Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Nominal Index [2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 177 To 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 200]Rajinder Lohar v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 177Aniruddha Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 178In the matter of: Parimal Sardar@Parimal Sikdar 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 179Md Jamiruddin v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 180Sova Rani Misra v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 181Salema Bibi v. State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 182Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 183Narayan Chandra Maiti v. Union of India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 184Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar v. The State of West Bengal 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 185Dr Santi Prasad Sinha v. Laxmi Tunga and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 186Laxmi Tunga v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 187Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 188Aditya Birla Finance Ltd v. Mcleod Russel India Ltd. and Ors Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 189Priyanka Tibrewal v. State of West Bengal and Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 190Bhadrish Jayantilal Sheth Versus Income Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 191State of West Bengal v. Consideration of State Government Employee 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 192Smt Kalabati Mondal v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 193Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 194Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 195Babita Sarkar v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 196Partha Chatterjee v Laxmi Tunga 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 197Alo Rani Sarkar v. Swapan Majumdar 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 198Kaniska Roy & Anr v. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 199New Eureka Travels Club v. South Bengal State Transport Corporation 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 200Orders/Judgments 1. 'Young Person, Was Barely 18 Yrs At Time Of Offence': Calcutta High Court Commutes Life Sentence Awarded To Convict For Raping 7 Yr Old GirlCase Title: Rajinder Lohar v. The State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 177The Calcutta High Court has recently commuted the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to a man convicted of raping a 7 year old girl after taking into account that the convict had no criminal antecedents and that he had already suffered incarceration for about 18 years. A Bench comprising Justice Bivas Pattanayak and Justice Joymalya Bagchi opined that although in the instant case a minor victim had been raped, the accused was also a young person who was barely above 18 years of age at the time of the incident. Commuting the life sentence imposed, the Bench observed, "Although, the victim was a minor and was forcibly raped, appellant was also a young person who was barely above 18 years at the time of occurrence. He does not have criminal antecedents. Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts and as he has already suffered incarceration for about 18 years, I modify the sentence imposed upon the appellant and direct that he shall suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone in place of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him and pay the fine imposed upon him by the trial Court, in default, shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year."2. S.313 CrPC | Accused Should Be Given Opportunity Of Personally Explaining Any Circumstances Appearing In Evidence Against Him: Calcutta HCCase Title: Aniruddha Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. The State of West BengalCase Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 178The Calcutta High Court on Friday observed that while examining an accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, the prosecution is under a mandatory obligation to give the accused an opportunity to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya also placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand wherein the Apex Court had held that the circumstances not put to an accused under section 313 of the CrPC cannot be used against him and must be excluded from considerations. "Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the accused shall have the opportunity of personally explaining any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In Maheshwar Tigga vs State of Jharkhand; (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 50 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the circumstances not put to an accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him and must be excluded from considerations. The Supreme Court further went on to hold that in a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his evidence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him and further that a probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt", the Court underscored. The Court was adjudicating upon an appeal preferred against a judgment...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 16 To May 22, 2022

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags