Matter of honour

A man was convicted of rape by a fast track court. He challenged the conviction, contending his defence had been prejudiced as the prosecution had neither produced the woman doctor who had examined the victim nor submitted the medical report. The man claimed he was innocent and pointed out that the prosecution had been unable to produce an independent witness. Patna High Court upheld the conviction, taking into account that the inhabitants of the victim’s house had supported the prosecution case. As the incident had happened late in the night, it was quite impossible to find an independent witness. Further, when the victim has voluntarily admitted to rape in an open court, the fact that the doctor was not produced (nor the medical report submitted) is insignificant, the court held. This was in line with a Supreme Court judgement that had observed that in India no woman would make a false allegation of rape because she risked being ostracised (Angad Ram vs State of Bihar).

A house for Julieta

A woman lost the case of eviction against her tenants on the grounds that she co-owned another flat with her brother, where she had been living for several years. The landlady appealed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of Bombay High Court, pointing out that the woman had already transferred the flat to her brother. Even otherwise, it would be unfair to compel a person who owns a house to share her home with a co-owner, the apex court ruled (Julieta Antonieta Tarcato vs Suleiman Ismail).

Just fine

Two cheques (total value Rs 55,000) issued by a man bounced and the recipient of the cheque lodged a case against him. The trial court fined the issuer Rs 2,500 but did not direct him to pay the money due. The petitioner appealed and Bombay High Court set aside the sentence and remitted the case for rehearing. The court held that while sentencing, not only should the rights of the criminals but also those of the victims be kept in mind. The lower courts should have, at the very least, awarded the complainant his dues (Basavraj D. Allayyanavar vs Shri Santosh Kapadia).

SOLON