Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 read with 34 – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence for the alleged forced abortion at Nursing Home – The Court referenced previous judgments to establish that consent vitiated by a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape under Section 375 of IPC unless the promise was proven to be false at inception – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process and result in miscarriage of justice.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. MR. A AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……of…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 109, 302 and 307 – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Court found inconsistencies in testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, and lapses in the police investigation – The Court discussed the right of private defense and the standards for “interested” versus “independent” witnesses – This Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and directed the release of both appellants, citing reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PERIYASAMY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 and IPC – Murder – Conviction and Sentence – Modification of Sentence – Court meticulously examined the circumstantial evidence, confirming the appellant’s guilt and finding no plausible explanation for the events from the appellant – The Court discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for a complete chain of evidence pointing to the appellant’s guilt – The Court upheld the conviction for murder, house-trespass, and attempted suicide, maintaining the modified sentence of life imprisonment for 30 years without remission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NAVAS @ MULANAVAS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA — Respondent ( Before : B. R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. )…

Service Matters

The Court reasons that the service as a High Court Judge should be cumulated with district judiciary service for pension calculation, and the break in service should not adversely affect the pension – The Court analyzes the constitutional and statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of non-discrimination in pension computation for Judges, regardless of their service origin – The Court concludes that Justice Garg is entitled to pension calculated on the basis of her last drawn salary as a High Court Judge, including arrears with interest – The appeal by the Union of India is disposed of accordingly.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE — Appellant Vs. JUSTICE (RETD) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999 – Sections 3 and 4 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 – – The respondent opposes anticipatory bail, asserting that the petitioner’s involvement is established – They contend that the seriousness of the charges warrants denial of bail – The court acknowledges that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy – It emphasizes that such relief should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances – The court considers the petitioner’s status as an absconder and weighs the evidence against them – After thorough consideration, the court rules on the anticipatory bail application – Appeal Dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. )…

Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 Sections 5, 11, 11A and 77- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 – The Tenancy Act’s provisions were still applicable to the subject lands, and the legal heirs of the original Watandar could not have taken lawful possession of the lands – The revisionary order dated 03.05.1982 was invalid, and the Bombay High Court justified it – The tenancy was lawfully subsisting on 01.04.1957, and tenants were entitled to exercise their right of statutory purchase under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act – This right became operational on 27.11.1964, when the Watan lands were regranted to the original Watandar’s heirs.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABAN BALAJI MORE (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BABAJI HARI SHELAR (DEAD) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…