2.20. Harshvardhan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors.

(2021) 
2.20.1. Facts of the case 
2.20.2. Judgment of the court 
2.21. Smt Aneeta And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (2021) 
2.21.1. Facts of the case 
2.21.2. Judgment of the court 
3. References 

Introduction 
Criminal law is that branch of law that deals with criminal matters or treats crimes and their
punishment. The scope of criminal law is very wide and it deals with all the crimes which
shake the consciousness of the society, or the acts which are committed against the state. 

In India, there have been numerous landmark judgments regarding criminal law, and each
time, such judgements have not only assisted the judiciary in delivering justice to the victim
but have also established a new legal precedent that shall deliver new legal principles or
concepts. Landmark judgments are often those judgments that are comparatively new or
which do not have much judicial interpretation. 

Recent landmark Criminal Law judgments

Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora (2020)

Facts of the case

In this case, the Supreme Court of India observed that there has been an increase in the
number of criminal politicians in India since the last 4 general elections, and there is no
explanation on the part of political parties as to why they have selected a candidate with a
criminal record. In 2004, 24% of the members of Parliament had criminal cases pending
against them. In 2009, that went up to 30%, in 2014 to 34%, and in 2019, as many as
43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them. 

Judgment of the court

The Supreme Court directed the political parties at the Central level and State level to
upload on their respective websites the correct details concerning the pending criminal
cases against the selected candidates, with the reasons why such candidate has been
selected instead of other candidates with no criminal record. 

Such information must also be published in one local newspaper and one national
newspaper, and on the official media platforms of the political party, including Facebook,
and Twitter. The details must be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate
and not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is
earlier. 
All the concerned political parties must also submit a report of compliance with the
directions passed by the Apex Court with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours
of the selection of the candidate, and if any political party fails to submit such report to the
Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such incident to the notice of
Supreme Court of India as being in contempt of court’s orders. 

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)

Facts of the case

The case primarily dealt with the suspension of the internet in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, however, one of the
issues in the case was regarding the excessive imposition of Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a magistrate to impose restrictions on
movement and speech in areas where trouble could erupt. 

Judgment of the court

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a
tool to prevent legitimate expression of opinion. The court further held that Section 144
CrPC is not only remedial but also preventive, and shall be exercised only in cases where
there is danger or apprehension of danger. The jurisdiction of Section 144 of CrPC shall not
be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any
democratic rights. 

The Apex Court also directed the respondent-State or competent authorities to publish all
orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 of CrPC and for suspension of
telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before
the High Court or appropriate forum.

The Court further held that an order passed under Section 144 of CrPC should state the
material facts to enable judicial review of the same. The power should be exercised in a
bona fide and reasonable manner, and the same should be passed by relying on the
material facts, indicative of application of mind which will enable judicial scrutiny. 

Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020) 

Facts of the case 

The Supreme Court of India in this case, after hearing the learned amicus curiae,
considered the guidelines given in the case of Shri Dilip K. Basu vs State of West Bengal &
Ors., (2015) which held that there is a need to install CCTV camera footage and periodically
publish a report of its observations. 

Judgment of the court 

The court in this case has directed all the States and Union Territories to install CCTV
cameras in their jurisdictional police stations and file an affidavit regarding the same within
six weeks from the date of delivery of the judgment. 

The Apex court also directed the Central government to install CCTV cameras which shall be
equipped with night vision and consists of audio and video footage at the Central Bureau
Investigation (CBI) offices, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Enforcement Directorate
(ED), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Serious
Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) offices, and other similar central agencies at the places
where interrogation of people takes place.

Shilpa Mittal v. State Of NCT of Delhi (2020)

Facts of the case 

In this case, the accused, who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence,
committed an offence that is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The juvenile at the time of occurrence of the incident was above 16 years but below 18
years, and the Juvenile Justice board held that the accused has committed a heinous
offence, and, therefore should be tried as an adult.

