14 February, 2010

Rape victim's testimony not always gospel truth-Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court has held that in rape cases the testimony of the victim cannot be considered to be the gospel truth, though in normal circumstances her statement has to be relied upon.
A bench of justices H S Bedi and J M Panchal said while primacy has to be given to victim's statement, there can be no presumption that she is telling the ultimate truth as the charge has to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt" as in any other criminal case.
"We are conscious of the fact that in a matter of rape, the statement of victim must be given primary consideration. But, at the same time, the broad principle that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt applies equally to a case of rape and there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully," the apex court said in an order.
The court passed the observation while acquitting one of the three accused Abbas Ahmad Chowdhary charged with raping a minor girl.
It was the case of the prosecution that on September 15, 1997, the accused-appellants Md. Mizazul Haq, Abbas Ahmad Choudhury and one Ranju Das (absconding) had raped the victim after forcibly taking her to a tea estate in Jalalpur.
The sessions court in Assam convicted two of the accused Choudhary and Haq for rape. The Guwhati High Court upheld the conviction following which the duo appealed before the apex court.
The apex court, however, gave benefit of doubt to Chowdhary as there were variations in the statements made by the victim. It must first be borne in mind that in her statement recorded on 17th September, 1997, the prosecutrix had not attributed any rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary. Likewise, she had stated that he was not one of those who kidnapped her and taken to Jalalpur Tea Estate and on the other hand she categorically stated that while she along with and Ranju Das were returning to the village that he had joined them somewhere along the way but had still not committed rape.
"It is true that in her statement in court she has attributed rape to Abbas Ahmad Choudhary as well, but in the light of the aforesaid contradictions some doubt is created with regard to his involvement. Some corroboration of rape could have been found if Abbas Ahmad Choudhary too had been apprehended and taken to the police station by P.W. 5 -Ranjit Dutta the Constable," the apex court said.
The apex court pointed out that the victim's original statement was corroborated by the investigating officer that only two of the appellants Ranju Das and Md Mizalul Haq along with the prosecutrix had been brought to the police station as Abbas Ahmad Choudhary had run away while en route to the police station.
"Resultantly, an inference can be rightly drawn that Abbas Ahmad Choudhary was perhaps not in the car when the complainant and two of the appellants had been apprehended by constable Ranjit Dutta. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the involvement of Abbas Ahmad Choudhary is doubtful," the apex court said.
However, it upheld the conviction of Mizazul Haq and dismissed his appeal.

Source:-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Rape-victims-testimony-not-always-gospel-truth-Supreme-Court/articleshow/5571858.cms

For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

Spouse's silence may amount to cruelty -Supreme Court of India

Silence is golden. But married couples shouldn’t take it literally. The Supreme Court has said silence of a partner could amount to cruelty, which under the Hindu Marriage Act is a ground for divorce.
Section 13 of the Act says a person can move a divorce petition if he or she has been treated with cruelty by the spouse or has been deserted for a continuous period of not less than two years. Delivering its judgment in a matrimonial case, a bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and Ashok Kumar Ganguly said: ‘‘At times, it may be just an attitude or an approach. Silence in some situations may amount to cruelty. Therefore, cruelty in matrimonial behaviour defies any definition and its categories can never be closed.’’
That is why, the court said, the Act deliberately did not define ‘cruelty’. ‘‘In a marriage, cruelty would obviously mean absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses which embitters the relationship and often leads to various outbursts of behaviour which can be termed cruel,’’ it said.
This judgment came in a case where the husband after forcing the wife to live separately because of his ill-treatment moved the court for divorce saying she had treated him with cruelty by deserting him. The Mandi district magistrate granted divorce terming the desertion as cruelty on her part.
But Himachal Pradesh HC saw through the design by noticing that the daughter was unambiguous in her statement that her father used to beat her mother and that’s why she left her home. It said whether a husband or wife was cruel to the partner had always to be judged taking into account the facts and circumstances.
Source:-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Spouses-silence-may-amount-to-cruelty-says-SC/articleshow/5566526.cms
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

