nThe appointment of an assistant teacher was cancelled as the college from where she had obtained her BEd degree was derecognised ‘with retrospective effect’. The teacher challenged the termination of her service. Quashing the cancellation order, the Patna High court held that since she had obtained her degree at a time when the college was recognised, the derecognition of the college at a later date, or with retrospective effect, could not possibly divest her of her right as a valid degree holder (Amrendra Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar).
Murder in defence
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a person in possession of a disputed property, apprehending a threat to life or grievous hurt, was entitled to the right of private defence. In this case, the problem arose when the accused objected to the opposite party ploughing the field (a disputed property). In the ensuing skirmish, one person died. The court held that the accused had the right of private defence and convicted them on the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, under Section 304 (Part 1) of the IPC (Kaliya vs State of MP).
Beyond any doubt
In a murder case, the accused pleaded that he should be entitled to the benefit of the doubt because no one could determine where the blood on the weapon recovered from the scene of crime came from. Rejecting the plea, the Gauhati High Court held that it was an undisputed fact that the knife was seized from the accused. The forensic evidence had also disclosed the presence of blood, but its origin could not be determined due to denaturation. In such cases, a mere failure to determine where the blood came from should not give the benefit of the doubt to the accused (Thingbaijan vs State of Manipur).