The case in question, Raja Ram Mandal vs The State of Jharkhand, saw criminal appeals filed against a conviction and sentence handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Dhanbad. The appellants were found guilty under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to a decade of rigorous imprisonment.

The prosecution’s argument revolved around the marriage of the informant’s sister to Raja Ram Mandal about four years ago. Allegedly, the sister faced cruelty from her husband and in-laws due to unmet dowry demands within six months of the marriage. On May 2, 2009, the informant was notified of his sister’s death at her in-laws’ home, sparking allegations that she was murdered over a dowry dispute.

The accused were charged under Section 304B of the IPC, and the Trial Court found them guilty. However, the appellants filed Criminal Appeals, arguing that the conviction and sentence were not based on a proper evaluation of the evidence.

The High Court underscored Section 304B IPC, stating that the prosecution must establish five key elements: the cause of death, the timing of death in relation to the marriage, the cruelty or harassment faced by the deceased from her husband or his relatives, the link between such abuse and dowry demands, and the occurrence of this abuse shortly before her death.

The division bench, consisting of Justices Subhash Chand and Ananda Sen, noted that a combined reading of Section 304B of the IPC and Section 113B of the IEA indicates that there must be evidence showing that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry shortly before her death.
The court stated that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the IEA cannot be invoked as the prosecution failed to prove from the evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands shortly before her unnatural death in her matrimonial home within seven years of marriage.

The bench added that the Trial Court had erroneously raised the presumption against the appellant convict without providing its finding regarding the commission of the offence under Section 304B of the IPC.

The Court observed that there was no evidence of any dowry harassment by the convicted appellants. While the death of the deceased on May 2, 2009, was indeed unnatural, the prosecution did not present evidence linking this unnatural death to any dowry harassment.

The Court concluded that the prosecution did not adequately prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence handed down by the Trial Court were found to be based on flawed findings, necessitating intervention, and as a result, both Criminal Appeals were deemed worthy of allowance.

The law presumes a woman’s death within seven years of marriage, where there’s evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment shortly before her death, as a “dowry death”. The burden of proof shifts to the accused to demonstrate that the death wasn’t related to dowry demands or harassment. This presumption, established under Section 113B of the IEA and Section 304B of the IPC, applies to deaths occurring within seven years of marriage. The objective of this legal provision is to address the challenges of proving dowry-related crimes, which often occur within the family and are difficult to prosecute. By creating a legal presumption, the law aims to provide better protection to women and deter perpetrators from engaging in dowry-related violence.

The post Was it Dowry Death? Victim Faced Cruelty or Harassment Shortly Before her Unnatural Death appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

Purkayastha was taken into custody around 6:30 am by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. The police alleged that Newsclick had received funds for promoting pro-China propaganda, leading to the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The First Information Report (FIR) listed grave charges under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including unlawful activities, terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist activities, conspiracy, promoting enmity between different groups, and criminal conspiracy.

Purkayastha was brought for his remand hearing at 6:30 am without any prior notice. His lawyers were informed about the proceedings only after 7 am, following his insistence. The remand application sent to his lawyers via WhatsApp was unsigned and lacked crucial details such as the time and grounds of arrest. Despite objections filed before 8 am, Purkayastha’s lawyers were informed that the remand order had already been granted, allowing seven days of police custody. Notably, official records indicate that the remand order was signed at 6 am, prior to Purkayastha’s appearance before the judge or notification to his lawyers. The FIR was made public several days after Purkayastha’s arrest.

Purkayastha’s primary argument was that his arrest was illegal and not in accordance with due process under the Indian Constitution. Article 22(1) of the Constitution states, “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”

In Purkayastha’s case, he was brought for his remand hearing at 6:30 am without advance notice. Only after his insistence, his lawyers were informed about the proceedings after 7 am. The remand application sent to his lawyers via WhatsApp was incomplete, lacking essential details such as the time and reasons for arrest.

Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides certain safeguards to individuals who are arrested or detained. Article 22(1) states that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention, except under certain circumstances specified in Article 22(2). Anyone arrested must be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds for their arrest and allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.

In a recent case, the Supreme Court observed that “the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.” It was held that the arrestee must be informed of the grounds for his arrest in writing “as a matter of course and without exception”.

The Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) laid down the following requirements for effective enforcement of fundamental rights: An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained.

The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly.

The post Getting Arrested by the Police Without any Reason now Considered Unlawful appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

This observation was made in the case of Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors. The petitioner, Sonu Sonkar, currently incarcerated in Tihar Jail, Delhi, was convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by a judgment dated 15th November 2011. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. Sonkar has been in judicial custody for approximately 16 years and 10 months, excluding a remission of about 2 years and 9 months.

Sonkar married Ms. T on 10th January 2021, but has been unable to consummate the marriage due to his incarceration. Ms. T applied for Sonkar’s release on parole on this ground before the jail authorities on 2nd January 2024. However, the respondent rejected the application on 5th March 2024.

Subsequently, Sonkar filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to overturn the order dated 5th March 2024. The respondent argued that the petition was based on false and frivolous grounds, as Ms. T is not Sonkar’s wife. According to the Status Report, Sonkar is already married to Ms. A and has three children with her.

The High Court, dismissing the petition, did not find it a suitable case for granting parole. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that a convict is not entitled to parole for procreation or maintaining conjugal relationships with a live-in partner when he already has a legally wedded wife and children from that marriage. The court also observed that granting parole on these grounds would set a harmful precedent.

The court further stated that neither Indian law nor the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 permit the grant of parole for maintaining conjugal relationships, especially with live-in partners.

The post Can You Leave Jail to Be with Your Live-in Partner? Court Says No! appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The Court emphasized the autonomy of clients in directing advocates and highlighted that advocates must not make concessions without explicit instructions. Consequently, the Court concluded that legal services fall outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, reinforcing the view that contracts for personal services are excluded from the Act’s definition of ‘services’.

Furthermore, the Court indicated a need to revisit its 1996 decision in Indian Medical Association v. Shanta, which had brought medical professionals under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. This decision, the Court noted, may require reconsideration in light of the unique characteristics of the legal profession.

The issue concerning the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to legal services originated from a 2007 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had held such services as within the Act’s scope. However, the Supreme Court had stayed this ruling in April 2009.

The appellants in this case, the Bar of Indian Lawyers, were represented by Senior Advocate Narender Hooda and Advocate Jasbir Malik, with Senior Advocate V Giri serving as the Amicus Curiae.

During the hearings, the Bench raised pertinent questions regarding the adjudication of deficiencies in legal services and the accountability of lawyers. It also compared the legal profession with the medical profession, questioning why lawyers should not be subject to the same regulations as medical professionals under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court’s ruling not only exempts legal services from consumer protection laws but also calls for a reevaluation of the legal framework surrounding professional conduct and accountability in the legal profession.

The post Can You Approach Consumer Court Against Your Advocate? appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The apex court underscored the importance of both registration and solemnization in a marriage. The case in question involved a couple who married on March 7, 2021, and claimed to have solemnized their marriage on July 7, 2021. They obtained a “marriage certificate,” but the marriage ceremony, as per Hindu rites and customs, was scheduled for October 25, 2022, which did not occur.

The respondent filed a divorce petition, leading the court to declare their July 7, 2021, marriage invalid under the law, rendering the issued marriage certificates null and void. The parties confessed that they had not solemnized the marriage according to customs, rites, and rituals and had obtained the certificates due to certain exigencies and pressures.

In India, the solemnization of a marriage involves conducting an official ceremony with appropriate rituals. The country’s marriage laws are diverse, including personal laws specific to various religions and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA). A Hindu marriage is solemnized through Kanyadaan and Saptapadi (seven vows). For Christians, a church ceremony based on local customs validates a marriage. Under Muslim law, a valid marriage requires the consent of both parties, vocal consent, and the signing of a nikahnama. The SMA provides a secular alternative, allowing individuals of different faiths or those opting out of religious traditions to marry through a civil procedure.

According to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), a valid marriage requires neither party to have a living spouse at the time of the marriage. Neither party should be incapable of giving valid consent due to unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, or recurrent attacks of insanity. The bridegroom must be at least 21 years old, and the bride must be at least 18 years old. The parties should not be within the degrees of prohibited relationship or sapinda of each other, unless permitted by the custom or usage governing each of them.

