In a case involving murder by gunshot injuries, the high court set aside the conviction on several grounds. One of those was that the pellets recovered from the body were not sent to a ballistic expert for examination. The high court held that such a lapse would draw inference against the credibility of the prosecution. However, the Supreme Court held that the law does not require evidence of the ballistic expert to determine whether or not the pellets were fired from the exhibited gun. The recovery of pellets from the body clearly established that death resulted from the gunshot injuries (State of Himachal Pradesh vs Mast Ram).
Two allottees of a flat ? under the H.P. Housing Board ? complained before the district consumer forum that there were major defects in the flat that the board had not repaired. Maintaining compensation by the district forum, the state commission gave the allottees an option of refund with 18 per cent interest from the date of filing the complaint. The national forum set aside the compensation but maintained direction for refund with interest from the date of deposit. The Supreme Court held that even if the allottees want to retain the flat, they should be compensated with Rs 60,000 for carrying out repairs. In the case of refund, interest was to be calculated from the date of deposit (H.P. Housing Board vs Varinder Kumar Garg).
The widow of a bank?s class IV employee requested for the employment of her eldest son on compassionate grounds. The prayer was rejected as the family had already received retirement benefits and was not facing any hardship as such. A writ petition was filed and the high court held that giving retirement benefits cannot be a reason for rejecting appointment. The Supreme Court held that the refusal was not unjustified but urged the widow?s prayer to be considered under some other scheme or provisions (Punjab National Bank vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja).
SOLON
