STATE V. DILIP KUMAR YADAV IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE POCSO, ARARIA, BIHAR CITATION OF THE CASE POCSO CASE NO. 31/2021 DATE OF JUDGEMENT 04.10.2021 AGGRIEVED PARTY AN 8 YEAR OLD GIRL ACCUSED DILIP YADAV BENCH/JUDGE JUDGE SHASHI KANT RAI STATUTES INVOLVED POCSO ACT,2012 CrPC ,1973 IPC,1860 IMPORTANT SECTIONS- IPC- SECTION 376 AB POCSO ACT- SECTION 4 CrPC -SECTION 313 ABSTRACT The case being discussed here is one of its kind as it has been disposed off by the learned judge in just a day’s time. It has set a milestone in the judicial system and is the most required precedent set by this case. Within one day the judge showed the whole system that heinous crimes can be dealt with such vigil and therefore can save so many lives by delivering the best quality of justice. ...
Rajbala V Haryana: Apex Court's dismissal of structural injustice India's Supreme Court Article 171 High Court of India Rajbala and Ors versus Province Of Haryana and Ors on 10 December, 2015 Creator: Chelameswar Seat: J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre Reportable IN THE High COURT OF INDIA ...
T. SAREETHA v/s VENKATA SUBBAIAH Summary : On July 1, 1983, Justice P.A. Choudary of the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allowed the Court to pass an order for ‘restitution of conjugal rights.’ [1] In simple language, if the Court was convinced that either a husband or a wife had ‘without reasonable cause, withdrawn from the society of their spouse, then it could decree that the defaulting spouse was required to go back to the company of their partner – a decree that could be enforced by attaching the defaulter’s property. Justice Choudary held that Section 9 violated the rights to equality and privacy under the Constitution, and was accordingly void. ISSUE:- Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act runs counter to Part III of the Constitution? JUDGMENT:- Sareetha challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Act in light of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the India...
0 Comments