Section 7 of the HMA states that a Hindu marriage becomes valid if it is performed between a Hindu couple according to the customary ceremony and rituals of either party. A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party. If such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi, the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. The Act acknowledges the differences in the community’s customs, allowing for marriages to be solemnized as per these customs.

The post Marriage is Considered Invalid if Important Ceremonies are Missed appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The Supreme Court has issued guidelines to curb the menace of misleading advertisements. The court recognised the profound influence of endorsements by celebrities, influencers, and public figures in product marketing. Given this influence, the court stressed the urgent need for these individuals to demonstrate caution and responsibility when endorsing products in advertising campaigns.

As a temporary solution to the problem of misleading advertisements, the court has mandated that advertisers submit a self-declaration in line with the Cable Television Network Rules of 1994 before any advertisement is allowed.

Furthermore, the court has directed the Ministry to create a separate online platform for the submission of self-declarations specifically for press and print media. This platform is to be established within a four-week timeframe. Once the platform is up and running, advertisers will be required to submit their self-declarations prior to publishing any advertisements in print media.

Misleading advertisements are promotional messages or campaigns that present false or deceptive information, causing consumers to make decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information. These can include untrue claims about a product’s features, benefits, or effectiveness, as well as deceptive pricing, warranties, or endorsements.

In many countries, including India, there are laws and regulations designed to prevent and penalize misleading advertising. These laws aim to safeguard consumers and foster fair competition in the marketplace. The recent directive from the Supreme Court is a significant step in this direction. It underscores the court’s commitment to consumer protection and fair business practices.

The post New Advertising Rules Set after Patanjali’s Misleading Advertisement Case. appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The case in question is Ammar Abdul Rahiman v. National Investigation Agency. Rahiman was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in August 2021 and was charged under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the UAPA. The NIA alleged that Rahiman’s mobile phone contained downloaded videos related to ISIS and brutal killings, along with photographs promoting terrorism and ISIS flags, which they claimed established his radical mindset and association with ISIS.

However, the Delhi High Court granted Rahiman bail, stating that the mere presence of downloaded material on his mobile device should not lead to adverse inference. The court further emphasized that Rahiman seemed to have only downloaded and stored these contents, with no evidence of attempts to share, broadcast, or transmit them to others.

India has various laws and Acts to combat terrorism. The UAPA, enacted in 1967, allows law enforcement agencies to act against individuals and organizations engaged in unlawful activities, including terrorism. Other laws include the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and the Anti-Hijacking Act, 2016.

The UAPA was amended in 2004 and 2008 to model it as an anti-terror law. In August 2019, Parliament cleared the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2019, to designate individuals as terrorists on certain grounds provided in the Act. The UAPA deviates from ordinary legal procedures, creating an exceptional regime where the constitutional safeguards of the accused are curtailed.

It empowers the NIA to investigate and prosecute cases under the UAPA across the country, provides for the death penalty and life imprisonment for terrorist acts, allows for the detention of suspects without charge or trial for up to 180 days, and denies bail to the accused unless the court is satisfied that they are not guilty. It defines terrorism as any act that causes or intends to cause death or injury to any person, or damage or destruction to any property, or that threatens the unity, security, or economic stability of India or any other country.

The post Downloading Certain Images on Your Phone Might Not Get You Into Trouble appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The woman had attached a resignation letter from 2019 to support her claim of being unemployed, despite which the court upheld the order.

The lower court had held that the woman was paying a home loan and also looking after the expenses of their minor child. “It is necessary for her to disclose the source from which the expenses were being met. It is therefore clear that even after resignation from the bank, she was earning and had a source of income,” the lower court in Kalyan had stated.

The husband had filed for divorce in 2016. Both of them filed applications seeking interim maintenance from each other. While the lower court dismissed the application of the woman, it allowed the application of the husband directing his wife to pay him Rs 10,000 as he submitted that she was earning about Rs 65,000 a month at the bank. The wife challenged the order in the High Court.

In the high court, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh noted that the woman’s advocate did not dispute that as of today the woman is earning. The bench noted that even in trial court, the woman did not file any documentary evidence in respect of her income. “If it was the contention of the wife that she had the liability for payment of certain expenses, it was necessary for her to place the same on record so that the trial court could have assessed the quantum of maintenance which is to be granted to the husband,” noted Justice Deshmukh.

