Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of Delhi High Court held that, the law does not prescribe any precondition such that the arrears amount of maintenance has to be deposited before appeal or revision can be allowed.

From Para 22,

22. Neither the language used by the Legislature in Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., nor the language used in Section 29 of the DV Act even remotely suggest that the Legislature intended to impose pre-conditions to the availment of the said remedies, of the kind evolved in Rajeev Preenja (supra).

And then from Para 25,

25. Laudable as the object of the learned Single Judge may have been, the question is, whether in the light of the settled law taken note of hereinabove, the learned Single Judge while deciding Rajeev Preenja (supra) could have issued a general direction barring entertainment of criminal revisions under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against orders granting interim maintenance to the wife/ child under Section 125 Cr.P.C., unless the entire arrears of maintenance up to date were first deposited? In our view, with due respect to the learned Single Judge, the answer is clearly in the negative. As to what should be the policy of the law is a matter which squarely falls within the preserve of the Legislature, and it is not a matter which the Courts can dictate, or evolve. It is one thing to interpret an existing law and, while doing so, to adopt an interpretation which is purposive, i.e. one which advances the objective of the enactment. However, it is quite a different thing to evolve a statutory scheme which, even the Legislature did not provide for.

Finally, in Paras 29 and 30,

29. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Bahl, imposition of a limitation on the statutory remedy of revision/ appeal under Section 399 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 29 of the DV Act- as the case may be, also falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for the reasons noticed by the Division Bench in Gagan Makkar (supra).Even if the condition in question – of the nature directed by the learned Single Judge in Rajeev Preenja (supra), were to exist in the statutory framework, the same may fail the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This is for the reason that, in a given case, the order granting interim maintenance passed by the Ld. Magistrate either under Section 125 Cr.P.C or under Section 29 of the DV Act, may be so harsh and so unreasonable, as to make it impossible for the opposite party/ husband to comply with the same. Experience shows that in a large number of cases, the arrears of interim maintenance- which may be granted from the date of moving of the application before the Ld. Magistrate, may accumulate to a very large amount running into lakhs of rupees. The arrears of interim maintenance may not necessarily be a meager amount in all cases. It would be most unjust and unreasonable to bar his statutory remedy of revision/ appeal as the case may be, merely because he may not be in a position to deposit the entire arrears of interim maintenance.

From Para 30 (Corum cleverly clubbed 125 Cr.P.C. cases also along with DV cases!)

30. Thus, we answer the reference by holding that the general direction issued in Rajeev Preenja (supra) in paragraphs 15, 16 and 20 are not sustainable. The said directions could not have been issued by the learned Single Judge as they seek to curtail the statutory remedy of revision available under Section 399 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C, and of appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against orders granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of the DV Act respectively. The direction in question over steps into the legislative field, which was impermissible for the Court to do. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Brijesh Kumar Gupta (supra), that there cannot be an absolute rider that the entire maintenance amount, as granted by the Trial Court, should be deposited prior to the entertainment of the statutory remedy, because it would leave the remedy of statutory revision/ appeal illusory. Accordingly, we hold that a revision under Section 399 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. and an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, against the order granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Section 23 of the DV Act respectively, would be maintainable, and would be entertained and heard without any pre-condition of deposit of the arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Ld. MM. We further hold that the pendency of such a Revision or Appeal- as the case may be, shall not operate as a stay of the operation of the order granting interim maintenance. The reference is answered accordingly.

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Citations : [2018 DLT 251 245], [2018 HLR 3 413], [2019 CRI LJ 218],[2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 30], [2018 SCC OnLine Del 9747],

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80568294/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b44dfac9eff431bb54655a9

Index of PWDV Act cases here. Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 Cr.P.C.) here.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020

Posted on November 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami, after he suffered judicial custody for 7 days.

Here is the Order.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020

Here is the Judgment with reasons.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 27 Nov 2020

Index of Quash judgments here.

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab on 12 Oct 2020

Posted on November 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, the default bail that is available to an accused person u/s 167(2)(a) of CrPC, is part of the fundamental rights available to him/her under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

From Para 28,

A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions would show that so long as an application for grant of default bail is made on expiry of the period of 90 days (which application need not even be in writing) before a charge sheet is filed, the right to default bail becomes complete. It is of no moment that the Criminal Court in question either does not dispose of such application before the charge sheet is filed or disposes of such application wrongly before such charge sheet is filed. So long as an application has been made for default bail on expiry of the stated period before time is further extended to the maximum period of 180 days, default bail, being an indefeasible right of the accused under the first proviso to Section 167(2), kicks in and must be granted.