Judgment of the court

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an offence for which there is a sentence
of more than 7 years of imprisonment but does not have any minimum sentence, or
providing a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years, cannot be considered as a heinous
offence within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. 

Re Exploitation of children in orphanages in State of Tamil

Nadu v. Union of India (2020)

Facts of the case 

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, took suo moto cognizance when the learned
amicus curiae drew the attention of the court towards two circumstances and some
allegations regarding the detention and torture of children in police custody in Delhi and
Uttar Pradesh. 

Judgment of the court

The Apex court, in this case, held that a child cannot be kept in jail or police custody and
instead shall be kept in an observation home or place of safety. The court also emphasized
the compulsion of bail to juvenile offenders, the provisions of which are enshrined under
Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 
The Apex Court further held that Section 10 of the JJ Act, lays down that when any child
alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such child should be placed
under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare officer.
The Section further provides that such authority should produce the child before the
Juvenile Justice Board without any loss of time and within 24 hours after the child is
apprehended.

The court also came heavily on the Juvenile Justice Board, who shall not be silent spectators
and pass orders only when a case comes to them. The JJ boards can also take cognizance
of the situations when it comes to the knowledge of the board that a child has been
detained in police custody or prison. It is the primary duty of JJ boards to grant bail to
juvenile offenders or at least send them to an observation home or any such place of
safety. 

Abhilasha v. Parkash and Ors. (2020) 

Facts of the case 

In the present case, the appellant filed a petition challenging the judgment of Punjab and
Haryana High Court which upheld the decision of sessions court which held that the
daughter of the respondent is only entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 till she attains the age of majority. 

Being aggrieved by the decision of the sessions court, the appellant filed a review petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Eventually, the matter came
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, the learned court also upheld the
decision of the sessions court, and later the matter came before the Supreme Court of
India. 

The primary issue raised in this case was whether a Hindu unmarried daughter can claim
maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC only up to the time she attains
majority or can she claim maintenance till she gets married.  

Judgment of the court 

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim
maintenance from her father till she gets married under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act, 1956, however, such daughter must prove that she is not able to
maintain herself and then only she shall be entitled to maintenance under the 1956 act.

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 

Facts of the case 

The said case raised the question that whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act,
2005, which provides a daughter with the equal right to inherit ancestral property, has a
retrospective effect to such an extent that when the 2005 act came in force, the father of
the appellant daughter was not alive. 

Judgment of the court 

The Supreme Court of India in this case held that the 2005 amendment has retrospective
effect and a daughter will remain a coparcener throughout her life irrespective of whether
her father is alive or not or was alive or not at the time of commencement of the 2005
amendment. 

The court held that under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters who are born
before or after the commencement of the 2005 amendment hold the equal status of
coparcener as a son. The court further upheld the judgment of Danamma @ Suman Surpur
vs Amar (2018) where the Apex court held that provisions of Section 6 confer full rights
upon the daughter coparcener. Any coparcener, including a daughter, can claim a partition in
the coparcenary property. 

The statutory fiction of partition created by the provision of Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or
disruption of the coparcenary. The fiction was only to ascertain the share of the deceased
coparcener when he was survived by a female heir or male relative of such a female. 

Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the petitioner, who is also a journalist, hosted and anchored a religious debate,
which led to the registration of at least 7 First Information Reports (FIR) against him. The
petitioner in this case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. Most of the punitive sections are concerned with infringing religious
sentiments of a community, including Section 153B and Section 295A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. 

Judgment of the court 

The Supreme Court of India in this case came heavily on the difference between hate
speech and free speech, and the need for criminalizing hate speech and the tests to
determine hate speech. The court held that it is important to make a difference between
free speech and hate speech. While free speech does comprise the right to criticize
government policies, hate speech refers to the spreading of hatred against a group or
community.

The court, further, while considering the tests regarding the reasonableness, involved the
realization of limits within which rational responses shall be included, which also includes
taking into consideration the characteristics of a situation and circumstances and if a
particular group is likely to get affected, and at the same time, the society is also entitled to
have certain tolerance.