The bench further added that at the stage of grant of interim maintenance in the absence of any material, a certain element of guesswork is involved and considering the income of the parties, the trial court ascertains the quantum of maintenance.

The bench lastly said that “Even if it is taken that the wife has certain expenses to be met, it was incumbent upon her to place the necessary material before the trial court so that it would have been in position to assess the quantum of maintenance to be granted. Unfortunately, the same has not been done in this case

The post Woman Directed to Pay Husband Maintenance appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

The case was brought before the court by a husband and wife who wished to conceive through IVF after tragically losing their teenage daughter. The couple encountered obstacles due to the husband’s age of 59 years, which exceeded the age limit for IVF as per the Act, while the wife, at 46 years, was within the permissible age. The court ruled that although the husband was too old to donate his gametes, the wife was still eligible under the Act, and there was no prohibition on her seeking IVF treatment. Consequently, the High Court granted the couple’s request for IVF treatment.

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya of the single bench observed that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 defines a commissioning couple, eligible for IVF facilities, as a married couple unable to conceive naturally. The court further ruled that even if the husband could not contribute to the IVF process, the couple could still conceive using donor gametes. The Act does not stipulate that either the sperm or the oocyte must necessarily come from the couple.

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, provides a framework for implementing surrogacy laws by establishing the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board. The Act’s objective is to regulate and supervise ART clinics and banks, prevent misuse, and ensure the safe and ethical practice of ART services.

ART services, as defined by the Act, encompass all techniques aimed at achieving pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte outside the human body and transferring the gamete or embryo into a woman’s reproductive system. This includes gamete donation, in vitro fertilization, and gestational surrogacy.

A child born through ART will be considered the biological child of the commissioning couple and will have the same rights and privileges as a natural child of the couple. The donor will not have any parental rights over the child.

As per Section 21(g) of the Act, ART services can be applied to a woman aged between twenty-one and fifty years and a man aged between twenty-one and fifty-five years. This landmark ruling has significant implications for couples seeking IVF treatment and contributes to the evolving discourse on reproductive rights.

The post Third Party Donors can Help Couples Conceive through IVF appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.

CASE DETAILS:

Pasru @ Ismail v. The State

Criminal Appeal No. – 158 of 1986

Allahabad High Court

Coram: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan

BACKGROUND:

• The alleged victim/prosecutrix filed an FIR on 22.01.1984 stating that the appellant and co-accused forcibly abducted her along with another associate and all four individuals raped her until 10 p.m.
• She claimed they threatened her and tied a cloth over her mouth.
• Two of the accused were known to her while the other two were unknown.
• After her release, she went to the police station with her husband to file the FIR.
• During the investigation, semen stains were found on the appellant’s underwear but he claimed it was forced on him by police personnel.
• No injuries were found on the alleged victim during her medical examination and no sperm was detected in vaginal smear samples.
• The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence while the other two accused were acquitted.
• The appellant and co-accused appealed the conviction but the co-accused passed away during the appeal process.
• In the High Court, the appellant’s counsel argued that the alleged victim’s husband was not an eyewitness and the other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile weakening the case against the appellant.

OBSERVATIONS:

Considering the case’s details and the trial court’s ruling, the Court observed that the prosecution’s argument relied heavily on the victim/prosecutrix’s testimony as all alleged eyewitnesses had turned hostile. The Court highlighted several inconsistencies in her statements during the trial and cross-examination. Reviewing her testimony, it seemed possible that she had accompanied the accused willingly, the Court remarked.

Based on this assessment, the Court emphasized that given the appearance of the victim/prosecutrix as a willing participant, the forensic lab’s report on seminal stains found on the appellant and the victim/prosecutrix’s inner garments held little significance. Consequently, deeming the testimony unreliable, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of the charges under section 376 IPC.

JUDGEMENT:

The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who had been convicted by the trial court in 1986 for raping an alleged minor girl in January 1984 sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan presiding over the bench noted that the trial court had erred in accepting the unreliable testimony of the alleged victim/prosecutrix which led to a clear case of patent illegality.

The post Acquittal in 1984 Rape Case: Allahabad HC Questions Victim’s Credibility appeared first on B&B Associates LLP.