Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP – 1994

For reasons unknown, I decided to revisit, possibly, the most important judgment ever delivered by an Indian court.

These words of  Justice MN VENKATACHALLIAH renewed my determination to fight.

“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.“

Here is this seminal judgment again, reformatted and presented anew:

Original link to Judis: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=11479

Given below is the 3rd report of the National Police Commission that this judgment draws on:

Third Report Of The National Police Commission (From BPRD)

Also given below is a fragment of the First Police Commission:

First Report Of The National Police Commission (Fragment From BPRD)

Compliance orders:

• Mumbai Police Compliance Orders With Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP

• Maha Dpty Home Secy Orders Complying With Joginder Kumar Vs State Of UP -1994

____________________________________________________________

Feminism: The Six Frauds

Here is an interesting article:  Feminism: The Six Frauds

_____________________________

Misc SC And Delhi HC Judgments

Here are some miscellaneous judgments.

• Miscellaneous SC Judgments(1.4Mb)
• Delhi HC Judgments On Maintenance
• A Judgment On Jurisdiction (1963)

________________________________

Stats On Complaints Against Police Personnel

Here is the link to the NCRB website.

I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

________________________________

SC Judgment: Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur – 2007

This is a divorce case which deals with jurisdiction and the consequences for not obeying summons issued by an Indian Court AFTER submitting to its jurisdiction.

Here is the judgment:  SC Judgment: Jagraj Singh Vs Birpal Kaur

_________________________

Hindu Joint Family

I need to dig deeper.

In the mean time, check this out.

__________________________

Judgements On Passport Revocation/Impoundment

Here are a few judgments that relate to passport impoundment and revocation.

At least one is a 498A.

• Delhi HC 498 Passport Judgment – 2003
• AP HC Passport Judgment-1997
• Uttaranchal HC Passport Revocation Judgment 2005
• Calcutta HC Passport Revocation Judgment 2003

A bunch of guys run a blog and they have some useful info on this topic.

You can check this out here:

_______________________________

Gujarat HC: FIR Is A Public Document

Folks,

The cops have a tendency to hide the FIR. I believe, if you don’t know what you are being charged with, how can you defend yourself?

This is a judgment from 1992.

Here is an excerpt: “whenever FIR is registered against the accused, a copy of it is forwarded to the Court under provisions of the Code; Thus it becomes a public document. Considering (1) the provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, (2) First Information Report is a public document in view of S. 74 of the Evidence Act; (3) Accused gets right as allegations are made against him under provisions of S. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, and (4) FIR is a document to which S. 162 of the Code does not apply and is of considerable value as on that basis investigation commenced and that is the first version of the prosecution, as and when application is made by accused for a certified copy of the complaint, the Court to which it is forwarded should give certified copy of the FIR, if the application and legal fees thereof have been tendered for the same in the Court of law.”

Here is a judgment by the Gujarat High Court: FIR Is A Public Document

________________________________

SC Grants Maintenance While Not Judging On DNA Test

Folks,

Here is a case from 2002 where the SC granted maintenance, but did not rule on the DNA test of the child.

Here is the judgment:  Maintenance No DNA Test

_______________________

SC Judgments On Paternity Test

Folks,

There are increasing cases of Indian women sleeping around and foisting the results on their clueless hubbies. Here are some judgments that will help in settling the issue of paternity. The SC initially took a conservative view on paternity tests, but in 2003, it finally agrees to allowing DNA tests as part of the evidence. The first case concerns the issue of inheritance.

Here are the judgments:

• http://www.judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=9030 (Chennai HC allows DNA Test)
• http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.aspx?filename=27389
  
• SC Rejects DNA Test – Poshi Ram Case 2001

__________________________________

The 498A Extortion Racket Spreads To Chennai Women Cops

Folks,

Here is an article from the Hindu. Looks like the women cops of Chennai want a piece of the 498A extortion racket.

The 498A Extortion Racket At Chennai All-Women Police Stations

There is a SC judgment on how to deal with these morons.

If the other side claim that they have given dowry, file a complaint against them for giving dowry. The cops have to register the FIR and act.

Here is the link to the judgment

If the harassment gets out of hand, here is another SC Judgement that you can use to file a complaint in the High Court.

Here is the link to the judgment

Best  option, talk to the volunteers of SIF. They have effective remedies.

________________________

SC: Police Duty Bound To Register A Cognizable Offence

Folks,

Here is a judgment that states that the police need to register a case if the offence is cognizable. This judgment is important in light of the recent Judgment by Justice Dhingra.

Here is an article by a former IPS officer that sheds more light on this.

Here is an excerpt:
“The mandate of Section 154 of the Code is that at the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence, the police officer concerned cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not relevant or credible. In other words, reliability, genuineness and credibility of the information are not the conditions precedent for registering a case under Section 154 of the Code. ”

Here is the judgment: Police Duty Bound To Register A Case If It Is A Cognizable Offence

___________________________

SC Judgment: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India (1978)

Folks,

This will be useful to those of you hounded by a Red Corner Alert or threats of Passport impoundment.

It was held that procedure established under Art.21 has to be reasonable and not violative of Art.14.