But then from Para 29,

…
We must not forget that we are dealing with the personal liberty of an accused under a statute which imposes drastic punishments. The right to default bail, as has been correctly held by the judgments of this Court, are not mere statutory rights under the first proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code, but is part of the procedure established by law under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is, therefore, a fundamental right granted to an accused person to be released on bail once the conditions of the first proviso to Section 167(2) are fulfilled.
…

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab on 12 Oct 2020

Citations : [(2020) SCC Online SC 824]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10807134/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/bikramjit-singh-versus-the-state-of-punjab

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

AP High Court held that u/s 216, Trial Court well within it’s power to frame additional charges based on additional charge sheet filed by police, even when the case is pending pronouncement of judgment. But since the procedure contemplated was not followed by Magistrate, High Court set aside the second set of charges framed on accused and directed the Magistrate to follow the procedure contemplated u/s 217.

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors on 01 June 2017

But then, Revision-Petitioner went to Supreme Court and there also he lost.

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors on 21 January 2020

United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Satwinder Kaur and Ors on 30 June 2020

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3 judge bench granted compensation to the surviving members of a fatal-accident victim, while revisting a catena of a landmark SC judgments.

United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Satwinder Kaur and Ors on 30 June 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra on 29 Oct 2020

Posted on November 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court, again, highlighted the need of delivering judgments at the earliest, as the “problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons.”

From Para 3,

3. Further, much later but still almost two decades ago, this Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar – 2001 (7) SCC 318 deemed it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments, expecting them to be followed by all concerned under the mandate of this Court. It is not necessary to reproduce the directions except to state that normally the judgment is expected within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. If, for any reason, no judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the parties is entitled to move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments.

From Para 10,

10. We must note with regret that the counsel extended through various judicial pronouncements including the one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored, more importantly where oral orders are pronounced. In case of such orders, it is expected that they are either dictated in the Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter, to facilitate any aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court. The delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Anil Rai’s case (supra) and as stated aforesaid, the problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early and the reasons follow much later.

Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra on 29 Oct 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division bench of Supreme Court held that,

From Para 306,

26. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extra marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide.

From Para 28, exoneration of husband,

28. Suicide note completely exonerates A-1, which states that he was not responsible for death of the deceased. On the other hand, the deceased described herself as extremely selfish, egoist and, therefore, not a match for A-1. She entertained the belief that her husband A-1 was in love with A-2 and wanted to marry A-2. Note states it was for their happiness she had decided to end her life. She also wanted to have the marriage of A-1 and A-2 solemnized with pomp and gaiety. On reading the suicide note, one can infer that the deceased was so possessive of her husband, and was always under an emotional stress that she might lose her husband. Too much of possessiveness could also lead to serious emotional stress, over and above the fact that she had one abortion and her daughter died after few days of birth. No evidence is forthcoming in this case to show that A-2 ever evinced any interest to marry A-1. On the other hand, during the subsistence of the alleged relationship, A-2 herself got married.

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

Citations : [2013 CRLJ SC 44482013 AIOL 5932013 CRIMES SC 4 2952013 CRIMES SC 4 1102013 SCC 10 482013 AIR SC 52192013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 2712013 SLT 7 7062014 AIR SC 3312013 SCALE 11 1982013 JT 12 3572013 SUPREME 6 3662014 JLJR SC 1 3902013 SCC CRI 3 8012013 SCC CIV 4 6162013 SCC ONLINE SC 8142013 AIC 130 292013 CRILJ 44482014 PLJR 1 5112013 BOMCR CRI 4 5222013 UC 3 19352013 DMC 3 2452014 ALT CRL AP 1 2582013 ALD CRI 2 7552013 MLJ CRI 3 7002013 OLR 2 8672013 KHC 3 8102013 AD SC 10 452013 ABR 6 1792014 SCJ 1 5262013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 2712014 JLJR 1 3902013 CRI LJ 44482013 MLJ CRL 3 7002013 AIR SCW 5219

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170814796/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bb9

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2015/02/25/husband-s-extra-marital-relationship-does-not-amount-to-cruelty/

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that the necessary ingredients to make out a IPC 306 offence are missing in the case.

