Latest news with #TrialCourt
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Telangana HC suspends man's sentence over child's rape-murder; points out lapses in identification, prolonged incarceration
Emphasising significant concerns regarding the identification process conducted and the prolonged period of incarceration, the Telangana High Court recently suspended the sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering a child in 2019, and granted him bail pending the appeal. The order, delivered on July 24 by a bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and B R Madhusudhan Rao, stated, '…the inordinate and unexplained delay of 150 days in conducting the Test Identification Parade, coupled with the circumstances in which the material witnesses…saw a person running away from the scene of offence without seeing his face, read with the conclusion of the Trial Court that it was not possible to identify the petitioner/accused from the video footage, nullifies the value of the Test Identification Parade.' The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on May 9, 2019, by the father of a 7-year-old boy, who was found dead with head injuries after being sent to a shop near their home the day before. The investigation led to the apprehension of the appellant on May 13 that year, based on CCTV footage and suspicion raised by a witness. The prosecution alleged that the appellant lured the deceased, committed unnatural sexual acts, and then fatally hit the child's head on the ground. The appellant was convicted on July 20, 2021, for offences under sections 363 (kidnapping), 377 (unnatural offences), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He was awarded multiple sentences for the offences, including rigorous imprisonment of five years, life imprisonment, and two sentences of 10 years each, all of which were directed to run concurrently. The division bench, however, noted several critical issues with the prosecution's case, one of them being that there were no eyewitnesses to the alleged unnatural sex, kidnapping, or murder. The court also highlighted the 'inordinate and unexplained delay' of 150 days in conducting the Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the accused's arrest. The court felt the identification of the appellant by the witnesses was unreliable due to the long delay, noting that the witnesses had only seen a person running away from the scene in the dark and provided a vague description. 'It is settled law that the Test Identification Parade should be held without any unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused, which is necessary for eliminating the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the Test Identification Parade,' the order read. The court also found that the Investigating Officer was unable to determine the blood group of the deceased or the accused, nor confirm if the bloodstains on seized items belonged to the accused. The court referred to the precedent set in Batchu Ranga Rao and others v State of Andhra Pradesh, which provides guidelines for releasing accused persons who have been in custody for more than five years. As the appellant had been in jail for over six years as of the order date, the court found it to be sufficient grounds for granting bail. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties. Rahul V Pisharody is an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting from Telangana on various issues since 2019. Besides a focused approach to big news developments, Rahul has a keen interest in stories about Hyderabad and its inhabitants and looks out for interesting features on the city's heritage, environment, history culture etc. His articles are straightforward and simple reads in sync with the context. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of district correspondents, centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. Long motorcycle rides and travel photography are among his other interests. ... Read More
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
A Momentous Judgment: When the SC Ruled in Favour of Tribal Women's Rights in Ancestral Property
On July 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a case concerning Chhattisgarh's Gond community, ruled in favour of tribal women's rights in ancestral property. This judgement can have momentous ramifications, much beyond its specific context. Applying the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience' where neither codified law nor clear evidence of custom existed, and especially invoking article 14 of the Indian Constitution (which guarantees equality for all before the law), the two-bench judgement upheld the rights of a tribal woman in ancestral property in the state of Chhattisgarh (Ramcharan & others vs Sukhram & others). How did this judgement by Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi come about and what are its implications? The case concerned the property claims of a deceased Gond tribal woman, Dhaiya, whose rights had been denied while those of her five brothers were recognised. Dhaiya's children filed a case for her share in the ancestral property of Bhajju Bhajan Gond, their maternal grandfather, mainly on the grounds that they followed Hindu traditions, and under current Hindu law their mother had equal claims as her brothers to the joint property. Some supplementary grounds were also given. The background The case came to the Supreme Court (SC) on appeal in 2023, after passing through the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court, all of which had rejected the claim. According to the background information provided in the SC judgment document, the case was filed in a trial court in 1992 by Dhayia's heirs (Ram Charan & Others) but was rejected on the grounds that no evidence