Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 696 To LL 2021 SC 764]

1. Rape Conviction Can Be Based On Sole Testimony Of Victim If Credible & Trustworthy, Reiterates Supreme Court [Case: Phool Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; Citation: LL 2021 SC 696] The Supreme Court reiterated that a rape accused can be convicted on sole testimony of prosecuterix if she is found to be credible and trustworthy. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna noted: There can be a conviction on the sole testimony of the victim/prosecutrix when the deposition of the prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy; If credible, conviction of accused can be based on sole testimony, without corroboration; Testimony of the victim is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement. 2. UAPA- Period Of Deprivation Of Personal Liberty Pending Trial Cannot Be Unduly Long: Supreme Court Grants Bail To Accused [Case: Ashim v. National Investigation Agency; Citation: LL 2021 SC 697] The Supreme Court observed that period of deprivation of personal liberty pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge him on bail, the bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka observed. The court was considering a case of an under trial accused under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122 IPC, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act 1959, Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 18,20,40(1)(b)(c) of the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967. It noted that the accused, who is presently 74 year old is in custody since 6th July, 2012 and has completed nine and half years of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner. 3. Resolution Process Has To Be Completed Within The Period Stipulated U/Sec 12 IBC: Supreme Court [Case: Committee of Creditors of Amtek Auto Ltd v. Dinkar T. Venkatsubramanian; Citation: LL 2021 SC 698] The Supreme Court observed that the entire resolution process has to be completed within the period stipulated under Section 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Any deviation would defeat the object and purpose of providing such time limit, the bench comprising Justice MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna observed. It was considering an appeal filed by the Committee of Creditors in the matter of corporate insolvency resolution process initiated against Amtek Auto Limited. 4. Supreme Court Allows Registration Of BS-IV Vehicles' Sale Uploaded On E-Vahan Portal Before March 31, 2020 [Case: MC Mehta v. Union of India; Citation: LL 2021 SC 699] The Supreme Court permitted registration of those BS-IV vehicles whose sales were uploaded on e-Vahan portal before 31.03.2020 provided that the temporary/permanent registration was granted before the cut off date, i.e. 31.03.2020. The concerned transport authorities have however been directed by a bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice BR Gavai and Justice BV Nagarathna to carefully scrutinize the records to ensure that the sales are genuine and have taken place prior to 31.03.2020. Also Read: Registration Of CNG Vehicles Can't Be Rejected As Emission Is Within Limits: Supreme Court 5. Father Responsible To Maintain Child Till Adulthood: Supreme Court [Case: Neha Tyagi v. Lt. Col Deepak Tyagi; Citation: LL 2021 SC 700] The liability and responsibility of the father to maintain the child continues till the child/son attains the age of majority, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment dissolving marriage of a couple. "It also cannot be disputed that the son has a right to be maintained as per the status of his father", the Court added. Further, the court said that a child should not be made to suffer due to disputes between his parents. 6. Pension Shall Be Determined On Rules Existing At The Time Of Retirement: Supreme Court [Case: Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair v. Cochin University Of Science & Technology; Citation: LL 2021 SC 701] The Supreme Court observed that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement. The bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna also observed that the law did not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated. 7. Section 149 IPC -Merely Because A Person Disclosed Victim's Hideout, He Can't Be Held To Part Of Unlawful Assembly : Supreme Court [Case: Taijuddin v. State of Assam; Citation: LL 2021 SC 702] Setting aside the conviction of a person in a murder case, the Supreme Court recently held that merely because a person revealed the hideout of the victim to the murderous mob, he cannot be presumed to share the common object of the unlawful assembly. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh struck a word of caution by...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: December 2021 [Citation: LL 2021 SC 696 To LL 2021 SC 764]

Akshita Saxena

Tags