09 February, 2010

One hole has changed the law एक छेद ने बदला कानून

और उसने कानून में छेद कर दिया-- प्रिय रंजन झा
विद्वानों का मानना है कि कानून बनता ही तोडऩे के लिए है। हालांकि मैं विद्वान नहीं हूं, लेकिन इस दर्शन में सौ फीसदी विश्वास करता हूं। वैसे, इसमें अविश्वास करने लायक कुछ है भी नहीं। सुबह से शाम तक सड़क से संसद तक इस देश में कानून का जितना पालन नहीं होता है, उससे ज्यादा उल्लंघन होता है।
खैर, मुद्दे पर लौटते हैं। अभी बुक फेयर में गया था। कुछ किताबें पसंद आईं, तो खरीद ली। काउंटर पर पैसे दिए और प्रकाशक जी ने रसीद पकड़ाई। बारी किताब पकड़ाने की आई, तो महाशय एक अजीब पॉलिबैग में किताबें भरकर मुझे पकड़ाने लगे। अजीब इसलिए, क्योंकि पॉलिबैग को हाथ में उठाने के लिए आमतौर पर जो कट बना होता है, वह उसमें नहीं था। वह कुछ-कुछ छोटे साइज के सीमेंट के कट्टे जैसा दिख रहा था।
ज्ञान भारी चीज है, शायद इसीलिए छोटी-छोटी किताबें भी काफी वजनी होती हैं। पहली बार इस विचार की बत्ती मन में जली थी। सो उस भारी कट्टे को उठाना मुझे मुश्किल लग रहा था, क्योंकि घर पहुंचने के लिए मुझे लंबा सफर तय करना था। मैंने महाशय से पूछा कि जब आपने पॉलिबैग खरीदने के लिए पैसे खर्च किए ही,तो ढंग से कैरी किए जाने लायक पॉलिबैग खरीद लेते। उन्होंने कुछ ऐसे पोज बनाया, जैसे मैं उन्हें बेवकूफ समझ रहा हूं। उन्होंने कहा, 'बॉस यह मेरी नहीं, कानून की गलती है। कानून की वजह से यह पॉलिबैग सीमेंट के कट्टे के शेप में है।
तब महाशय की बात मेरी समझ में आई। दरअसल, दिल्ली में पॉलिथीन पर बैन है और यूज करने पर दंड की व्यवस्था। दंड की व्यवस्था पॉलिथीन में सामान बेचने वालों पर है, खरीदने वालों पर नहीं। और जो पॉलिथीन की सरकारी व्याख्या है, वह बेहद अजीब है। कानून की नजर में एक फिक्स्ड थिकनेस का प्लास्टिक का कोई भी ऐसा बैग, जिसमें पकडऩे के लिए ग्रिप/ छेद/ रस्सी की व्यवस्था हो, नहीं बेचा जा सकता और न ही सामान बेचने के लिए उसका इस्तेमाल हो सकता है।
प्रकाशक महोदय ने अपनी व्यथा मुझे बता दी थी। उन्होंने मुझे जता दिया था कि उन्होंने कानून के छेद में कैसे अपनी अक्ल घुसेरी और अब खुशी-खुशी दुकानदारी कर रहे हैं। अब बारी मेरी थी। मुझे भी अपनी सुविधा देखनी थी। सो मैंने जेब टटोली। एकमात्र नुकीली चीज ड्रॉअर की चाबी मेरे पास थी। चाबी से पॉलिथीन में होल बनाया, ताकि आराम से उसे कैरी कर सकूं।
हम दोनों खुश थे। प्रकाशक महोदय कानून में छेद कर खुश थे और हम पॉलिथीन में। अपने-अपने 'चिथड़े के सुख' के साथ हम दोनों सुखी थे।
मन न मानते हुए भी देश के कानून बनाने वालों को नमन करने का कर रहा था!
For any query:- deepakmiglani@hotmail.com

01 February, 2010

Who can make a criminal complaint?

Anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance. However, where any special statute prescribes offences and procedure for taking cognizance of such offences, complainant has to satisfy the Court about its maintainability. For example, in a complaint under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complainant must be by the payee or the holder in due course.
Complainant must be a person capable of making physical appearance in Court. Where a complainant is made in the name of a company or corporation or society, it is necessary that some person represents such company or corporation in the Court. When the complainant is a body corporate, it must necessarily associate a human being to represent in court proceedings.
Where there is a sole proprietorship concern, complaint has to be filed by or against its proprietor. In case of a company, any person connected with the company, may be its director or manager or any other person so authorised by the company, may represent the company in the legal proceedings.
Courts have held that where the complaint is instituted by Manager or Dy. General Manager of Company, not authorised by the Board of Directors to sign and file the same, the defect can be cured. Accordingly, a company can, at any state, rectify such a defect by sending a person, who is competent to represent the company.
Our main aim is to remove legal ignorance from our country because legal ignorance is one of the main hurdle in the path of our development. The Legal Tip/Legal News/Legal Alert are tools to spread legal awareness. Approximately 50,000 peoples are receiving this message. Please forward this message in your links.