was presented either of a Gond custom that the daughter could get ancestral property, nor of the family following recognised Hindu practices. The first appellate court (where the case then went on appeal), in its judgement in 2008, upheld the trial court's ruling. The appellant/plaintiffs then appealed to the Chhattisgarh high court in 2009, which too in its judgement of 2022 upheld the Trial Court's ruling – noting that no evidence was presented of a female heir being entitled to inherit ancestral property by custom, nor of the adoption of Hindu traditions by the family. Most importantly, the high court also rejected the counsel's plea that in the absence of evidence of custom, the principle of 'justice, equity and good conscience' must prevail. The case then went on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's arguments The Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts on one count but diverged radically on other counts. It first argued that Hindu law could not come into play, since Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 had unequivocally excluded its application to Scheduled Tribes. This was in keeping with prior SC judgements, including one in 2022 (Kamla Neti vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & others). The SC further argued that where Gond customs were silent on women's inheritance rights over parental property, the presumption could not be in favour of denying women a share. Rather, the judges noted – giving the argument an interesting twist – instead of the plaintiff having to prove that a custom in favour of women existed, the defendants needed to prove that women were not entitled to inherit property by custom. The most radical shift in the SC judgement lay in its argument that since 'neither any particular law of a community nor custom could be brought into application by either side, we now proceed to examine the argument advanced before the high court, that is, the principle of justice, equity and good conscience' (para 15). Citing several past cases where this principle had been applied, including a case dealt with by the high court of Chhattisgarh where the property rights of female heirs had been upheld, the SC ruled in favour of Dhaiya and her heirs. Two of its arguments are worth noting: First, that 'unless otherwise prescribed in law, denying the female heir a right in the property only exacerbates gender division and discrimination, which the law should ensure to weed out' (para 27). Second, that, 'denying Dhaiya her share in her father's property, when the custom is silent, would violate her right to equality vis-a-vis her brothers or those of her legal heirs vis-à-vis their cousin' (para 28). Hence the SC ruled: '… we are of the firm view that in keeping with the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, read along with the overarching effect of Article 14 of the Constitution, the appellant-plaintiffs, being Dhaiya's legal heirs, are entitled to their equal share in the property' (para 29). Wider implications for legal reform The implications of this judgment, in my assessment, go much beyond Dhaiya's case. Based on the principles of justice, equity and good conscience, and Article 14 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court judgement sets a precedent for giving Scheduled Tribe women rights in family property as daughters (and their heirs) equal to the rights of sons (and their heirs). The judgement can thus become the benchmark for extending gender equal inheritance rights to all tribal women in India. In 2005, I had spearheaded a successful civil society campaign to amend the Hindu Succession Act to make it gender equal. The HSAA 2005 gave daughters equal rights with sons in coparcenary joint family property. Two decades later, this July 2025 judgement of the SC has effectively extended a similar right to tribal women. This is momentous. At the same time, to strengthen and expand those rights, we need to move beyond case law and precedent to codify tribal women's rights via statutory enactment. This could initially be done by individual states but would be most effective if undertaken at the federal level. The SC's July judgement provides two strong justifications for such codification: (a) on constitutional grounds, based on Article 14; and (b) on the principles of gender justice and inclusion. To this, a third can be added, namely that of non-discrimination between women of different communities in India. Today, Hindu, Christian and Parsi women are governed by different – but gender-equal – laws of succession. A failure to extend equal rights to tribal women by codified law would be discriminatory in intra-gender terms. Muslim women's rights also need reform, as I wrote in the Indian Express, but that requires a separate discussion. A discussion is also needed on potential reference models for codifying tribal women's rights. Hindu succession law appears unsuitable, given its complexity, especially its distinction between separate and coparcenary property. The secular Indian Succession Act of 1925 may provide a simpler alternative as a prototype to build on. Special provisions may well be required for matrilineal tribal communities, such as the Garos and Khasis in Meghalaya, which customarily grant women special rights. These issues need careful reflection but also expedited attention. The idea of codifying gender-equal inheritance laws for tribal communities has had a contentious history. An opposing argument is that replacing tribal customs with codified laws would undermine tribal identity. This is not unlike an even older argument made in peasant movements that calling for gender inequality would be divisive and undermine the movement. I believe these are misleading arguments. Progressive movements need to be built on equal rights