October 2, 2022

The Lawmatics Bulletin- 21

30-March-2021 to 5-April-2021

PERSON IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT IF ACQUITTED ON BENEFIT OF DOUBT: SC

State of Rajasthan v. Love kush meena

The hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgement reiterated that acquittal of an accused which is based on a benefit of doubt in respect of a heinous or serious nature of crime cannot create an opportunity for respondent to join public employment. In this case the charge against the accused was not of a trivial nature but was of serious nature i.e. under sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was not acquitted by the Court honourably. Therefore, the court rejected his appeal and observed that entry into the police service required a candidate to be of good character, integrity and clean antecedents.
HONOURABLE ACQUITTAL:
The hon’ble supreme court in Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, 2013, explained the expression “honourable acquittal”, an accused who is acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.


PLEA IN SUPREME COURT TO DIRECT CENTRE TO CONTROL BLACK MAGIC, SUPERSTITION AND FORCEFUL RELIGIOUS CONVERSION

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

Recently, the Plea has been filled in the hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Public Interest Litigation for seeking appropriate direction to the Centre and State government to control the menace of black magic, superstition and forceful religious conversion by intimidating, threatening, deceivingly luring through gifts and monetary benefits. The petitioner has submitted that incidents of forceful religious conversion by “carrot and stick” and by “hook or crook” not only offends Article 14, 21, 25 but also against the very principle of Secularism, which is an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
By relying on the Supreme court’s judgement in Sarla Mudgal v. UOI, 1995, which directed the centre to ascertain the feasibility of enacting Anti conversion law, the petition submitted that the centre did nothing to stop deceitful religious conversions in pursuance of this judgement, though it’s their duty under Article 51A of the Indian Constitution.


WHAT CONSTITUTES SEXUAL INTERCOURCE ON PRETEXT OF MARRIAGE NEEDS TO BE DEFINED PROPERLY: ORISSA HC

Rinku Pradhan v. State of Orissa

The hon’ble High Court in this case observed that there is a need for the amendment in the legislation defining what constitutes “sexual intercourse” with the prosecutrix on the “pretext of a false promise of marriage”. The Court while analyzing the inter relationship between Section 90 and Section 375 of IPC observed that even though the judiciary has dealt with such matters, however, “a certain viewpoint has not been reached and still under the shroud of confusion.” In the present scenario, the law holding that false promise to marriage amounts to rape appears to be erroneous and often fails to capture the plight of the victim and the probability of the accused tarnishing the dignity of the victim and her family needs to be looked while deciding the question of bail.
The Supreme Court in Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019, held that if an accused from the very inception has given a promise of marriage without any intention to fulfill that promise and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercource on such assurance, then such consent amount to consent under misconception of fact as per Section 90 of IPC and such an accused can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC and can be convicted for the offence under section 376 of the IPC.


CONVICTION OF AN ACCUSED UNDER POCSO ACT ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT ACCUSED HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENCE IS AGAINST ARTICLE 20(3)&21: TRIPURA HC

Sri Joubansen Tripura v. State of Tripura

The hon’ble court in this case held that the conviction of an accused only on the basis of presumption under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act would offend Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is against general rule of criminal
jurisprudence that the accused person shall be presumed innocent till he is found guilty. The court considered that it is not the object of the legislature to incorporate Sections 29 and 30 under the POCSO Act.
Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 basically mandates that, where the person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under Section 3,5,7 and 9, the Special Court shall presume that the person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence,unless contrary is proved.