From Para 15, Mental Cruelty,

15. The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the milieu and the strata from which the persons come from and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being had to one’s endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to generalise but certainly it can be appreciated in a set of established facts. Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC. It would be an illegal or immoral act, but other ingredients are to be brought home so that it would constitute a criminal offence. There is no denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.

From Para 17, Final nail in the coffin,

17. In the instant case, as the evidence would limpidly show, the wife developed a sense of suspicion that her husband was going to the house of Ashwathamma in Village Chelur where he got involved with Deepa, daughter of Ashwathamma. It has come on record through various witnesses that the people talked in the locality with regard to the involvement of the appellant with Deepa. It needs to be noted that Anjanamma, being not able to digest the humiliation, committed suicide. The mother and the brother of Anjanamma paved the same path. In such a situation, it is extremely difficult to hold that the prosecution has established the charge under Section 498-A IPC and the fact that the said cruelty induced the wife to commit suicide. It is manifest that the wife was guided by the rumour that aggravated her suspicion which has no boundary. The seed of suspicion planted in mind brought the eventual tragedy. But such an event will not constitute the offence or establish the guilt of the appellant-accused under Section 306 IPC.

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Citations : [2017 SCC 11 176], [2017 SCC CRI 4 242], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 1363], [2016 AIR SC 5430], [2016 SCR 11 509], [2016 CRIMES 4 184], [2017 CRI LJ 264], [2017 AIC 169 211], [2017 KLT 1 125], [2017 KCCR 1 673], [2017 ECRN 1 1]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33506004/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5837160c53bee74f64c25ebc

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that, for IPC 306 to be made out, necessary ingredients must be satisfied.

From Para 6, Learn the art and craft of Trail Courts in India, assuming certain sections apply to accused in the face of no direct evidence. Some of them are fit-for-nothing fellows…

6. The Trial Court then posed a question to itself as to why a young lady with two small children would commit suicide unless she has been pushed to do so, bythe circumstances in the matrimonial home. It was then observed that the expectation of a married woman will be love and affection and financial security at thehands of her husband and if her hopes are frustrated by the act or by wilful negligence of the husband, it would constitute abetment within the meaning of section107 IPC, warranting conviction under section 306 IPC. With such reasoning, the Trial Court concluded that Shinder Kaur committed suicide when her hopes were frustrated by the act of her husband or alternatively, by his wilful neglect. Thus, the Court itself wasuncertain on the nature of the act to be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, even while noting that no direct evidence of cruelty against the husband and thein-laws is available, the learned Court assumed that section 306 IPC can be applied against the appellant. With such conjecture, while acquitting all threeaccused of the charged crime under section 304B and 498A of IPC, the husband was convicted under section 306 IPC.

From Para 11, Rebutting the callous nature in which Trial Court used conjectures to lay conviction

11. Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution.

Then from Para 15,

15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly
because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not
show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account.

From Para 19, Supreme Court declared that Trail Court and High Court speculated. How horrible !!!

19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant’s side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167656481/

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018

Posted on November 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division bench of Supreme Court held that for a conviction to sustain, the following must satisfy.

From Para 8,

(8) The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.

From Para 9,

(9) In our considered view, in the case at hand, M.O.1-letter and the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-5, would not be sufficient to establish that the suicide by the deceased was directly linked to the instigation or abetment by the appellant-deceased. Having advanced the money to the deceased, the appellant-accused might have uttered some abusive words; but that by itself is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. From the evidence brought on record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not established and the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 306 I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018

Citations : [2019 SCC 3 315], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2808], [2019 AIR SC 43], [2018 CRIMES 4 570], [2019 CUT LT 127 442]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65076410/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c30a3f89eff432f24b9bc83

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Reportable Judgement or Order

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020

Bikramjit Singh Vs State of Punjab on 12 Oct 2020

Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors

United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Satwinder Kaur and Ors on 30 June 2020

Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs State of Maharashtra on 29 Oct 2020

Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs State of Gujarat on 9 Sep 2013

K.V Prakash Babu Vs State of Karnataka on 22 Nov 2016

Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab on 1 Oct 2020

M. Arjunan Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 4 Dec 2018