for all community members, especially women. You cannot credibly seek justice for a community by turning a blind eye to embedded gender injustice within that community. It is also sometimes argued that customary laws in India's tribal communities don't need reform as they are already gender equal. In my own detailed research, however, I found little evidence of tribal customs that uphold gender-equal inheritance, except rare examples of some (not all) matrilineal communities. Even among these – such as the Garos in Meghalaya – customs favouring women have been seriously eroded over time. I believe the way forward is to codify the inheritance laws for tribal communities to make them gender equal, while strengthening other institutions to ensure that the broader aspects of tribal identity and culture, that the communities value, remain protected. Beyond legal reform Even with statutory law, tribal women will need protection (like Hindu women do) to deal with pressure from brothers to sign away their shares. Here it will be important to have both civil society oversight when inheritance shares are registered by the village patwari (or tribal equivalent), as well as judicial oversight, such as having women sign an affidavit if they want to forfeit their shares (to provide a layer of protection against family pressure), as Hindu women have to do. Equally, as with women of other communities, tribal women will need civil society and media efforts to enhance their awareness of their legal rights, and their knowledge of out-of-court mediating bodies, such as Nari Adalats, as well as of government provisions for legal aid, should they wish to contest their claims. While legal reform alone cannot guarantee women's ownership and control over property in practice, since social norms often trump progressive reform, it is still an essential step towards that goal. Here the 17 July 2025 Supreme Court Judgement – passed 20 years after the HSAA was reformed for Hindu women – is a very welcome first step. Bina Agarwal is Professor of Development Economics and Environment, GDI, The University of Manchester & Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
India Today
18-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
Court pauses trial against Mehul Choksi in Rs 55-crore Canara Bank fraud case
A special CBI court in Mumbai on Friday stayed the issuance of process and the non-bailable warrant (NBW) against absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi in connection with a Rs 55 crore loan fraud involving Canara case, registered by the CBI's Bank Securities and Fraud Branch (BSFB) on July 12, 2022, was based on a complaint filed by P Santosh, Chief General Manager, Canara Bank. It alleged fraud committed by Choksi, his companies, associates, and some unidentified public servants in the disbursal of working capital facilities sanctioned to Bezel Jewellery (India) Pvt Ltd under a consortium led by Canara Bank and Bank of this year, in April, a magistrate court issued a fresh NBW against Choksi. The businessman, currently imprisoned in Belgium, challenged the order through advocates Vijay Agarwal, Rahul Agarwal, and Jasmin Purani. His co-accused, Aniyath Shivraman Nair, then Assistant General Manager at Gitanjali Jewels, also filed a criminal revision Agarwal, representing both accused, argued that 'a cryptic order of issuance of process has been passed' by the magistrate court. He said the court had issued the process mechanically, without applying its mind and in violation of Sections 190 and 204 of the CrPC. Agarwal added, 'The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, hence, it may kindly be stayed.'CBI's Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh opposed the request for interim Special Judge JP Darekar, after reviewing the records and the magistrate's order, noted that the lower court failed to issue a reasoned order. 'Though the Trial Court has observed that there is sufficient material available on record for issuing process against accused persons, but order does not contain detailed reasons,' the judge a Supreme Court precedent, Judge Darekar said, 'Prima facie the impugned order does not reflect that any opinion was formed by the Trial Court on the basis of the material content in the charge-sheet.'The court further stressed the importance of reasoned orders. 'The reasons are necessary not only for the litigants before the court but also for the superior courts to know the thought process of the Trial Court. The court expects at least some brief outline of the reasons which led the Trial Court to form an opinion to issue summons in the case.'In view of these observations, the court stayed further proceedings in the trial court against Choksi and Nair until the next CBI court directed that its order be communicated to the magistrate court and granted the agency time till August 8 to file a reply.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Special court stays proceedings in 2022 bank fraud case filed against Choksi
