Latest news with #TrialCourt
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Courts can't enhance sentence in appeal by accused, SC rules
A person who challenges their conviction cannot be punished more harshly in return, the Supreme Court has ruled, holding that a court cannot enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused unless the prosecution or complainant has independently sought a stiffer jail term. The ruling reinforces a key safeguard in criminal jurisprudence that the right to appeal should not carry the risk of harsher punishment, leaving an accused worse off, and that courts cannot exercise revisional powers on its own motion to increase punishment without a formal challenge. A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, in a judgment on Wednesday, clarified the limits of appellate powers, underlining that enhancing the sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused would amount to penalising a person for exercising their statutory and constitutional right to appeal. 'The appellate court, in an appeal filed by the accused, cannot while maintaining the conviction enhance the when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence,' said the bench, setting aside the conviction and five-year sentence imposed on a man for abetment to suicide. The ruling came in a case from Tamil Nadu, where a man convicted by a trial court for offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage modesty) and 448 (house trespass) of the Indian Penal Code had approached the Madras high court seeking relief. However, the high court not only upheld his conviction on those counts but also convicted him under Section 306 (abetment to suicide) -- a charge on which he had been acquitted at trial -- and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment in September 2021. This was done even though neither the state, victim, nor complainant had challenged the trial court's acquittal on the abetment charge. Calling this action unsustainable in law, the bench emphasised the core principle that 'no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was.' In a detailed judgment, the top court underscored that the right of appeal is not just statutory, but 'also a constitutional right in the case of an accused.' 'That a right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial Court's judgment by a superior or appellate court,' it said. The bench added that an appellate court has limited options in such cases – it may acquit the accused, order a retrial, reduce the sentence, or dismiss the appeal. But it cannot exercise powers of revision to enhance punishment, held the court. 'In an appeal filed only by the accused/convict, the high court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction and enhance the sentence against the accused while maintaining the conviction,' it declared. The court also pointed to Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which explicitly states that an appellate court may alter a sentence 'but not so as to enhance the same' unless a separate appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state, complainant, or victim. The bench took exception to the high court's invocation of suo motu revisional powers in a scenario where no party had sought enhancement or appealed the acquittal on the abetment charge. It proceeded to set aside the conviction under Section 306 and restored the sessions court's 2015 judgment, limited to the conviction under the other two charges.
News18
29-05-2025
- News18
Pet Owners Duty-Bound To Prevent Harm Caused By Their Pets: Calcutta High Court
Last Updated: The offence under IPC Section 289 centres on negligent handling of animals and the probable danger they pose, not just actual injury, the High Court observed A pet owner is undeniably duty-bound to exercise a certain degree of care and take sufficient steps to prevent their pet from causing harm, the Calcutta High Court has said. Referring to Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with negligent conduct with respect to animals, the High Court said, 'This section unequivocally imposes a duty on the owner or possessor of an animal to take adequate measures to prevent any probable danger to human life or grievous hurt from such animal." The High Court further observed that the provision specifically uses 'knowingly or negligently omits", emphasising either actual knowledge of the animal's harmful propensity or a lack of due care in its management. This observation was made by the High Court while dealing with a case concerning the quashing of a complaint, wherein the complainant was allegedly attacked by 10 to 12 pet dogs while on the roof of his residential building. The complainant, one Dipan Banerjee, stated in the FIR that the alleged attack caused him to lose balance, fall, and sustain injuries. He specifically averred that these pet dogs were not properly chained and roamed freely, thereby creating a perilous environment and posing a significant threat to human life. Noting that the complaint highlighted a broader concern regarding the practice of keeping 'many dogs… unchained on the roof of a housing", which, if true, could indeed pose a 'threat to human life" regardless of immediate physical injury, the High Court refused to quash the complaint. 'Quashing the proceedings at this juncture would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution based on contentious factual claims. The Trial Court is the appropriate forum to delve into the nuances of the evidence, assess witness credibility, and determine the allegations' veracity," it said. Referring to the allegation, the High Court also said that the case did not fall into categories where the allegations were so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could reasonably conclude there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. Cause Title: Suman Ray @ Suman Roy -Vs- State of West Bengal & Anr. First Published: May 29, 2025, 15:14 IST
