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 Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Supreme Court Orders De Novo Trial in Rape Case, Calls for Comprehensive Sentencing Policy in India After Setting Aside Death Sentence Due to Procedural Violations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a de novo trial in a high-profile rape case, citing substantial procedural violations by the trial court. The apex court found that the accused's right to a fair trial was severely compromised due to an expedited process that neglected adequate representation and consultation.

The case involves an accused charged under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The trial court had sentenced the accused to death, a decision later set aside by the High Court, which ordered a fresh trial.

The Supreme Court highlighted several critical lapses, including the failure to comply with procedural safeguards outlined in Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The court observed that the accused was not given sufficient time to consult with his lawyer and that the trial was conducted in an undue haste, undermining the fairness of the proceedings.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court undertook a comparative analysis of sentencing policies from Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. It emphasized the need for India to establish a comprehensive sentencing policy to ensure uniformity and fairness in sentencing. The court recommended that the Government of India consider forming a Sentencing Commission to develop such guidelines and directed the Union of India to file an affidavit on the feasibility of this initiative within six months.

The court's decision underscores the importance of a balanced and fair trial process, especially in cases involving serious charges. It also reflects a growing recognition of the need for standardized sentencing practices to enhance the credibility and consistency of the criminal justice system.

Key Points from the Judgement:

Procedural Violations:

The trial court conducted proceedings in haste without adequate representation and consultation for the accused.

Significant non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the CrPC and the Witness Protection Scheme was observed.

The High Court's decision to order a de novo trial was upheld due to these procedural flaws.

Sentencing Policy:

Comparative analysis of sentencing practices from Canada, New Zealand, and the UK was conducted.

The Supreme Court recommended the establishment of a comprehensive sentencing policy in India.

The Government of India was directed to consider forming a Sentencing Commission and to respond within six months.

Trial Directions:

The trial court was instructed to comply with the POCSO Act, 2012, while recording the evidence of the victim.

The trial court was urged to conduct and complete the trial expeditiously.

This landmark ruling not only addresses the immediate need for a fair retrial in the present case but also sets the stage for significant reforms in India's sentencing framework, aiming for a more just and consistent criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: 17th May 2024

INFORMANT VS STATE OF KERALA .

Latest Legal News