Victim’s mother Neelam Katara calls it a “miscarriage of justice” after the Supreme Court orders the release of Sukhdev Yadav, convicted in the Nitish Katara murder case.
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted two boys of stalking a minor girl, stating that a single instance of following does not constitute stalking under the IPC and POCSO Act. However, one boy was upheld on charges of sexual assault based on credible evidence, while the other faced reduced sentencing.
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against a foreign national in a cheating case, calling it an “abuse of the legal process.” The court said that continuing the trial in such a situation would cause injustice. This decision shows the court’s dedication to stopping unfair legal actions.
A special bench of Judges Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak at the Bombay High Court has commenced daily hearings for death confirmation pleas and appeals related to the 7/11 Mumbai train blast. The gruesome incident in 2006 resulted in 189 deaths and 827 injuries, with 13 accused arrested and 15 marked as wanted, primarily Pakistani nationals. The hearing is expected to last six months.
The Orissa High Court criticized the CRPF for dismissing a constable who attempted suicide, highlighting the immense pressure faced by armed forces. The court emphasized the need for mental health support and ordered the constable’s reinstatement to non-firearm-related tasks, considering his medical clearance from a mental health institute. The decision was made citing the Mental Healthcare Act.
The Allahabad High Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police for indiscriminately filing chargesheets, emphasizing the need for thorough investigation and adherence to due process. The court highlighted concerns about police practices, calling for accountability and integrity in dispensing justice. It noted the necessity for judicial involvement to uphold principles and protect rights.
The Delhi High Court criticized a lower court’s decision to discharge two individuals accused of child pornography involvement, citing procedural errors. A public interest litigation challenged the decision, leading the high court to convert it into a suo motu revision petition. The court ordered a reassessment of the evidence and appointed an advocate to assist. A notice was issued to the accused for explanation. The CBI decided not to appeal the lower court’s ruling. The High Court clarified that PIL is generally not entertained in criminal matters.