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Zala v. State of Gujarat

(2021)

Facts of the case 

In the present case, the appellant approached the Supreme Court of India with an appeal to
set aside the order of the High Court of Gujarat, which overturned the charges under
Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 but upheld the charge of kidnapping under Sections
363 and Section 366 of IPC.

The main issue before the court, in this case, was whether a consensual affair can be a
defence against the charge of kidnapping a minor?

Judgment of the court 

The Apex Court, in this case, held that a consensual affair is not a defence against a charge
of the kidnapping of a minor. The court held that the extravagant passion or love of a minor
girl cannot be allowed as a defence, or the same would infringe the protective essence of
the offence of kidnapping. 

The Apex Court, while considering the case of State of M.P vs Surendra Singh (2014), held
that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentences would do more harm to the justice
system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. Every court must award a
proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and how it was executed or
committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and
circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the offence. 

The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the
society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The meagre
sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the
offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of society.

The court further held that, once the prosecution establishes the evidence which reflects
that the offence of kidnapping was done with the intention or knowledge of compelling the
marriage of the girl or to have illicit sexual intercourse with her, the punitive measures of
Section 366 of IPC would be attracted, however no offence of Section 376 could be made
out against the accused.

Laxmibai Chandaragi B v. State of Karnataka (2021)

Facts of the case
In the said case, the father of the petitioner filed a police complaint alleging that his
daughter is missing. During the investigation, it was found that the daughter of the
complainant had married petitioner no. 2 out of her own will, and the marriage certificate
was shared by the petitioner to her family through Whatsapp. 

Despite being aware of the wedlock of the petitioner, the investigating officer (IO) in this
case, instead of taking the statement of petitioner no. 1 in her place of residence, insisted
on recording her statements in the police station. 

Judgment of the court

The Apex court, in this case, came heavily on the conduct of the IO and other police
authorities, which were not only responsible for insisting a woman record her statements in
the police station but also threatening her about the false case her parents may register to
the police, which will result in the arrest of her husband. 

The court further held that there is no need for consent of the clan, family, or the
community in the cases where two adults have voluntarily decided to enter into a wedlock. 

Union of India v. Prateek Shukla (2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the respondent’s company had not deposited its quarterly returns as ruled by
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances)
Order, 2013 and the respondent’s company purchased 896 grams of acetic anhydride and
1.885 kg of amphetamine. Notices under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 were issued to the respondent. During a search based on the
information given by the informants, a search was carried out which resulted in the
disclosure of 9650 kgs of acetic anhydride, and the accused was held guilty under the NDPS
Act. The accused later appealed before the High Court which granted him bail on the ground
of him having a clean past and being an educated person. 

Judgment of the court

The Supreme Court of India ruled that the learned High Court has erred in granting bail to
the accused, as the High Court has placed the reverse burden of proof, which is on the
accused in cases of NDPS according to Section 68(J) of the NDPS act, 1985 and considering
the educational background and clear past of the accused. 

Thus the Apex court found the High court to be in error in granting bail to the accused and
cancelled the bail allowed to the accused. 

Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra

Facts of the case
In this case, the accused was found guilty of homicide for the death of his wife by the
sessions court and later by the High Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Both the courts relied upon the medical examination which itself was full of inconsistencies.
The matter eventually came before the Supreme Court of India. 

Judgment of the court 

The Apex court, in this case, held that both the Sessions Court and High Court have erred in
determining that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. The Apex Court further held that in cases of homicide, there is usually
more than one person involved and in cases of homicidal hangings, usually, more than one
person is involved in the act, unless the victim is a child or very weak and feeble, or is
rendered unconscious by some intoxicating or narcotic drug. 

The Apex Court while relying on the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs State Of
Maharashtra (1984) gave 5 principles that must be fulfilled before a case against an
accused can be said to be fully established, 

The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. 

The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.

The circumstances should be conclusive and tendency.

