Latest news with #SarangKotwal
Time of India
23-07-2025
- Time of India
Pocso, murder case convictionset aside by HC
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Wednesday set aside a judgment of February 28, 2022 by a fast-track sessions court in Pune, which convicted a sole accused and had sentenced him to death. HC justices, Sarang Kotwal and Shyam Chandak, cited principles laid down recently by Supreme Court that emphasised imperativeness of providing a "fair opportunity" to an accused to defend himself when the charge against him attracts the death penalty. The high court directed the trial court to re-hear arguments afresh and expeditiously, but not to conduct the entire trial de novo. In 2022, a fast-track court in Pune, dealing with cases under Pocso (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, sentenced a 38-year-old labourer to death for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a two-and-a-half-year-old girl in Pune district in February 2021. The accused, through his counsel, argued that the trial was vitiated due to a lack of proper opportunity to defend himself. The high court refrained from commenting on the merits. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Quoting from a 2025 Supreme Court ruling, the high court said, "The failure of the trial court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report has definitely led to the failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo The argument before the high court by both sides was that the Supreme Court has laid down that once a trial is thus vitiated, there is no question of confirming the sentence imposed through the operative part of the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The trial court had ordered that he be hanged to death, subject to confirmation as required by law. The high court said, "Since this is a case of capital punishment, the court has to ensure that all the opportunities must be afforded to the accused to defend himself. The accused must get one opportunity to argue all the aspects in respect of the additional evidence before the trial court itself so that he does not lose one forum. The trial court can appreciate the additional evidence in the background of the other evidence to consider the effect of the entire evidence cumulatively." On whether it should be a re-trial or if the trial court can re-hear arguments, the high court adopted the process which the apex court did in the "strikingly similar" case from MP, where it had not directed the trial court to conduct the trial de novo by wiping out the evidence already recorded, but to hear arguments afresh. HC directed the accused and his counsel to appear before the trial court on August 12 for further directions and disposed of the confirmation reference and his appeal.
Hindustan Times
29-04-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Minor's religion not decisive in custody cases, rules HC
MUMBAI: The religion of a minor cannot be a decisive factor when determining custody, the Bombay high court ruled on Monday while dismissing a city-based businessman's plea seeking custody of his three-year-old daughter from his estranged wife, a fashion stylist of Pakistani origin. 'The religion of the minor is only one of the considerations, but it is not a decisive, overriding factor. It is among several factors the court must weigh to determine the welfare of the child,' observed a division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and SM Modak while rejecting the petition filed by Sahil Raju Gilani, director of Gits Food Products, a company best known for its instant Gulab Jamun mixes. Referring to Section 17(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, the court noted that while the minor's age, sex, and religion are factors to be considered, none can be treated as conclusive in isolation. While refusing to disturb the current custody arrangement—under which the child resides in Delhi with her mother, Pernia Sahil Gilani (also known as Pernia Moin Qureshi)—the court continued an earlier order dated June 18, 2024, restraining her from taking the child out of India without the court's permission. Sahil had moved the high court last year with a Habeas Corpus petition— a legal remedy seeking the release of a person unlawfully detained—alleging that his wife had taken their daughter to Delhi early last year and had failed to return, despite booked return tickets. He further contended that his wife, originally born in Pakistan, had acquired Indian citizenship in June 1995, only to renounce it in December 2007 to become a United States national. The couple married in October 2019, and their daughter was born in April 2022. Gilani expressed apprehensions that his estranged wife might take the child out of India permanently. During arguments, Gilani's counsel had cited Section 354(2) of Mohammedan Law, which provides that a Muslim mother forfeits her right to custody of a girl child below seven years if she leaves her husband's home during the subsistence of marriage. However, the court found no merit in this argument. It pointed to a 2017 Supreme Court ruling emphasising that, for young girls, the guardianship of the mother is generally paramount, unless it is proven to be detrimental to the child's welfare. 'In the present case, the child is hardly three years old,' the judges said. 'In our opinion, for a three-year-old girl, custody with her mother is most conducive to her welfare. The mother is financially capable of caring for both herself and her daughter,' the bench concluded, dismissing Gilani's petition. In a similar custody dispute, the High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by the estranged wife of a city-based hotelier seeking custody of their 10-year-old son. The woman had approached the court alleging that her husband had unlawfully retained the child. However, the court rejected her plea after the boy expressed his desire to continue living with his father. While acknowledging the possibility that the child may have been tutored by his father, the court observed that it could not disregard the child's expressed wishes and forcibly transfer his custody to the mother.