In effect, the SC interpreted this as a case for due process. The article from the Hindu is given below:

http://www.thehindu.com/2004/09/26/stories/2004092600471600.htm

This site has more info:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/circle/justiciability.htm

Here is the judgment of the SC:

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1766147/

Here is a pdf of the same for printing:

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

A warning! It is a 144 page judgment.

_____________________

Law Commission’s Recommendations On Law Relating To Arrest

Here is the link:

http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/lyr2002/rdec2002/31122002/r311220022.html

This talks about making 498A compoundable. I believe that 498A must be made bailable and compoundable or just bailable. This will go a long way in curtailing the extortion racket that it has become.

_________________

Compounding A Non Compoundable Offence

Folks,

I’ve always wondered how a non-compoundable criminal offence like a 498A can be compounded (withdrawn) with a “compromise”.

This is the case of Ram Lal Vs St Of Jammu And Kashmir. A pay off is made to settle the case after the conviction and an appeal is made to the Supreme Court.

In this judgment the Supreme Court says “We hold that an offence which law declares to non-compoundable even with the permission of the cannot be compounded at all.”

Here is a judgment that explains/explores that: Non-Compoundable Offence Cannot Be Compounded

The Section 320 of CPC, 1973, has a table that shows which cases can be compounded.

Here is the link to the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (CPC, 1973)

______________________

Section 330 Of IPC

Folks,

Here is some Interesting info from Section 330 Of IPC. You may want to run through this if you’ve been mistreated by the police.

Section 330 Of the Indian Penal Code:

330. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information, which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

(a) A, a police-officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(b) A, a police-officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(c) A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain arrears of revenue due from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(d) A, a zamindar, tortures a raiyat in order to compel him to pay his rent. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

__________________________
The Supreme Court on Torture:

“Torture” has not been defined in Constitution or in other penal laws. ‘Torture’ of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to impose the will of the ’strong’ over the ‘weak’ by suffering. The word torture today has become synonymous wit the darker side of human civilization.

“Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is not way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and heavy as a stone paralyzing as sleep and dark as the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.” Adriana P. Bartow “No violation of any one of the human rights has been the subject of so many Conventions and Declarations as ‘torture’- all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but inspite of the commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that torture is more widespread not that ever before, “Custodial torture” is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation with destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality.

IT is a calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward-flag of humanity must on each such occasion fly half-mast. In all custodial crimes that is of real concern is not only infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up. Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent of trauma a person experiences is beyond the purview of law. “Custodial violence” and abuse of police power is not only peculiar to this country, but it is widespread. It has been the concern of international community because the problem is universal and the challenge is almost global. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1984, which market the emergency of worldwide trend of protection and guarantee of certain basic human rights, stipulates in Article 5 that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to curel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Despite the pious declaration, the crime continues unabated, though every civilized nation shows its concern and takes steps for its eradication”

Here is a link to the judgment:

https://ipc498a.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/sc-on-custodial-deaths.pdf

You can download the entire IPC from here:

http://www.498a.org/contents/ipc_explained.pdf

_________________________

SC Grants Custody To The Mother Overruling Decree Of Foreign Court

This the Santa Sharma (2000) case where the Supreme Court granted the mother, custody of her children despite a foreign court decree which had granted the custody of the children to the father.

Here is the judgment: SC Grants Custody Of Children To Indian Mother

________________________

SC: The Mother Is The Natural Guardian Of Her Children

Folks,

This is the Gita Hariharan case from 1999 where the Supreme Court held that a Hindu woman is the natural guardian of her children as much as the father

Here is the judgement: Gita Hariharan Judgment

___________________________

Restraining A Police Officer From Abusing His Legal Power

This is a judgment from 1970. The case is S.M. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari.

Here is an excerpt:

“It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal power”

Here is the judgment: Restraining A Police Officer From Abusing His Powers

_________________________________

SC: Right to Speedy Trial Is a Fundamental Right

Here is a Supreme Court Judgment on a Right To A Speedy Trial

Right to Speedy Trial

“The accused in these cases might have been on bail – but the injustice of pendency of trial for long periods is the uncertainty and the concomitant anxiety suffered by the under-trial. The under-trial is inhibited in making future plans for his life or executing present ones due to the uncertainty which pendency of trial brings. His confidence starts to erode and at the end of the trial, even if he is honourably acquitted, the scars of the long trial remain. He feels condemned despite the acquittal.”

A person could be innocent, yet he may suffer confinement or anxiety or both because judicial system fails to reach a verdict for many years. The delay could be due to tardy investigation by the police. Then courts have built up huge arrears of undecided cases – which coupled with the fact that the number of courts is also quite less – ensures that every case has to wait for years for decision. Rules of procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act do not help the situation either. Most of these rules, framed by the British for a colonial administration have been retained in their letter as well as spirit, regardless of the altered circumstances.

Article 21 of the Constitution assures that one is not to be deprived of his life or personal liberty without following the due procedure, established by law. Now the point is – if the established procedure or its infrastructural framework itself results in the delay, how and what does the accused do?. One method could be to interpret Article 21 to include right to speedy trial which our Supreme Court has done many times.

The right to a speedy trial includes those with lengthy police investigations:

• SC: Right To Speedy Trial Includes Lengthy Police Investigations

Here are some relevant judgments:

• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
• Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar

Also check out this blog: 498A Book Of Knowledge

_____________