They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 

There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

The Supreme Court also held that in case of suicide, the hanging marks on the neck of the
victim are upward ears, which was confirmed by the senior medical officer, and therefore
the Apex Court set aside the orders of conviction of the Sessions Court and High Court, and
acquit the accused of all charges.  

State Of Rajasthan v. Love Kush Meena (2021) 

Facts of the case 

The case was primarily concerned with the question of whether a benefit of doubt resulting
in acquittal of the respondent under charges of Sections 302, Section 323, and Section 341
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code can create an opportunity for the respondent
to join as a police constable in Rajasthan Police Services. 
Judgment of the court 
The Apex court, while relying on the case of Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. (2016),
held that mere fact of an acquittal will not suffice, and it depends on whether the acquittal
was clean on the grounds of total absence of evidence or the acquittal was made on the
grounds of the benefit of the doubt. The court further held that in cases of heinous offences,
if the acquittal is based purely on the grounds of the benefit of the doubt, and the same
shall not make the respondent eligible for appointment. 

Sudha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the wife of the deceased victim appealed against the order of the High Court in
granting bail to the accused who was arrested under charges of Section 120B, Section 302,
Sections 3 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was alleged by the appellant that the
accused is a contract killer and has at least 15 cases registered against him, including
murder, attempt to murder, and criminal conspiracy. The appellant has also argued that the
learned High Court has not taken into consideration the past criminal history of the accused
before acquitting him and the threatening of the witnesses which has forced the Sessions
Court to grant protection to the witnesses.

Judgment of the court 

The Apex court in this case was of the view that the High Court has indeed erred in granting
bail to the accused without taking into consideration the threats the accused has been
making to the witnesses which have forced the Sessions Court to grant police protection to
the witnesses. The Apex Court, while emphasizing the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P
(2015), held that the courts must consider every aspect of the criminal before granting bail.
It further emphasized the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another
(2010) and highlighted certain factors for High Courts to exercise their discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions:

Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had
committed the offence.

Nature and gravity of accusations. 

The severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction. 

The danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail. 

Character, behaviour, means, position, and standing of the accused. 

Likelihood of repetition of the offence. 

Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. 

The danger of justice being thwarted by a grant of bail.

The Apex Court while considering all the above-mentioned circumstances overruled the
order of the High Court which granted bail to the accused. 

Patan Jamal Vali v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh (2021)

Facts of the case 

In this case, the appellant reached the Supreme Court of India after being aggrieved by the
order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which convicted the accused under Section 3(2)(v)
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The appellant in the present case argued that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) were not
established. The court considered the theory of intersectionality by Kimberly Crenshaw in
the U.S.A. 

Judgment of the court 

The court while emphasizing the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) applied
the intersectional lens to Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India which provides the
statute guarantees against discrimination. 

The court held that intersectionality refers to the oppression which arises out of the
combination of various oppressions which combinedly produce something unique from other
forms of discrimination standing alone.

The court further held that certain measures have been taken over some time but they
have been too far and too few and they certainly have not attempted to restructure and
transform society and its institutions but the state must ensure that no woman suffers
discrimination on grounds of caste or religion.

The court further referred to the Justice JS Verma report which was constituted after the
2012 Delhi gang-rape case while referring to how discrimination caused by intersecting
identities increases the violence against specific communities, gender, religion, etc. The
court also discussed the conditions of women in contemporary Indian society and held that
while laws are being enacted to bring about change, significant work needs to be done to
make sure that the laws benefit the objective with which they were enacted. 

The court lastly discussed Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST act. It set aside the conviction
under the said section after finding no essentials under the section and upheld the
conviction of the accused under Section 376(1) of IPC. 

Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Himachal Pradesh High
Court reached the Supreme Court of India wherein they challenged the order of the High
Court which set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. 

In the present case, the appellants no. 1 and 2 were tried under Sections 452, Section 326,
Section 323 and Sections 302, Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively, and
were acquitted by Sessions Court by taking benefit of the doubt. 

