The Law Website
Latest Reportable Judgment of Supreme Court of India Home
Latest Judgements, Updated On : Thursday, April 17, 2014
Latest news updated here ....... .....
Date Case Detail
April 15,2014
Transgender Community
2014 STPL(Web) 271 SC
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012 with Writ Petition (Civil) No.604 of 2013-Decided on 15-4-2014.
We are, in this case, concerned with the grievances of the members of Transgender Community (for short ‘TG community’) who seek a legal declaration of their gender identity than the one assigned to them, male or female, at the time of birth and their prayer is that non-recognition of their gender identity violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hijras/Eunuchs, who also fall in that group, claim legal status as a third gender with all legal and constitutional protection. …. We, therefore, declare…. Hijras, Eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature.
April 15,2014
Service Law – Child Care Leave
2014 STPL(Web) 270 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012)-Decided on 15-4-2014.
whether a woman employee of the Central Government can ask for uninterrupted 730 days of Child Care Leave (hereinafter referred to as, - ‘the CCL’) under Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972…. However, the authorities allowed only 45 days of CCL by their Office Order No. 254 dated 16th March, 2012. …. Aggrieved appellant then moved before the Tribunal in O.A. No.47/A&N/2012 which allowed the application …. In the present case the respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 730 days continuous leave. The grounds taken by them and as held by High Court cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above. …. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair and affirm the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2012 passed by the Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt/production of this judgment.
April 15,2014
Murder – Conviction by High Court Upheld
2014 STPL(Web) 269 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005-Decided on 15-4-2014.
The trial court convicted Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 under Section 302 read with Sections 34 and 449 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life on both the counts. The remaining seven accused were acquitted. Umesh Chandra Rai-A6 carried an appeal against his conviction to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal he died and therefore his appeal abated. The State carried an appeal against the acquittal of the other accused to the High Court. The High Court held Bashisht Rai-A1 and Ashok Rai-A3 guilty and convicted them for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of the IPC and under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 449 of the IPC respectively. Each of them was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the offences. The acquittal of the other accused was upheld. The instant appeal is preferred by Ashok Rai-A3
April 15,2014
Abetment of Suicide or Dowry Death
2014 STPL(Web) 268 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2009-Decided on 15-4-2014.
whether the appellants are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B or under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, they are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. …. Even the statement given by Sunita does not disclose any specific demand for dowry except that there is bald statement that she and Manju were taunted for bringing insufficient dowry….. Neither Ram Kishan nor Vidya Devi nor Sunita has given any indication of any specific demand for dowry. Under these circumstances, it is difficult for us to conclude that the provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC would be attracted.
April 15,2014
Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction set aside
2014 STPL(Web) 267 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2005-Decided on 15-4-2014.
We are not satisfied with the conclusion of the High Court that since the clothes of Prakash were blood stained and the stains bore the same blood group as that of Gangamma, the circumstance could be used Prakash. A serological comparison of the blood of Gangamma and Prakash and the blood stains on his clothes was necessary and that was absent from the evidence of the prosecution. Ornaments of the deceased …. Even if we were to assume that the procedure followed by the Trial Court was incorrect, in the absence of any identification of the ornaments as belonging to Gangamma, the High Court could not have definitely concluded that they did belong to Gangamma. …. It was brought to our notice that the steel rod used to kill Gangamma was recovered at the instance of Prakash. This was hidden under a stone slab and it contained blood stains. The Investigating Officer made no effort to ascertain whether the blood stains on the steel rod were those of Gangamma nor was any effort made to ascertain whether the steel rod contained any fingerprints which matched with those of Prakash.
April 15,2014
Preventive Detention – Upheld
2014 STPL(Web) 266 SC
Criminal Appeal No._872 of 2014 (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.988 of 2014)-Decided on 15-4-2014.
We cannot expect the detaining authority to know each and every detail concerning the detenu in different parts of the country. Not only this, the conditions imposed while granting bail to the detenu which we have reproduced above in no way restrains him from continuing with his prejudicial activity or the consequences, if he continues to indulge. We are in agreement with the High Court that the bail order passed by the trial court in Andhra Pradesh is not a crucial and vital document and the omission by the detaining authority to consider the same has, in no way affected its subjective satisfaction. …. we do not find any error in the order of detention and the order passed by the High Court, refusing to quash the same.