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Time of India
Wife fined Rs 1 lakh by Calcutta High Court for defaming husband with false public notices in a newspaper amid ongoing divorce battle
The Calcutta High Court on April 11, 2025, ordered a wife to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for damage caused to her husband's reputation . The reason for this damage was that she published two defamatory statements in a newspaper against her husband who works in an government department as assistant engineer. The said public notices said that he was about to marry another woman while their divorce proceedings were still going on in court. However, the husband contended that this was a totally false and a made-up story and he had no intention of marrying again until the divorce proceedings are finalised. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack A Chinese shadow falls on Pahalgam terror attack case probe How India can use water to pressure Pakistan Buzzkill: How India can dissolve the Pakistan problem, not just swat it In light of this damage to his reputation and character, he approached the Calcutta High Court and filed a defamation case against the wife and the newspaper editor. Sworn witness testimony presented by the husband's lawyer before the court showed that his wife's public notices caused humiliation, and his reputation was badly tarnished in society as people in society questioned his character. When wife was asked by the court how she knew about her husband's alleged 2nd marriage, she had no answer except that she learnt it from a 'reliable source'. She, however, failed to prove or present this 'reliable source' before the court or even mention the name of this lady with whom her husband was allegedly set to marry. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo Ultimately the Calcutta High Court found her guilty of tarnishing her husband's reputation and analysed the Law of Torts and said, 'A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties.' The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench At Port Blair) held that the husband's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was violated due to her actions and hence as per the Law of Torts she is liable to pay compensation to him. The Calcutta High Court on April 11, 2025, ordered the wife to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation to the husband. Live Events Read below to know how the husband won this defamation case and what the Law of Torts says and how the husband's Article 21 rights were violated by the wife due to these defamatory public notices in the newspaper. How did this case start? According to the order of the Calcutta High Court dated April 11, 2025, here are the details: March 2, 1994: Marriage between the couple happens. January 24, 1996: A son is born out of their wedlock. 2005: The matrimonial tie between the husband and wife broke and the husband sought divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 2008: The Trial Court grants divorce to the husband. Wife files an appeal against the order of the Trial Court in the Calcutta High Court, division bench. December 3 and 5 of 2008: Wife published two public notices alleging that she learnt from reliable sources about her husband's intention for 2nd marriage despite them not being divorced yet. 2011: Calcutta High Court, division bench denies relief to the husband and allows the wife's appeal. The husband filed a civil appeal in Calcutta High Court against this order. April 11, 2025: Calcutta High Court finds wife guilty of defamation against her husband and orders her to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for damages. The wife's lawyers said she merely tried to inform everybody that she was still married with him and hence legally he could not do a 2nd marriage According to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here's what the wife's lawyers said: She did not have any intention to defame anybody and she did not have any ill-motive. The notice was published not to malign anybody. The notice was published for the good of the society. The wife had only tried to intimate and make aware through the said notice that there was subsistence of marriage between herself and her husband. She had only tried to make everybody aware that as he is married to her and there is a subsistence of the marriage so any further marriage by him could only give rise to the second marriage which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. The husband's lawyers said he is a respectable government officer and these defamatory public notices tarnished his image before the public According to the order of the Calcutta High Court, here are the details: She has not been able to prove the source of the information on the basis of which notices were published on two dates. In this instant case publishing a notice of marrying for the second time without divorce of the first marriage is not only illegal but also a social stigma, as such mentioning that he is trying to marry another girl surely tarnishes the image before the public. In the written statement the name of one Devi has been mentioned but the same has not been corroborated by the wife in her evidence. This shows that the wife had no knowledge about the facts which have been published. Neither has she been able to establish the fact that the attempt of marriage