K Rajasekharan, Author at Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Advocates

Guidelines on Discharging or Framing Charge in a Case

By K Rajasekharan 16 July 2024Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

The High Court of Kerala (HCK), in Sandeep G v State of Kerala (Vandana Das case), laid down the parameters given below while considering the plea of discharge and framing of charges. The HCK relied upon the Supreme Court (SC) decisions in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) in arriving at the decisions.

Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance u/s 125 CrPC

By K Rajasekharan 13 July 2024Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC), Family, Marriage & Divorce, Matrimonial and Maintenance Cases

The Supreme Court (SC) says in a judgement in Mohd. Abdul Samad v State of Telangana & Another [2024 INSC 506] that the Muslim women are eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the religion neutral provision is applicable to all married women irrespective of their religion.

Victim’s Right to File an Appeal in a Criminal Case

By K Rajasekharan 31 May 2024Crimes Against Women

A victim can file an appeal in a criminal offence against any judgment or order passed by the court only under three circumstances, such as acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (CrPC).

Not to do DNA test of Rape Victim’s Children Casually

By K Rajasekharan 30 May 2024Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

The courts shall not entertain application seeking DNA examination of children of victim only after assessing the principle of eminent need and doctrine of proportionality, says Kerala High Court in Suo Motu v State of Kerala [ 2024 (3) KHC 553].

Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

By K Rajasekharan 26 May 2024Circumstantial Evidence

In paragraph 8 of the judgement in Ravinder Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 211 ], the Supreme Court (SC) says that the law regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is crystallized in Sharada Birdhichand Sarada v State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622].

Dying declaration u/s 32(1) of the Evidence Act

By K Rajasekharan 26 May 2024Indian Evidence Act

A dying declaration is a written or verbal statement made by a person, when he is facing imminent death. The declaration must be as to the cause of the declarant’s death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.

Even if Plaint is withdrawn the Counterclaim will Remain

By K Rajasekharan 25 May 2024Family, Marriage & Divorce

Withdrawal of an Original Petition for divorce, filed by the wife under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not automatically abate the counterclaim filed by the husband, says the High Court of Allahabad in Ishita Dua v Tarun Kumar Sharma [2024:AHC:79757-DB].

If Murder is Proved not Establishing Motive Inconsequential

By K Rajasekharan 23 May 2024Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

In case of daylight murder, when there is reliable witness and direct ocular evidence, the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is inconsequential in convicting the accused, says Chandan v The State (Delhi Administration) .

Adverse Possession: Its Legal Aspects

By K Rajasekharan 21 May 2024Property & Succession

Adverse possession is a peculiar kind of possession of land where a person not having legal title to the land enters and occupies the land for long period with no continuing permission of the legal owner and the true owner subsequently loses his ownership rights after a legally permissible period of his inaction in recovering the possession from the possessor. The owner might have initially permitted the possessor in entering the land on the basis of a lease or licence.