While relying on the case of Murugesan & 16 Ors vs State Tr.Insp.Of Police (2012) the
appellant’s counsel contended that as long as the trial court’s view is a possible view,
further scrutiny by High Court under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not
needed. 

The primary question before the Supreme Court of India was whether the learned High
Court in exercising its jurisdictions under Section 378 of CrPC was justified in intervening
with the order of the acquittal delivered by the trial court. 

Judgment of the court 

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that one of the most important features of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence of the accused until proven guilty by
a competent court and in the present case, the trial court, after analyzing all the evidence,
records, and witnesses, had acquitted the accused. Under the jurisdictions of Section 378 of
CrPC, if there are two possible views, then in such cases the High Court shall not interfere
with the trial court’s judgment, however, such rule cannot be extended to reflect the
contours of appeal against the order of appeal under Section 378 CrPC which is limited to
determine whether the view of the trial court was possible or not, furthermore, there is no
bar on the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence during an appeal against the order of
acquittal. 

Thus the Supreme Court of India, in this case, upheld the conviction of both the accused
persons, one of whom was responsible for delivering a blow of a stick on the head of an
aged woman which caused her death on the spot. The court furthermore held that the fact
that the testimony of witnesses was overstated suggests the elements and ingredients of
truth, and in cases where a significant portion of the evidence was insufficient, but the rest
of the portion of evidence proves the guilt of the accused, a conviction can be ruled on it
and reliance was placed on the case of Gangadhar Behera And Ors vs State Of Orissa
(2002). 

Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency (2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the appellant was placed under house arrest, and the primary question, in this
case, was whether the period of 34 days which the appellant has already spend under
house arrest shall be counted under a period of 90 days under Section 167 CrPC.
Judgment of the court 
The Supreme Court of India in the present case while attending the above question held:

When the report of remand is taken into consideration by the magistrate, the bail
application can be filed under Section 439 CrPC instead of Section 437 of CrPC
considering the restrictions in the present case. 

The application under Section 397 CrPC shall not be against the remand, but the
application under Section 439 of CrPC will be for bail. 

In cases of remand being illegal or imposed without having any jurisdiction, or is

conducted in any manner, then the person whose rights have been violated can seek
remedy under the writ of Habeas Corpus, except in such circumstances, the writ of
Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. 

Usually, the Court of Magistrate practices the power of remand under Section 167 CrPC,
and the exercise of power under the said section by the superior courts will be to
determine the duration within which the charge sheet must be filed, and in case of failure
to file a charge sheet, the accused has a statutory right to bail. 

The order of remand must be a transit remand order, and shall be passed under Section
167 CrPC, though it may be for the exhibiting in a court of law the appellant, it also
involves permitting continued detention under Section 167 CrPC. 

If the court of law tends to invoke and exercise jurisdictions under Section 167 CrPC, the
detention shall qualify even in cases where the order of detention was illegal. 

The court further held that the house arrest must be a complete prohibition on going out
and the order of injunction passed to prevent the persons from engaging other than the
residents of the house, and placing the guards to enforce such conditions will be judicial
custody but not under the jurisdictions of Section 167 CrPC.  

Shaik Ahmed v. State Of Telangana (2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India after the appellant was
aggrieved by the order of the High Court which had convicted the appellant under Section
364A IPC. The primary question before the court, in this case, was what essentials of
Section 364A IPC are to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to convict an accused under
Section 364A of IPC.

Judgment of the court  

The Supreme Court of India in this case held the essentials which will bring home the guilt
of the accused:
 Kidnapping or abduction of an individual and keeping such person in detention after the
kidnapping or abduction, 

There is a threat to cause death or hurt to the person, or the conduct of the kidnapper
leads to a reasonable apprehension that such person may cause death or hurt, 

Such kidnapper causes hurt or death to such a person to compel the government of any
foreign State or any Governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain
from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

After establishing the first condition, the prosecution must establish either the second or
third condition to prove the guilt of the accused. 

Lakshman Singh v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

(2021) 

Facts of the case

In this case, the appellant was aggrieved by the order of the High Court which had upheld
the order of conviction of the accused under Sections 323 and Section 147 of the IPC and
had appeared before the Supreme Court of India. 

The prosecution alleged that the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and tried to
snatch away the voters’ list present with the aggrieved person, and on the refusal by the
aggrieved person, the accused started beating him, and later, one of the accused also fired
gunshots at a person. 

The learned trial court found 16 people guilty for offences under Sections 323, Section 307,
Section 147, Section 149, and Section 379 IPC. 

Judgment of the court 

The Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of convicting the appellants under Section
323, and Section 147 of IPC. The court then emphasized the case of the People’s Union for
Civil Liberties & Anr. vs Union of India (2004), which held that freedom of voting is a part of
freedom of expression and it is necessary to strengthen democracy. 

The court further held that “the essence of the electoral system should be to ensure
freedom to voters to exercise their free choice. Therefore, any attempt of booth capturing
and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands because it ultimately affects the rule of
law and democracy. Nobody can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election.” 

Harshvardhan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, an appeal was filed before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad against
the order of special judge under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The appeal in the
present case was filed under Section 14 of the SC and ST Act, 1989. The appellant had
argued before the court that he has been in jail since November 2020 and he has no
criminal history. Furthermore, the accused also has an academic career and he was
preparing for competitive exams. He claimed that based on an absolutely false allegation,
the FIR had been lodged against him. No sign of rape has been found in the medical
examination of the victim. During the investigation, the manager and waiter of the hotel
gave statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and had denied the
alleged incident. 

Judgment of the court 

The High court in the present case, while finding the accused guilty under Section 376,
ruled that rape is the most physical and morally shameful crime in society, which has its
effects on the victim for lifelong. It is becoming a trend that the accused gains the consent
of the victim to have sexual intercourse with her. Such cases of sex, on the false pretext of
marriage, are increasing rapidly as the accused are of the view that they will get away from
the punitive measures by taking advantage of the law. 

Therefore, the legislature needs to enact specific legislation concerning the circumstances
where the accused obtains the consent of the victim to have sexual intercourse with her on
the false promise of marriage, however, until such legislation is not enacted, it is the duty of
the court to take into consideration the protection of women who are a victim of sexual
intercourse on false promises of marriage. 

The court further held that the mindset of male chauvinism that women are nothing but
objects of enjoyment are required to be addressed meticulously and should be dealt with in
such a way that it creates a healthy society and strengthens the security of women.  

Smt Aneeta And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

(2021) 

Facts of the case 

In this case, the petitioner prayed to issue an order through a writ of mandamus to the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to protect the fundamental rights of the petitioners
guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India and ensure that no
infringement of safety and protection of petitioners be caused. 

Petitioner no. 1 and no. 2 are not husband-wife; respondent no. 4 is the husband of
petitioner no. 1, and it is the case of the prosecution that petitioner no. 1 is living with
petitioner no. 2 due to the torturing behaviour of respondent no. 4.

Judgment of the court 

The High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners, held that parties cannot be
permitted to such illegality as tomorrow, petitioners may convey that they have sanctified
their illicit relations. Live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this
country. Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to
such illicit relations. 

The court further imposed a fine of rupees 5000 on the petitioners. 

References 
https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-judgments-on-offences-against-women-under-indian-
penal-code-1860

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-of-india-important-judgements-2020-
167492 

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/juvenile-justice-heinous-and-serious-offences-
defined-151456 

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-review-crucial-judgments-of-
2020 

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-lawyers-digest-supreme-court-judgments-
passed-in-march-2021 

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-lawyers-digest-supreme-court-judgments-
passed-in-april-2021 

https://www.barandbench.com/columns/litigation-columns/the-lawyers-digest-supreme-
court-judgments-passed-in-may-2021 

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal

content.

Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this form…

Name

Email Address