was true nor has been able to establish the source of such information. The husband is a respectable person in the society and is holding the post of Assistant Engineer in a government department. There are witnesses who have been deposed that the image of the husband has suffered a setback because of the said two notices published. Calcutta High Court says: A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties The Calcutta High Court said: According to the law of Torts, defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A man's reputation is his property and in certain cases, more valuable, than other properties. The essentials of defamation are The statement must be defamatory; The said statement must refer to the plaintiff; The statement must be published. In the present case, the allegation of going to marry for the second time during the subsistence of the first marriage amounts to general damages and is actionable per se. In an action for defamation the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains, has been referred to him. It is immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If from the statement published it can be reasonably inferred that the statement refers to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable. Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person defamed, and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies. Communication to the plaintiff himself is not enough because defamation is injury to the reputation and reputation consists of the estimation in which others hold him and not a man's own opinion of himself. In this present case the fulcrum are the two notices which are the same, published in the same daily newspaper on two different dates. Calcutta High Court cross examines the wife and finds out she cannot prove the source of the information about her husband's 2nd marriage The Calcutta High Court said: During her examination- in chief she has time and again asserted the fact that it is not a fact that with a view to humiliate and/or defame the plaintiff, publication has been made in the newspaper by which the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished. During her cross-examination she has admitted the fact that she did not prove the allegation of illicit relationship of her husband and has also stated that she does not know the name of the lady whom her husband was going to marry and she made endeavour to collect particulars of that lady but could not succeed even though she made paper publication. She has also admitted that she has not mentioned the name of the person from whom she was informed that her husband was going to marry. Thus, from the evidence of the wife it transpires that she has neither been able to disclose the name of the informant nor she has been able to name the alleged girl whom her husband is going to marry. 'Witnesses have deposed stating that in their view the reputation of the husband has degraded. Thus, there is ample proof of defamation,' said Calcutta High Court. Calcutta High Court final judgement: Wife to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for husband's reputation loss due to her defamatory public notice The Calcutta High Court said: This Court is of the view that damages to reputation through libel is hard to quantify but the other side of the coin is also the fact that each and every citizen of this country as per the provision laid down under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has the fundamental right to live with dignity. In this present case, the wife has published a notice not only once but on two dates in a daily newspaper which according to herself has been published without having the knowledge of the informant and in addition in spite of her diligent efforts she has not been able to gather the information as regards to the name of the girl with whom she has entangled her husband that is Ramchander. This according to a person of prudent thinking causes emotional distress to the person involving whom such news is circulated having no basis. The Law of Torts does not have the power to put a person in incarceration but it has been empowered to award damages. To deter any person from spreading any baseless news defaming another person damages have been incorporated under the Law of Torts. Quantifying such amounts of damages acts as a deterrent factor and nothing more than that and it is imposed to keep the society intact. The Calcutta High Court referred to this precedent to determine the compensation amount: Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir. Judgement: 'This Court is of the view that there being defamation of the husband by the wife the impugned order requires certain modification which is to the extent that the appellant/wife / has to Pay Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) to the Respondent/Husband/ within three (3) months from this date.' Arnaz Hathiram, Digital Media Professional, says: "Divorce proceedings of private individuals are personal matter. As a thumbrule, both parties must refrain from writing or publishing anything in media, while the matter is subjudice. The cost of Rs 1 lakh levied on a working independent wife may not really be penal for her. However, with this order, the Calcutta HC has surely set the tone for deterring either spouse from defaming the other in media." What is the significance of this judgement? ET Wealth Online has asked various legal experts about the significance of this judgement. Here's what they said: Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record, Lucknow High Court: The significance of this judgment is that a wife's act of publishing a public notice