The accused who hit the victim with a stone was convicted under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapon or means) of the Indian Penal Code. This makes such an act, by means of any instrument likely to cause death, a punishable offence. The Supreme Court held that the instrument has to be gauged by considering whether it can be said to be ?a dangerous weapon? or not. In this case, considering the size of the stone, the offence cannot be said to be caused by a dangerous weapon. The conviction was altered to Section 325 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Mathai vs State of Kerala).
The Allahabad High Court acquitted the accused convicted by the trial court for committing rape solely on the ground that the victim?s mother accepted that the victim was of loose morals (although she took an inconsistent stand). Medical evidence disclosed absence of injury and that she was habituated to sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court reiterated that the victim?s character does not dilute the offence and she has the right to refuse to submit herself. The matter was remitted to the high court for re-hearing with the said observation (State of UP vs Pappu).
The Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Kerala, permits eviction if the landlord has bona fide requirement of reconstruction and if he satisfies the court that he has ?the plan and licence if any required?. The question arose whether failure to produce the plan defeats the landlord?s claim although there is enough evidence justifying reconstruction. The full Bench of the Kerala High Court held in the negative. The Act provides ample protection to the tenants: eg, proving bona fide requirement of reconstruction and imposition of fine if reconstruction is not done within the stipulated time, etc. The words ?if any required? postulates that such production is necessary only if the court requires the landlord to do so (Beeyathu vs Gopalan).
SOLON