March 31,2014
Waqf Tribunal – Jurisdiction
2014 STPL(Web) 265 SC
Civil Appeal Nos. 4250-4252 of 2014 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 23157-23159 of 2012)-Decided on 31-3-2014.
whether the suit for eviction by the landlord against the tenant relating to waqf property is triable by the civil court or the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Waqf Tribunal. …. The matter before us is wholly and squarely covered by Ramesh Gobindram[(2010) 8 SCC 726] The suit for eviction against the tenant relating to a waqf property is exclusive triable by the civil court as such suit is not covered by the disputes specified in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. …. The Civil Court shall now proceed with the suit accordingly.
April 11,2014
Execution – Setting aside of Sale of Property (CPC, Order 21, Rule 89)
2014 STPL(Web) 264 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4469 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.16312 of 2010]-Decided on 11-4-2014.
whether the High Court could have ignored the settled law that under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, 1963 an application to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC has to be filed within 60 days from the date of sale and same is the period for making the required deposit. …. it must be held that the High court committed grave error of law in not noticing the relevant provisions of CPC and the Limitation Act and in allowing the Writ Petition for re-consideration of the petition under Order XXI Rule 89, CPC. In C.A. @ S.L.P.(C)No.16312/10 …. (contd.) absence of required deposit made by the judgment-debtor within the time mandated by law, such an exercise would be only an exercise in futility because the Executing Court does not have any option but to reject the petition. In such a situation, the judgment under appeal is set aside
April 11,2014
TADA – Conviction upheld/Acquittal
2014 STPL(Web) 263 SC
Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2013-Decided on 11-4-2014.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against A2-Periyasami beyond reasonable doubt. He must, therefore, get benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order so far as it convicts and sentences A1-Senthilkumar is confirmed. Conviction and sentence of A1-Senthilkumar is confirmed. The impugned judgment and order so far as it convicts and sentences A2- Periyasami is set aside. He is acquitted. A2-Periyasami is on bail. His bail bond stands discharged.
April 11,2014
Death Sentence – Converted to Life imprisonment
2014 STPL(Web) 262 SC
Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2006-Decided on 11-4-2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the accused, however, submitted that he had no previous criminal records and that apart from the circumstantial evidence, there is no eye-witness in the above case, and hence, the manner in which the crime was committed is not in evidence. Consequently, it was pointed out that it would not be possible for this Court to come to the conclusion that the crime was committed in a barbaric manner and, hence the instant case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare. We find some force in that contention. Taking in consideration all aspects of the matter, we are of the view that, due to lack of any evidence with regard to the manner in which the crime was committed, the case will not fall under the category of rarest of rare case. Consequently, we are inclined to commute the death sentence to life and award 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, over and above the period already undergone by the accused, without any remission, which, in our view, would meet the ends of justice.
April 11,2014
Service Law – Pension
2014 STPL(Web) 261 SC
Civil Appeal No. 4470 of 2014 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 32091 of 2012)-Decided on 11-4-2014.
the High Court refused to grant pension to the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Apart from the ground of delay, the High Court dismissed the case on merit on the ground that the resignation in the previous service was not tendered by appellant with prior permission. …. In view of the provisions of Rule 48 read with Government Resolution dated 11.3.1992, we hold that the appellant is entitled for counting the service earlier rendered between 21.06.1950 to 17.07.1960 for determination of pension. The High Court failed to notice the relevant provisions and wrongly held that the appellant is not entitled to get the benefits of his past services in view of Rule 46(1) of the Rules, 1982, which is not applicable in the case of the appellant….. direct the respondents to count the period of service rendered by the appellant from 21.06.1950 to 18.07.1960 for the purpose of computation of pension and pay the consequential benefits including arrears of pension within three months from the date of this judgment.
April 11,2014
Private Defence – Exceeding of right
2014 STPL(Web) 260 SC
Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2007-Decided on 11-4-2014.
The prosecution has not brought any material on record that the said accused was vindictive, or he had any malicious intention to cause the death of the deceased. Had that been there, then it would have been totally contrary to the concept of right of private defence. That being the position, the High Court has rightly accepted the submission that Raj Kumar had exceeded the right of private defence and has correctly found him guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC. …. The facts in the present case, as we understand, are similar to the factual score in the aforesaid case because the right of private defence had only been exceeded by Rajkumar. In such a case, the guilt of each of the accused, who had exceeded the right of private defence, has to be dealt with separately. The matter would have been totally different, had the right of private defence did not exist at all or the accused persons had done any overt act. Thus, in our considered opinion, the constructive liability, as envisaged under Section 34 IPC, is not attracted.
2010-2012 © STPL