disclosing her husband's marital status was held to be defamatory. Her defense that it was done without malice and in public interest to warn other women was found legally unsustainable, amounting to tarnishing his reputation. The judgment reinforces that imputations affecting an individual's character, when made publicly, constitute actionable defamation. In the present matter, the wife issued two public notices alleging her husband's intent to contract a void marriage, asserting such union would be illegal and confer no legal status. The husband instituted a civil suit for defamation against the wife and the editor. The Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench) decreed Rs 1 lakh in compensatory damages, holding the publication to be a reckless and malicious act, injurious to the plaintiff's reputation, and unsupported by lawful justification or privilege. Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL): Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris: The judgment sets a critical precedent that civil defamation laws apply within matrimonial relationships when one spouse publicly and falsely maligns the other. It opens the door for aggrieved individuals to seek compensation for reputational harm suffered due to defamatory acts by their partner, even if no criminal proceedings are involved. It also clarifies that freedom of expression does not extend to unverified public accusations, particularly when they tarnish an individual's public image. Going forward, this decision may deter parties from resorting to vindictive tactics like public notices or social media defamation during marital disputes, promoting more responsible conduct and legal recourse. This judgment sets a precedent that either of the party cannot defame the other party without any evidence. The Calcutta High Court has reinforced that personal reputation is a constitutionally protected facet of dignity under Article 21. It states that unsubstantial allegations when made in public can lead to serious legal consequences. The Court felt that intention behind the statement becomes irrelevant if the result is reputational harm. Shashank Agarwal, Advocate, Delhi High Court: The significance of this judgment lies in its ability to reduce such actions undertaken by the disgruntled parties to a dispute. This judgment clarifies what constitutes defamation and explains this concept with the facts of this case where the person who had issued a certain publication had no basis of his/her statements so published.
India Gazette
30-04-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Court allows Somnath Bharti to lead additional evidence
New Delhi [India], April 30 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Wednesday allowed a revision petition moved by AAP leader Somnath Bharti. He had challenged the order dismissing his applications seeking permission to summon additional witnesses in his defence. He also sought to place on record seven video clips of an incident that occurred in Malviya Nagar in 2014. An FIR was registered on the order of the court based on a complaint filed by the victim, who is an African woman. She had alleged molestation by a group of people. Special Judge Vishal Gogne said, 'The revision petition is allowed with liberty to the revisionist to lead further evidence in defence in terms of his applications dated 30.08.2024 and 11.11.2024, which are deemed to be allowed.' 'The Trial court shall pass appropriate directions regarding mode of proof of the video clips in question and the tender of the record relating to FIR of 2015, Police Station Malviya Nagar in evidence,' Special Judge Vishal Gogne said in the judgement passed on April 30. He had challenged the order dated 19 November 2024, which dismissed his two applications praying for the summoning of additional witnesses during the leading of his evidence in defence. In one application, he sought to place on record seven video clips purportedly reflecting either the media reporting regarding the prevalence of prostitution in Delhi, especially the area of Khirki Extension or the purported efforts of the revisionist to curb such prevalence. The second application sought permission to place on record documents related to an FIR lodged in 2014 at the Malviya Nagar police station. Bharti had challenged the order of 27.11.2024, which dismissed his application for revision under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying for liberty to place on record the certified copy of the judicial proceedings in the above-mentioned separate FIR 2014 of Police Station Malviya Nagar. The Trial Court recorded that none of the videos in question were relevant for proving the defence of the revisionist. It was observed in the context of the 2014 FIR documents that the observations in the matter were not final and that the testimony of witnesses in the trial could not be relied upon. Furthermore, one of the witnesses in the said FIR, namely Aditya, had in fact been examined in the present trial related to the 2014 FIR. In the second order, the challenge essentially found the fresh prayer of the accused to be allowed to be placed onRecord the certified copy of the charge sheet in FIR of 2014 to be in the face of the order dated 19.11.2024, which had dismissed the same prayer. Advocate S.P. Kaushal, Counsel for the revisions, argued that the trial court had grossly misappreciated the grounds urged in the two applications, which were dismissed on 27 November 2024, finding the projected defence to be irrelevant. He also argued that since the video clips reflected media reporting of the activities related to prostitution in the precise area where the accused allegedly accosted Women of African origin, these videos would counter the prosecution's allegations. The incident occurred between midnight on 15 January and 16 January 2014. The present FIR was registered on a complaint made by Ms D (names of all victims are concealed in the present order as the alleged offences are also under sections 354 and 354A IPC) under section 156 (3) through order dated 18.01.2014 of the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. The complainant, who is a person of African origin, alleged in her complaint that she, alongwith her sister and other natives, came to India on 03.01.2014 for her medical treatment. Since the treatment was taking a long time, she hired accommodation in Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It was alleged that on the night of the incident, a group of people reached her accommodation and allegedly molested her. The complaint alleged that she was very frightened and tried to resist them, but the assailants started humiliating her by touching her body parts. They threatened to kill her if she shouted. They even allegedly tried to search for all her articles. The assailants even forced the complainant to come out of her house and dragged her to the car. After the incident, the complainant, while watching television, purportedly identified some of the persons whohad trespassed, assaulted, misbehaved, threatened and molested her on the date of the incident. The complainant learned through the media that the assailants were affiliated with the Aam Aadmi Party and had been led by the local MLA, identified as Somnath Bharti. A charge sheet was filed against Bhati and the person accused of commission of offence under section 323/354/354c/153a/147/149/452/ 186/353/356/143/152/506/509/427/341/342/34 of IPC. (ANI)
India Today
25-04-2025
- India Today
Court cancels case against Muslim man, says he gave lawful one-time divorce
Holding that "what was prohibited was the Talaq-e-bidat and not Talaq-e-Ahsan," the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and the proceedings emanating from it against a man and his family who had divorced his wife, according to bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh said that it would be an abuse of process of law, if a Jalgaon resident and his parents are asked to face bench was hearing a plea filed by a 30-year-old man and his parents, who were in their 50s. The plea sought quashing of a FIR registered with Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station in Jalgaon and the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate FirstClass, Bhusawal for the offences punishable under Section 4 (criminalizes triple talaq) of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, and under Section 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The man and the woman got married as per Muslim rites and customs on October 31, 2021 at Bhusawal, Jalgaon. They resided with his parents for about two weeks thereafter and then they went to Belapur, Navi Mumbai, where the man was serving. They lived there till April 2022 but as the woman was pregnant, she came to her own parents woman however faced a difficult pregnancy and it was alleged that without consulting her husband and his family, terminated her pregnancy. Later she allegedly also misbehaved with his family. The woman's father was asked to intervene and even though he assured them, the woman again threatened that she would commit suicide if she is not permitted to go to her father's differences between the couple only escalated and therefore, the man was constrained to pronounce a single divorce i.e. Talaq-e-Ahsan on December 23, 2023 in presence of witnesses. Few days later, he had sent a notice of Talaq by registered post as well. Thereafter, there was no cohabitation or joining of the husband and wife for 90 days and, therefore, as per Muslim customs and Shariyat Law, it became irrevocable and ultimately, a Talaq was confirmed between them, submitted the man's advocate SS Additional Public Prosecutor AD Wange and advocate SM Naseer A appearing for the woman opposed the plea while submitting that statements of witnesses would show that the irrevocable Talaq has been given which is barred and held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. "The Trial Court would be the best forum where it can be considered as to which kind of Talaq has been pronounced," it was bench saw that Section 498A of IPC for cruelty to woman was not invoked. While Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act can be invoked only against husband and not against the parents-in-law. And thus there was no question of invoking Section 34 of IPC either. "There cannot be a common intention of pronouncement of Talaq. Therefore, even at this stage also, we can say that it would be an abuse of process of law if the matter is asked to be proceeded for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act against the father-in-law and mother-in-law," observed the the bench saw that 'Talaq' means 'Talaq-e biddat' or any other similar form of Talaq having the effect of instantaneous or irrevocable divorce pronounced by the Muslim husband which is illegal. While in the case at hand, the woman herself had stated in the FIR that the husband had stated in a notice sent on December 28, 2023 that what was given to her was Talaq-e-Ahsan i.e. one pronouncement of Talaq as per the bench noted that the final Talaqnama has been given on March 24, 2024 wherein it was mentioned that after December 23, 2023, within 90 days, neither the woman had resumed cohabitation and there was no resumption of physical relations between them so the legal effect of Talaq-e-Ahsan has come into Reel
