Today Supreme court
finally gave its judgement in one of its much awaited trial. Both of its
judgement added a new meaning to the criminal law in India. One of its
judgement was on Curable Irregularity
while the other one widened the scope of S498A of IPC. The brief explanation
of them is given as under:
Examination
Of Witnesses In The Absence Of Accused Is A Curable Irregularity[1]
[Atma Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan]
Absence of the accused
while taking evidence of prosecution witnesses, by itself, would not vitiate
the trial, unless great prejudice has caused to the accused, the Supreme Court
held, while upholding a High Court judgment which ordered fresh trial in a
murder case. The bench comprising of Justice
Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indu Malhotra was
considering an appeal against High court judgment which ordered fresh trial by
directing the trial court to lawfully re-record statements of the witnesses
whose evidence was recorded in the first round without ensuring presence of the
accused in the court.
Facts
of the case:
- The evidence of twelve witnesses was
recorded in the present matter without the accused being present in Court.
- The trial court after considering the entirety of the matter imposed death sentence on four accused namely, Atma Ram, Omprakash, Leeladhar and Shrawan Kumar.
- The Signature Not Verified matter reached the High Court for confirmation of sentence Digitally signed by INDU MARWAH Date: 2019.03.07 17:29:26 IST Reason: and at that stage a plea was raised on behalf of the accused that the evidence of said twelve witnesses having been recorded in the absence of the accused, the principle in Section 273 Cr.P.C. was violated.
498A
Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where A Woman Driven Out Of Matrimonial Home Takes
Shelter [Rupali Devi V. State of Uttar Pradesh]
Answering a reference
pending for about seven years, the Supreme Court held that the courts at the
place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the
matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his
relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
Facts
of the case:
- The petitioner is the complainant in the aforesaid criminal case. Earlier, respondents no.2 to 6 were summoned to face trial under sections 498-A, 494, 313, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act.
- An application was moved on behalf of the accused under section 177 Cr.P.C. challenging the territorial jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, which was rejected.
- The respondents filed criminal revision, which has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2007 passed by the revisional court holding that the cause of action arose in District Mau and the Courts at Deoria had no jurisdiction to try the case.
Today’s SC judgement
was important in many ways, though it took considerable time to give its
direction but it was worth waiting. Initially there were few complications in
Rupali devi’s case yet it managed to deliver a good piece of judgement.
Well today’s blog was
precisely based on legal aspect, I hope you gained something worthwhile.
Happy Reading :)
Author : Shivanshu Katare
[1] Curable irregularity: Section 465 in
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
states, the sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission
irregularity.
Comments
Post a Comment