This tag is associated with 2 posts

No reduction of sentence =Rape is a non-compoundable offence and it is an offence against the society and is not a matter to be left for the parties to compromise and settle. Since the Court cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim in compromising the case is a genuine consent, there is every chance that she might have been pressurized by the convicts or the trauma undergone by her all the years might have compelled her to opt for a compromise. In fact, accepting this proposition will put an additional burden on the victim. The accused may use all his influence to pressurize her for a compromise. So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the Court to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376(2) of IPC. 23) It is imperative to mention that the legislature through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has deleted this proviso in the wake of increasing crimes against women. Though, the said amendment will not come in the way of exercising discretion in this case, on perusal of the above legislative provision and catena of cases on the issue, we feel that the present case fails to fall within the ambit of exceptional case where the Court shall use its extraordinary discretion to reduce the period of sentence than the minimum prescribed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40699   REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1278-1279 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1011-1012 of 2012) Shimbhu and Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Haryana …. Respondent(s) 2   J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,CJI. 1) Leave granted. 2) … Continue reading

a fake encounter = for issuing directions to respondents 1 to 4 for registration of FIR under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“the IPC”) against respondents 5 to 9, who were policemen attached to Police Station Bawal, District Rewari (Haryana), at the relevant time, for committing the murder of Sunil, son of the appellant in a fake encounter in the night intervening 12/10/2008 and 13/10/2008 at Rewari Road, Narnaul and for further direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”) to investigate the said FIR. = Ignoring the mandate of Section 154 of the Code and the law laid down by this Court, the police have merely conducted inquiries which appear to be an eyewash. It is distressing to note that till date, no FIR has been registered on the complaint made by the appellant. The only FIR which was registered is against Umesh under Sections 332, 353, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC at the instance of ASI Ram Sarup. As already noted, in that case, Umesh has been acquitted. 13. Once we come to a conclusion that Sunil is killed in an encounter, which appears to be fake, it is necessary to direct an independent investigating agency to conduct the investigation so that those who are found to be involved in the commission of crime can be tried and convicted. -We share the pain and anguish of the appellant, who has lost his son in what appears to be a fake encounter. He has conveyed to us that he is not interested in money but he wants a fresh investigation to be conducted. While we respect the feelings of the appellant, we are unable to direct fresh investigation for the reasons which we have already noted. In such situation, we turn to Nilabati Behera, wherein the appellant’s son had died in custody of the police. While noting that custodial death is a clear violation 19Page 20 of prisoner’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court moulded the relief by granting compensation to the appellant. In the circumstances of the case we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13/9/2010 and in light of Nilabati Behera, we direct respondent 1 – State of Haryana to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the appellant as compensation for the pain and suffering undergone by him on account of loss of his son – Sunil. The payment be made by demand draft drawn in favour of the appellant “Rohtash Kumar” within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order.

Page 1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9359 of 2010] ROHTASH KUMAR … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF HARYANA Through the Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh & Ors. … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,880,951 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com