Accused has the Fundamental Right to Life of being Legally Represented-
In the case of Subedar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (18 December 2020), the Supreme Court of India held that the right of being represented through a counsel is a part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
CBI Investigation can be ordered after Submission of Charge Sheet-
In the case of Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla v. Smt. Anita Agarwal & Ors. (17 December 2020) the Apex Court held that the cause of justice would not be served if the courts confine the scope of examination wherein there was a deficient investigation done. Therefore the bench directed the CBI to conduct further investigation In case of murder even when charge sheet was made.
Charging with Section 34 instead of Section 149 to attribute criminal liability in a case were both have been proven-
In the case of Rohtas & Anr. v. State of Haryana with Bijendra v. State of Haryana (10 December 2020), out of seven people accused of offence under attempt of murder, three were acquitted. The charge u/s 149 of IPC therefore couldn’t be attributed as the total number was four and not five. The Supreme Court of India explained that Section 34 requires active participation and prior meeting of minds, on the other hand Section 149 assigns liability merely by membership of the unlawful assembly. In the case in hand both common object and common intention were tracked back to the same evidence and hence accused can be charged u/s 34.
Anticipatory Bail Application not maintainable by a person who apprehends arrest after cancellation of Regular Bail-
In the case of Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board (20 November 2020), the Petitioner was granted a regular bail which was later cancelled because of non-appearance. Later he filed for an anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court of India held that there cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive custody of law. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Finding of guilt cannot be based purely on refusal to undergo Identification Parade-
In the case of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana (03 November 2020), the Apex Court while hearing a matter with respect to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC held that importance of Test Identification Parade is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused. However, the Prosecution cannot base guilt purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade and therefore this claim cannot survive independently.
Accused necessarily need not be actively involved in physical activity of assault to convict him on the ground of Common Intention-
In the case of Subed Ali & Ors. v. The State of Assam (30 September 2020), the Supreme Court while deciding a matter with respect to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC held that Common Intention consists of several persons acting in unison to achieve common purpose, though their roles may be different. The presence of the mental element or the intention to commit the act if cogently established is sufficient for conviction, without any actual participation in the assault.
Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman-
In the case of Punjab And Sind Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar (25 February, 2020), a senior officer of a public sector bank complained about sexual harassment at her workplace and various other corruptive activities that were taking place. While deciding the matter the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at a work place is affront to the fundamental rights of woman to equality under Article 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry any occupation, trade or business. .
The Gujarat High Court has held that the practice of two-finger test, conducted to determine the virginity/consent of a rape victim, is unconstitutional-
In the case of State of Gujarat v. Rameshchandra Ramabhai Panchal (17 January 2020), the High Court of Gujarat while dealing with Section 363 & 366 IPC held that the two finger test and its interpretation violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity. Even if the report of the test is affirmative, it cannot ipso facto be given rise to presumption of consent.
0 Comments