Weekly Overview| Supreme Court Judgments: July 17 – July 21, 2023
1) Appellate court must not interfere with order of acquittal merely because contrary view is permissible
The Court while dealing with an appeal challenging the order of the Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the same on the ground that the Court should not interfere in an order of acquittal especially when there is no new evidence brought to bring a new angle to the case.
The Appeal was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Respondents, who were members of the police force accused of killing a man. In this case, the deceased was shot while returning home on a scooter.
Cause Title- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2023
Coram- Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Manoj Misra
2) Secured creditor has to take calculated decision whether or not to relinquish secured interest: SC in appeal challenging liquidation proceedings
The Court while dealing with an Appeal challenging the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dismissed the same challenging the liquidation process.
Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (PVVNL) appealed against an order of the NCLAT that rejected their appeal against the release of the attached property for liquidation. PVVNL argued that the Electricity Act, 2003, gave them priority over the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, saying that the IBC takes precedence over the Electricity Act and that electricity dues do not enjoy priority.
Cause Title- Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd v. Raman Ispat Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta
3) Section 304A IPC| Gross negligence led to loss of human life: SC modifies sentence of a man for causing death of police constable
The Court partly allowed the appeal of a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) emphasising that his actions were neglectful and rash, leading to gross negligence on the part of the accused which led to the death of another person.
In this case, The Accused and the deceased got into a quarrel and the SAF got entangled in the chain attached to the Accused’s belt which led to the accidental firing of five rounds in the neck of the deceased leading to his death.
Cause Title- Arvind Kumar v. State of NCT, Delhi
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
4) Functional disability & not just physical disability a determining factor in assessing whether workman incurred total disablement
The Court set aside an impugned order of the High Court, wherein the High Court erred in assessing the disablement of the Petitioner from 100% to 40%. It observed that the term “total disablement” under Section 2 (1)(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Act) specifies functional disability and not just physical disability when determining total disablement.
In this case, the Petitioner was employed with Respondent no. 2 as a loading/unloading labourer. The Petitioner was loading pillars on a truck (insured by Respondent no. 1) when the chain pully broke and the poles fell upon the left arm of the Petitioner, thereby causing a compound fracture in her left arm. After that the Petitioner claimed compensation, alleging that she suffered permanent total disablement.
Cause Title- Indra Bai v Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another
Date of Judgment- July 17, 2023
Coram- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
5) Without relevant documents for age proof, ossification test necessary to prove offence: SC acquits man charged under POCSO Act
The Court set aside an order of Madras High Court and acquitted the Appellant whose conviction was affirmed by the High Court.
The Appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act.
Cause Title- P. Yuvaprakash V. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
Date of Judgment- July 18, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
6) No cogent and positive evidence to establish that accused assaulted deceased: SC sets aside conviction under Section 323 IPC
The Court allowed an appeal challenging the impugned order of the High Court, wherein the Appellant was convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court acquitted the Appellant because the Prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A complaint was filed against the Appellant for allegedly entering the house of the deceased and kicking her in her stomach, which caused her to fall on the floor. Even after two rounds of treatment, the deceased could not recover and passed away.
Cause Title- Boini Mahipal and Anr v State of Telangana
Date of Judgment- July 19, 2023
Coram- Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar
7) Murder case: Defence has been successful in making serious dent in prosecution's case- SC acquits man after 15 years
The Court in a murder case acquitted a man who was in jail for 15 years on the ground that the defence has been successful in making a serious dent in the prosecution case.
The appellant had assailed the correctness of the judgment passed by the Chhattisgarh High Court whereby his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Trial Court was affirmed. He was in jail and had already undergone almost 15 years of incarceration.
Cause Title- Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Date of Judgment- July 20, 2023
Coram- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
8) For holding accused guilty u/s. 304 IPC second part, it is not necessary to bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300
The Court observed that for holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.
An appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Madras High Court by which it dismissed his appeal thereby affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Cause Title- Anbazhagan v. The State
Date of Judgment- July 20, 2023
Coram- Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice J.B. Pardiwala
9) Property cannot be declared as evacuee property u/s. 2(F) of Administration Of Evacuee Property Act, if its owner never left India
The Court observed that a property cannot be declared as evacuee property under Section 2(f) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 if the owner of the property has never left India.
In this case, the Respondent was the holder of the disputed property, termed as ‘evacuee property’ by the Appellant within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act, 1950. Therefore, the Appellant contended that the Respondent was an ‘evacuee’ within the meaning of clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act, 1950. The Single Judge held that the Respondent never left India and went to Pakistan and hence the Respondent could not be termed ‘evacuee’ under the Act, 1950 and the action of declaring his property as an evacuee property was not maintainable.
Cause Title- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Meer Baksh & Ors.
Date of Judgment- July 19, 2023
Coram- Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Sanjay Karol
