LEX ASPIRANTS

The Supreme Court on Wednesday to keep court proceedings under section 124A of IPC in abeyance has the effect of temporarily erasing the colonial provision from the statute book while the union reexamines it. It was argued in court that nearly 13000 people were already in jail under the sedition provision. National crime records bureau (NCRB) report says 356 cases of sedition under section 124A of IPC had been registered and 548 people arrested between 2015 &2020 with just 6 convictions. Section 124 A of IPC, which criminalizes any speech, writing, or representation that excites disaffection against the government. The Indian experiences shows that whenever the court dilutes the harshness of penal provisions in a balancing approach, instead of striking down the entire provision, the instrumentalities of the state (police, prosecution, and court) continue to overuse or misuse the provision. The judgment of the top court in Kedar Nath Singh  V. State of Bihar (AIR 1962 SC...

The offence of dowry death has been inserted in the IPC as section 304B by the dowry prohibition (Amendment) Act , 1986 which intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. The offence is in a way fiction of law, whereby the offence of dowry death is deemed to have been committed if certain set of conditions are satisfied in a given case. These conditions are four in number, namely; 1. Death of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances. 2. Death occurred within 7 years of marriage 3. Soon before her death, the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, 4. Such cruelty or harassment has been for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. The Government, from time to time, has come up with legislations to protect women and to punish those committing atrocities on them, including Section 174 Cr.PC was also amended to secure Post Mortem in case of suicide or death of a woman withi...

  The three-judge bench of Supreme Court comprising of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli clarified two important positions of the law relating to the offence of Robbery under the Indian Penal Code in the case Ram Ratan v State of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court convicted the appellant along with two co-accused under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 11/13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Pravbhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam 1981 Act. The question that came up for the Court's consideration was whether the charge under Section 397 of IPC would hold in case the firearm had not been put to use ? Arguments by the Counsels : The counsel for the appellant contended the firearm even if was proved to be carried, had not been used and as such the charge under Section 397 IPC would not lie. Further, even if the incident of robbery is proved against the appellant there is no evidence which states that he used...