Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 1 to March 7 2021]

JUDGMENTS THIS WEEK1. No Allegation That Promise To Marry Was False At The Inception: Supreme Court Quashes Rape CaseCase: Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No 233 of 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC 137 A Division Bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah quashed an FIR alleging rape observing that there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given by the accused was false at the inception.The court also referred to the judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra in which it was observed thus:"To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."While allowing the appeal, the bench observed that in this case there was only a subsequent refusal on the part of the accused to marry the prosecuterix which gave rise to the registration of the FIR.2. Application Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC Can Be Allowed Only When Sufficient Cause Is Made Out To Set Aside Ex Parte Decree: Supreme CourtCase: Subodh Kumar Vs. Shamim Ahmed [CA 802-803 of 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SC 13The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be automatically granted and can be allowed only when sufficient cause is made out to set aside the ex parte decree.In this case, the tenant had filed an application to set aside an ex-parte decree against him which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that no deposit was made by the tenant as required by Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 along with the said application. The High Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration of tenant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law. 3. OBC Reservation Cannot Exceed 50%: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 12(2)(c) Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis ActCase: Vikas Kishanrao Gawali vs. State Of Maharashtra [WP 980 OF 2019] Citation: LL 2021 SC 13The Supreme Court read down Section 12(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 which provides reservation of 27 per cent of seats in the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis."Reservation in favour of OBCs in the concerned local bodies can be notified to the extent that it does not exceed aggregate 50 per cent of the total seats reserved in favour of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together.", the bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi observed.The court observed that the rigid interpretation of the provision would be violative of the dictum laid down by the Constitution bench in K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India 2010) 7 SCC 202 that the State legislations providing for reservation of seats in respect of OBCs, it must ensure that in no case the aggregate vertical reservation in respect of SCs/STs/OBCs taken together should exceed 50 per cent of the seats in the concerned local bodies. 4. Dying Declaration Cannot Be Discarded Merely Because Relatives Of Deceased Were Present In Hospital While Recording It: Supreme CourtCase: Satpal vs State of Haryana [CRA 261 OF 2021]Citation: LL 2021 SCBench comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy observed that a dying declaration cannot be disbelieved merely because parents and relatives of the deceased were present in the hospital while recording it."It is quite natural that when such an incident happens, the parents and other relatives try to reach the hospital immediately. Merely because they were in the hospital, the same is no ground to disbelieve the dying declaration, recorded by the Magistrate", the bench said while dismissing the appeal filed by a murder accused.In the declaration, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, the deceased stated that the accused has poured kerosene oil and set her ablaze. Challenging the concurrent conviction, the accused before the apex court contended that the dying declaration was tutored one and the same was made at the instance of family members of the deceased, who were there with the deceased in hospital at the relevant time. According to his version, the deceased made attempt to commit suicide, and he tried his best to extinguish the fire. 5. Evidence Of Interested Person Can Be Considered If It Is Corroborated: Supreme CourtCase: Rahul vs. State of Haryana [CRA 262 OF 2021] Citation: LL 2021 SC...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up [March 1 to March 7 2021]

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags