Supreme Court Monthly Digest: July 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 279 To LL 2021 SC 335]

1. Accident By Rash Driving 26 Years Ago: Bus Driver Sentenced To Rs.2000 Fine [Case: Surendran v. Sub Inspector of Police; Citation: LL 2021 SC 279]A Bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, Vineet Saran and MR Shah sentenced a bus driver accused of causing accident by rash driving 26 years ago to a fine of Rs. 2000. Surendran, while driving bus caused an accident on 16.02.1995 in which a car driver was injured. He was charged with offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The Judicial First Class Magistrate convicted him under Section 279 IPC and 338 IPC and sentence him to undergo six months imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- was imposed, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 337 IPC. Sessions Court and later the High Court, upheld this judgment. In appeal, Surendran submitted that he is sole bread earning member of a poor family consisting of four children and his wife, and if sent to jail after more than 21 years, will suffer irreparable injury."The conviction of appellant is affirmed, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case specially the fact that 26 years have elapsed from the incident, we are inclined to substitute the sentence of six months imprisonment under Section 279 and 338 into fine. Six months sentence under Section 279 and 338 IPC are substituted by fine of Rs.1000/- each whereas sentence of fine under Section 337 IPC is maintained", the Bench observed while allowing the appeal. 2. Bar Under Order XXIII Rule 3A Attracted If Compromise On The Basis Of Which Decree Was Passed Was Void Or Voidable[Case: R. Janakiammal v. SK Kumarasamy (Deceased); Citation: LL 2021 SC 280]A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy held that the Bar under Rule 3A shall be attracted if compromise on the basis of which decree was passed was void or voidable. It observed that only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and separate suit is not maintainable. 3. Dismissal Of An Earlier Section 482 CPC Petition Does Not Bar Filing Of Subsequent Petition, If Facts So Justify[Case: Vinod Kumar IAS v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 281]Dismissal of an earlier Section 482 CrPC petition does not bar filing of subsequent petition under Section 482, in case the facts so justify, the Supreme Court reiterated while dismissing a writ petition filed by an IAS Officer. IAS Officer, Vinod Kumar, had approached the Apex Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking quashing of about 28 cases against him. The Bench comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justices Indira Banerjee and Ajay Rastogi observed that it sees no reason to entertain the petition under Article 32. "The petitioner, if so advised, can always file appropriate applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the individual criminal cases or complaints", the bench further opined. 4. Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Is Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction[Case: Rakesh v. State of UP; Citation: LL 2021 SC 282]For convicting an accused, recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non, the Supreme Court observed while upholding a conviction of a murder accused. The accused had been convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for having killed one Bhishampal Singh in an incident which happened on 28.01.2006. In appeal, one of the contention raised on behalf of the accused was that as per the ballistic report the bullet found does not match with the fire arm/gun recovered and therefore the use of gun as alleged is doubtful and therefore benefit of doubt must be given to the accused is concerned.The Bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter and/or such contradictions are not material contradictions, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved. "At the most, it can be said that the gun recovered by the police from the accused may not have been used for killing and therefore the recovery of the actual weapon used for killing can be ignored and it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For convicting an accused recovery of the weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non", the Bench added. 5. Filing Of Caveat By Itself Does Not Entitle Caveators To Be Treated As A Party To The Proceeding[Case: Sanjay Prakash v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 283]The Supreme Court observed that filing of Caveat by itself does not entitle caveators to be treated as a party to the proceeding. Justice Aniruddha Bose observed thus while considering a plea of Central Indian Police Service Association to intervene in a Special Leave Petition on the strength of caveat applications lodged by them. However, the Association had not filed any application for impleadment or intervention before...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: July 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 279 To LL 2021 SC 335]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags