Search Judgments

Fundamental Rights – Right to Travel Abroad: The right to travel abroad is an integral facet of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, extending beyond mere liberty to encompass the right to grow and prosper.

Look Out Circular (LOC) – Restriction on Travel: Issuance of an LOC without a reasonable and fair procedure, disproportionately restricting a citizen’s right to travel abroad, amounts to an infringement of fundamental rights.

CBI – Apprehension of Flight Risk: The mere apprehension of the CBI that an accused might flee the country, without concrete and justifiable reasons, cannot perpetually override the fundamental right to travel abroad, especially when the accused has cooperated with investigations and court proceedings.

Balancing Fundamental Rights with Prosecutorial Needs: Criminal justice administration should focus on ensuring the accused’s presence for trial, not on unduly restricting their personal life.

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Section 21(1) – Medical Practitioners – Knowledge of Offence – Duty to Report: A medical practitioner is obligated to report an offence under the POCSO Act only when they have actual knowledge of its commission; they are not required to investigate or deduce minority from circumstances (referencing SR.Tessy Jose and others Vs. State of Kerala). If the victim girl claims to be an adult, and records support this, the POCSO Act may not apply to the doctor.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 312 – Causing Miscarriage – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) – Immunity: For an offense under Section 312 IPC, the prosecution must establish that the miscarriage was voluntarily caused by the accused.

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 3, 4, 44 – Scheduled Offence (Predicate Offence) – Simultaneous Trial: The trial of an offence under the PMLA is independent of and not dependent on the outcome or pendency of the trial for the scheduled (predicate) offence. The PMLA is a “stand-alone” Act, and its proceedings can continue irrespective of the predicate offence’s status.
• PMLA – Section 44(1) Explanation (i) – Jurisdiction of Special Court: Explanation (i) to Section 44 of the PMLA unequivocally clarifies that the jurisdiction of the Special Court to deal with a PMLA offence is not dependent on any orders passed in respect of the scheduled offence, and the trial of both sets of offences by the same court shall not be construed as a joint trial.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Directing Simultaneous Trial: A direction for simultaneous or joint trial of a PMLA case and its predicate offence cannot be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the PMLA prescribes distinct procedures for its trial, making it independent of the predicate offence. The nature of the offences and their trials are distinguishable.

Final Decision:     The Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction for simultaneous trial of the PMLA case and the predicate offence is dismissed. The court held that the trial under the PMLA is independent and not dependent on the predicate offence, and thus, a simultaneous or joint trial is not warranted.

• Criminal Law – Sexual Offences – Appreciation of Evidence – Solitary Testimony of Victim: While the solitary testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases can be sufficient for conviction if found to be of “sterling character,” “free from blemish,” and “implicitly reliable,” this principle is not absolute. Where the alleged offense occurs in circumstances involving other individuals or opportunities for corroboration, the victim’s testimony must be tested against other available evidence and internal inconsistencies.
• Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Prosecution: The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt remains with the prosecution, even in heinous sexual assault cases. The nature of the accusation does not alter this fundamental standard of proof.
• Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Judicial Neutrality: Courts must maintain neutrality and dispassion, resisting emotional responses or societal pressure when adjudicating serious accusations. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the court’s role is to assess evidence objectively based on “ordinary course of human conduct” and logic, rather than supplying or supplanting its own views or morality.
• Evidence – Internal Inconsistencies and Delay in FIR: Significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses regarding material facts (e.g., sleeping arrangements, timing of events, awareness of abuse) and unexplained delays in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) can cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case, particularly when the defense raises plausible alternative explanations.
• Evidence – Non-examination of Material Witnesses: If the investigation reveals the existence of a potentially material witness (e.g., a neutral third party aware of underlying family disputes), it is the prosecution’s duty to examine such a witness.