A SPECIAL court Friday stayed proceedings against diamond merchant Mehul Choksi and a co-accused in a bank fraud case, pending before the magistrate court. The special court said that the magistrate court had in April issued summons to the seven accused in the case, including Choksi, but the order does not reflect any opinion of the court. Lawyers for Choksi and co-accused, Aniyath Nair, had approached the special court against the magistrate court order. 'The reasons are necessary not only for the litigants before the court but also for the superior courts to know the thought process of the learned trial court. The court expects at least some brief outline of the reasons which leads the Trial Court to form an opinion to issue summons in the case. Therefore, in view of this prima facie error of being no reasons in support of the order of issuance of process, the further proceedings…. pending before the court….are hereby stayed qua the present applicant Nos.5 (Nair) and 2 (Choksi) till next date,' the special court said. The case relates to a complaint filed in 2022, alleging wrongful losses caused to a consortium of banks led by Canara Bank to the tune of Rs 55.27 crore. Choksi, two companies— Bezel Jewellery India Ltd, Gitanjali Gems, and four other persons were named as accused by the CBI. The CBI had alleged that loans granted by the banks for manufacturing and sales of gold and diamond studded jewellery, were diverted by the accused. The magistrate court had passed an order summoning the accused and issued a non-bailable warrant against Choksi, who is currently facing proceedings in Belgium, where he is detained on an extradition request by Indian authorities, for investigation of the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank bank consortium fraud case. The lawyers for the accused, Rahul Agarwal and Jasmin Purani, had submitted that the magistrate court order taking cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the CBI was done 'mechanically', without giving any reasons. They also claimed that the order was passed in a 'lightning speed' on the same day when the chargesheet, running into thousands of pages, was put before the court, without perusal.
News18
18-07-2025
- News18
Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC
The SC said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court The Supreme Court said on Thursday that only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the will be accepted as a genuine one. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court to ascertain whether the will propounded had been duly proved. 'Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator," the bench said. The court pointed out a will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that is examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Gurdial Singh through his legal representatives and affirmed the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declared Jagir Kaur, wife of Maya Singh, as the owner and in possession of the suit land. The appellant was nephew of Maya Singh, who died in 1991. He claimed Maya Singh executed a will in 1991 bequeathing land, measuring 67 karnals and 4 marlas to him. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held him as the lawful owner of the land, finding the will as genuine. The First Appellate Court at Amritsar upheld the judgment and the decree passed in the appellant's suit. The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the suspicious circumstance namely, non-mention of first respondent, who was the wife of the testator Maya Singh and the reasons for her disinheritance in the will exposed absence of 'free disposing mind' of the testator. Examining the appeal, the court held, a cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the will, gave rise to serious doubt that the will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the 'free will' of the testator. The bench said deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind execution of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. However, the court emphasised, the prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act. The bench pointed out in Ram Piari Vs Bhagwant & Ors (1993) this court held when suspicious circumstance exists, courts should not be swayed by due execution of the will alone. When unusual features appear in a will or unnatural circumstances surround its execution, the court must undertake a close scrutiny and make an overall assessment of the unusual circumstances before accepting the will, the bench added. In the case, the bench said, 'We have no hesitation to hold that non-mention of first respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant." Court noted Jagir Kaur unequivocally stated that she was living with her husband till his death and the specious rationale given that she may have been disinherited as Maya Singh's monies had been settled in her favour and she was entitled to pension is hardly convincing. It pointed out, no evidence was led to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the will. The bench further found the appellant's case was not only to propound the will in his favour but even to deny the very status of first respondent as Maya Singh's wife. 'When one reads the contents of the will, appellant's stand is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The will is a cryptic one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e. the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the first respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance," the bench said. Court further noted the evidence on record showed first respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter's death. Nothing had come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator's conduct in accepting first respondent as his lawfully wedded wife. Court said, non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case. Further, it held, the Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of Maya Singh by first respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple. 'Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by male sapinda relations. Given this practice, first respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime. In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with first respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the will. Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself," the bench said. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 18, 2025, 19:34 IST News india Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
