Judgements

Judgements of last week (January, 2019)

inbatv News, Top Stories
  • Nand Kishore  v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019 SCC OnLine SC 43)

(Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302, 363, 366 and 376(2)(i)  , Protection of child from sexual offences – S.5 , Cr. P.C. 1973 – S. 354(3) – Special Reasons to impose Death Penalty)

In this case the prosecution i.e. the appellant, who is aged about 50 years, took away the deceased (i.e. a minor girl aged about 8 years) from the ‘Mela’ then  raped and murdered her. The trial court concluded that the appellant has raped the minor girl and murdered her. Furthermore, it recorded a finding that the crime committed by the appellant is heinous and barbaric. It falls within the category of ‘rarest of rare’ cases and imposed a death sentence.

In this specific case the appellant was denied proper legal assistance in the matter and he is a manhole worker. High Court stated that – “We are of the view that the case on hand will not fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the death sentence imposed by the trial court, as confirmed by the High Court, requires modification. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part; while confirming the conviction, recorded by the trial court, as confirmed by the appellate court, we modify the sentence to that of life imprisonment with actual period of 25 years, without any benefit of remission. It is further made clear that sentences imposed for all offences shall run concurrently.”

  • Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019 SCC OnLine SC 44)

(Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306)

In this present case, a complaint was filed by Bharat Singh, his son Arvind married Manju, daughter of Laxmi Narayan. Arvind committed suicide and left behind a suicide note which stated that he committed suicide due to the behaviour of the Appellant, Laxmi Narayan and Indera who made false allegations against deceased regarding demand of dowry.

High court in the said case held that – “Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

  • Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019 SCC OnLine SC 42)

(Indian Peal Code – S.302, 326(A) and 460, Cr.P.C Section 366)

The case was of murder by acid in which the deceased in her dying declaration stated that the appellant had burnt her by pouring acid on her. The Sessions Court awarded a death sentence under Section 302 of the IPC.

The circumstance of the case and particularly the choice of acid do not disclose a cold-blooded plan to murder the deceased. Like in many cases the intention seems to have been to severely injure or disfigure the deceased, in this case we think the intention resulted into an attack more severe than planned which then resulted in the death of the deceased. It is possible that what was premeditated was an injury and not death. High Court further found that there is no particular depravity or brutality in the acts of the Appellant that warrants a classification of this case as ‘rarest of the rare’. Therefore, the sentence of death imposed by the High Court is set aside and instead the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for life.

  • Sukh Bilash Thakur v. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others (2019 SCC OnLine SC 29)

The Supreme Court quashed a Bihar State Electricity Board order that reverted an employee from the post of a bill clerk to khalasi 25 years after he was appointed. The demotion was done on the ground that he had fraudulently obtained the job in 1981 by misrepresenting facts of his qualifications in mathematics. The board had passed an order of reversion against Thakur on August 9, 2007, after he sought to appear in a departmental exam for a higher post. He had completed the requisite 18 years of service to sit for the test.

“Indisputably he was appointed after verification of his qualifications and through the process of a competitive examination followed by an interview. There have been no allegations against him in discharge of his duties as a bill clerk .The appellant had passed the departmental examination in service.” read the judgment.  The court also noticed that the appellant has already retired from service. The impugned order of reversion is therefore set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to pension benefits in accordance with law as if the order of reversion had never been passed. Pension benefits and other dues shall be paid and carry interest at the rate of 15% till the date of actual payment.

  • Monsanto Technology LLC v.  Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd.  (2019 SCC OnLine SC 25)

(Patent Act, 1970 – S. 3 (j) and 10(4) , International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention 1991), Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S. 14(1))

Monsanto technology LLC had registered one of their claims under Patent no. 214436 which they had further licensed to Indian Companies including the appellant i.e. Nuziveedu Seeds which was company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956. The said patent was in dispute in this case was titles “METHODS FOR TRANSPORMING PLANTS TO EXPRESS BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS DELTAEDOTOXINS”. This patent was a basically a biotechnological invention that contained infusion of Bt. Gene into the cotton genome. The appellants along with other licensee companies approached the respondents to adjust the trait fee according to the new orders passed by the State Government. The respondent thereby terminated the license and preceded arbitration proceedings against the appellate and other licensees to recover the amount due as trait fees to be paid which amounted to Rs. 400 Crore.

The division bench of Delhi High Court observed “that protection under Plant Variety Act and Patent Act are not complimentary but are exclusive of each other and Monsanto Patent protection was incorrect as it should have been protected under the Plants Variety Act, looking at the nature of invention. On account of the above reasons and by observing that Monsanto had failed to disclose the details as well as source of its invention as per section 10(4) of the Act and the Court held that the subject patent falls comes under the ambit of Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act i.e. the said inventions are not patentable. Therefore, Counter claim filed by Nuziveedu is consequently allowed. The Court further gives Monsanto, an opportunity to restore its right in there subject Patent, by allowing them to seek for registration of the same within three month from the date of this judgment.”

By –
Ritika Goyal, Student reporter- INBA