Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 2 [Citations 251 to 500]

As the end of year 2021 is nearing, LiveLaw brings to you an yearly Round-up of Supreme Court judgments. This yearly digest includes 766 orders and judgments, listed in the order of LiveLaw citation index.Due to the bulky size of the digest, it is being published in three parts. Part 1 covered citations from 1 to 250. Part two will cover citations from 250 to 500 and part three will cover citations from 500 to 766. Part 3 is to be published. Part 1 can be read here. Part 3 can be read here.251. Supreme Court Constitutes National Task Force To Formulate Methodology For Scientific Allocation Of Medical Oxygen To States, UTs [Case: Union of India v. Rakesh Malhotra; Citation: LL 2021 SC 250] A division bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah constituted a 12-member National Task Force to formulate a methodology for scientific allocation of liquid medical oxygen to all the States and Union Territories in order to deal with the dearth of oxygen supply amid the second Covid wave. The Task Force which will be at liberty to draw upon the human resources of the Union Government for consultation and information and may also constitute one or more sub-groups on specialised areas or regions for assisting it, before finalising its recommendations. Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Audit Of Medical Oxygen Supplied To States/UTs To Ensure Accountability Also Read: No Material Produced By Centre To Show Increasing Delhi's Oxygen Allocation By 210 MT Will Reduce Other States' Quota: Supreme Court 252. Dying Declaration Can Be Sole Basis For Conviction Only When Court Is Satisfied That It Is True And Voluntary, Reiterates Supreme Court [Case: Jayamma v. State of Karnataka; Citation: LL 2021 SC 251] A Bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that a Court must be satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary, and only then could it be the sole basis for conviction without corroboration. The court noted the following factors (i) interpolation in the dying declaration (ii) contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding injuries on the palm, (iii) the victim with 80% injuries was apparently not in a situation to talk or give statement, (iv) PW-2, son of the deceased himself has stated that his mother committed suicide as she could not bear that her another son had been sent to jail, (v) there being no corroborative evidence to the statement , and (vi) there is no other evidence led by the prosecution to connect the appellants with the crime except the statement. 253. Motor Accident Compensation - Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects: Supreme Court [Case: Rahul Sharma & Anr. v. National Insurance Company Ltd & Ors.; Citation: LL 2021 SC 252] A Bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana, Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose reiterated that addition of 40% income must be given towards future prospects while computing motor accident compensation if the deceased was self-employed and was aged less than aged 40 years. 254. Mere Language Problem Of A Party Not A Ground To Transfer A Case U/s 406 CrPC: Supreme Court [Case: Rajkumar Sabu v. Sabu Trade Private Limited; Citation: LL 2021 SC 253] A Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose held that a criminal case cannot be transferred under Section 406 CrPC merely because the party does not understand the language of the Court which has jurisdiction to hear the case. The court observed thus while dismissing a transfer petition filed by one Rajkumar Sabu, against whom a criminal case is pending in Salem Court, that he is not being able to understand Tamil language, and therefore the case ought to be transferred to a Court in Delhi. 255. Will Habeas Corpus Petition Lie Against Remand Order? Supreme Court Answers [Case: Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency; Citation: LL 2021 SC 254] A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and KM Joseph observed that a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a remand order can be entertained only if the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, of if it is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner. The court noted that in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) 1 SCC 314, it was held that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. Also Read: Courts Can Order House Arrest U/s 167 CrPC In Appropriate Cases: Supreme Court Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Gautam Navlakha's Plea For Default Bail In Bhima Koregaon Case Also Read: Remand Power U/s 167 CrPC Can Also Be Exercised By Courts Superior To Magistrate: Supreme Court 256. Existence Of...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2021 - Part 2 [Citations 251 to 500]

Akshita Saxena

Tags