Re Legal

1

Relationship turning sour cannot be ground to book man for rape on false promise of marriage: Supreme Court
The Court observed that such cases not only burdens the Courts but also brings disrepute to an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
1

AR Rahman faces setback in copyright suit before Delhi High Court over 'Veera Raja Veera' song. Among other directions, the Court also ordered Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registry during the pendency of the copyright suit.
1

Supreme Court pulls up Rahul Gandhi for remarks against Savarkar but stays summons. The Court warned Gandhi that it will initiate suo motu action if he makes similar statements.
1

Savarkar defamation case: Pune court allows plea by Rahul Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record. Since Gandhi has claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, the trial would have to be held as a summons trial to allow detailed evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court said.
1

Delhi court says Medha Patkar will not be jailed for defaming Delhi LG VK Saxena
Medha Patkar was sentenced to five months in jail by the trial court. However, the sessions court said the offence was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.

Today’s

Appellate Court Cannot Enhance Sentence
The Supreme Court held that the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in cases where the appeal is filed by the accused. The appellant trespassed into the house of his neighbour and hugged her. She later committed suicide. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. The High Court dismissed his appeal against his conviction. Using its suo moto Criminal Revision Petition, it convicted the appellant under Sections 306 and sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for five years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against accused. No appellant, by filing an appeal, can be made worse-off than what he was. Nagarajan v State of Tamil Nadu 4 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 802 | 2024 SCO.LR 6(1)[2] Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma Read the Judgement here. Case Comment: In the instant case, the appellant/accused herein had filed the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC. Insofar as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said conviction under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC, the appellant had filed the appeal before the High Court. Neither the State, nor the victim or complainant had sought for enhancement of sentence, or sought for conviction and sentence under Section 306 of IPC before the High Court when the appellant had filed his appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction and sentence. The High Court, instead of considering the said appeal filed by the appellant on merits, sought to exercise suo motu revisional powers for convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC also and thereby sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant. Held, We are of the view that in an appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the State, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge. The reasons for coming to such a conclusion have been discussed above. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #Sec354 #suomotorevisionalpower #SC #enhancementofsentence Key word/phrases: High Court overruled—Charge of trespass and outraging of modesty—Trial Court convicts accused for trespass and outraging of modesty—finds evidence insufficient for abetment of suicide—High Court uses its suo moto revisional powers—finds appellant guilty and enhances sentence—Supreme Court finds High Court has no such power

Yesterday’s

Courts Must Compare Prosecution and Defence Statements in Cases of Circumstantial Evidence
The Supreme Court held that in cases where a court has relied on circumstantial evidence, it must compare the prosecution’s evidence with that of the defence. Where two views exist, the one favouring the accused should be taken. Vaibhav, the accused, claimed that he found Mangesh, the deceased, in a pool of blood along with his father’s pistol. He then disposed of the body and concealed the death. The prosecution claimed that this was an act of homicidal death. Vaibhav claimed it was a case of accidental death. The Bombay High Court upheld Vaibhav’s conviction. The Court overturned the decision of the High Court as it did not test Vaibhav’s version of events against the surrounding facts and circumstances. The Court set aside Vaibhav’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 read with Section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959. It sustained the conviction on Section 201 of the IPC for causing the disappearance of evidence. Vaibhav v State of Maharashtra 4 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 800 | 2024 SCO.LR 6(1)[1] Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma Read the Judgement here. Case comment : In usual course of things, such trajectory of the bullet could have been possible only if the deceased was sitting and looking downwards towards the barrel of the pistol from a close distance. It was only then that the bullet could have hit the ventilator despite exiting from the lower part of the skull. In fact, this is precisely the defence of the appellant – that the deceased, on finding the service pistol of PW-12, got curious, picked it up, started looking into it with one eye from a close distance and accidentally pressed the trigger. The probability of the version put across by the appellant is on the higher side as compared to the version put across by the prosecution, which simply does not give any explanation for the trajectory of the bullet. In gunshot cases wherein the nature of death – suicidal, accidental or homicidal – is not ascertainable from direct evidence, multiple factors are taken into account for arriving at a conclusion. Such factors include, but are not limited to, the point of entrance, the size of wound, direction of wound, position of wound, possible distance of gunshot, number of wounds, position of weapon, trajectory of bullet after entering into the human body, position of exit wound (if bullet has exited), direction of exit wound, direction of the bullet after exit, distance travelled by the bullet after exit, nature of final impact on surface (if any) etc. even if it is believed that the view taken by the Courts below is a possible view, it ought to have been examined whether a reasonable counter view was possible in the case. It is a time-tested proposition of law that when a Court is faced with a situation wherein two different views appear to be reasonably possible, the matter is to be decided in favour of the accused. The benefit of a counter possibility goes to the accused in such cases. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #setaside #BHC # CircumstantialEvidence #IftwoViewsExist #Section302 #Sections5and29ArmsAct Key word/phrases: Bombay High Court—Judgment Partially Set Aside—Circumstantial Evidence—Compare Version of Events— If two Views Exist—Favour Accused—Section 302 Indian Penal Code— Sections 5 and 29 Arms Act —Conviction Set Aside

Terms And condition