Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Allahabad High Court Upholds Addition of Section 376 I.P.C. Charge in Immoral Traffic Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Dinesh Pathak, dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the addition of a charge under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant, Om Prakash @ Jani, in a case related to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act.

The case, originally filed under various sections of the I.P.C. and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, took a pivotal turn when the prosecution moved to add a charge of rape under Section 376 I.P.C. against the applicant. This move was contested by the defense, citing procedural irregularities and lack of material evidence.

Justice Pathak, in his detailed judgment, stated, "The right of an accused to have a fair trial... cannot be seen in isolation and same would be considered in conjunction with the provisions as enunciated under Section 216 Cr.P.C." This observation underscores the court's commitment to ensuring a fair and comprehensive legal process.

The court delved into the nuances of Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers a court to alter or add charges at any stage of the trial. Emphasizing the role of the prosecution and the court in framing correct charges, Justice Pathak noted, "The Public Prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant and apprise the court qua correct facts of the case... for substraction or addition of charges under the provisions of law."

The applicant's claims about the inadmissibility of the victim's statement and other procedural lapses were carefully examined. The court found these submissions to be unfounded, reaffirming the trial court's decision to frame the additional charge.

This ruling sets a precedent in how courts handle the addition of charges in ongoing cases, especially in sensitive matters involving the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the imperatives of justice and due process.

The case has been referred back to the trial court for further proceedings, ensuring that all necessary legal protocols are meticulously followed.

The legal fraternity views this judgment as a reaffirmation of the court's authority and responsibility in ensuring justice is served, in accordance with the law, without prejudice to any party involved.

Date on 22 December, 2023

Om Prakash @ Jani vs State Of U.P

 

 

Latest Legal News