Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sentence Can Be Enhanced In Convict's Appeal Only By Giving Him Notice Of Enhancement [Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim] The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of a High Court to enhance sentence awarded to a convict, while considering his appeal, can only be exercised after giving him the notice of enhancement. Kumar Ghimirey was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment by the Trial Court finding him guilty of sexually assaulting a seven year old girl. The Sikkim High Court, in his appeal against conviction, enhanced it to ten years. Adverse Possession Plea Can Be Sustained Only When Possession Is In Denial Of True Owners' Title [Mallikarjunaiah vs. Nanjaiah] The Supreme Court reiterated the principles of acquisition of title by adverse possession. The bench comprising of Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari observed that mere continuous possession howsoever long it may have been qua its true owner is not enough to sustain the plea of adverse possession unless it is further proved that such possession was open, hostile, exclusive and with the assertion of ownership right over the property to the knowledge of its true owner. Witness Can Be Called 'Interested' Only When He/She Derives Some Benefit Seeing An Accused Person Punished [Sadayappan @ Ganesan vs. State] The witness may be called "interested" only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished, the Supreme Court observed while rejecting a defence contention in a criminal appeal. Suppression Of Facts Made In Proposal Form Will Render Insurance Policy Voidable By The Insurer [Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Rekhaben Nareshbai Rathod] The Supreme Court, observed that failure of the insured to disclose the policy of insurance obtained earlier in the proposal form entitled the insurer to repudiate the claim under the policy. The bench comprising Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta said that any suppression, untruth or inaccuracy in the statement in the proposal form will be considered as a breach of the duty of good faith and will render the policy voidable by the insurer. States Can Impose Restrictions To Consider Remission Claims: SC Upholds Rajasthan Rule [State of Rajasthan vs. Mukesh Sharma] The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006. The bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Navin Sinha observed that there is no requirement for laying of the Rules before the Legislature prior to promulgation and no time limit has been prescribed for laying has been provided. The use of words "as soon as" coupled with the absence of any consequence for not laying makes the provision directory and not mandatory, said the bench. 'Attack' Cannot Be Said To Be Made At 'Spur Of The Moment Without Premeditation' When There Are Multiple Wounds [Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat] It cannot be said that the attack was made at the spur of the moment without pre-meditation when there are multiple wounds, observed the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal. The appeal in the case Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & Anr v. State of Gujarat arose against the order of the High Court of Gujarat upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offences under sections 302 and 324 of IPC. Strong Suspicion Based On Materials Which Can Be Translated Into Evidence Required While Framing Charge Against Accused [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat] The Supreme Court observed that a strong suspicion would suffice at the stage of framing charge against the accused. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel who had challenged the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court refusing to discharge him of the offences under Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 'Admission' Made By Accused To Police Officer Before Investigation Commences May Be Admissible [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel V. State of Gujarat] The Supreme Court observed that a statement made by the accused to a police officer before the investigation commences, is admissible in evidence, if it contains only an admission [and not a confession]. The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that the bar under Section 162 CrPC operates in regard to the statement made to a Police Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of the investigation till the termination of the same. Fee For RTI Application Shall Be Sought As Per RTI Rules Only [Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India V. Paras Jain] The Supreme Court held that if a person seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags