illustrate the dynamic nature of legal interpretations but also highlight the evolving societal values reflected in judicial decisions. Each judgment discussed herein underscores the crucial role of the judiciary in balancing individual rights with societal interests, ensuring justice is served while upholding the rule of law.
Share this:
Related
Round-Up: Judgment Series 2020-2024
Welcome to our comprehensive roundup of the Judgment Series for 2020-2024! In this series, we’ve explored the evolving landscape of Indian jurisprudence through detailed reviews and interpretations of landmark cases. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: High Courts
The High Courts in India have delivered significant rulings relating to constitutional, criminal, administrative matters, etc. This blog post will take a round up of some of the important judgments. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Tax Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Tax Law 2020-2024. The landscape of Tax Law from 2021 to 2024. read more…
Share this:
Judgments Series 2020-2024: Company Law
In this Landmark Judgment Series celebrating 8 years of Jurisedge, we turn our focus to the Landmark Series for the Company Law. The landscape of Company Law from 2020 to 2024 has. read more…
Share this: