1993 Mumbai blasts verdict, CBSE NEET ruling: Top judgments of the week

Legal Weekly is a compilation of the landmark rulings passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the country in one week. By the end of the working week, read upon the relevant judgments and orders passed by the courts of India.

Written by Sonakshi Awasthi | New Delhi | Published: June 17, 2017 6:06 pm
1993 Mumbai bast, Abu salem, Mumbai blast verdict, 1993 Mumbai blast verdict, Mumbai blast verdict news, latest news, India news A scene after serial bomb blasts in Mumbai 1993. UNI Photo

Abu Salem, 5 others convicted in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case; quantum of sentence on June 19

In the Mumbai serial blasts case of 1993, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court convicted six of the seven main accused on Friday under Section 120B of the IPC (criminal conspiracy) along with provisions under the TADA Act. A total of 257 persons were killed and 713 injured in the blasts.

Abu Salem, the main accused, was convicted primarily under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosives Act, 1884 along with the Arms Act, 1959 for supplying arms, ammunitions and hand grenades and for transporting weapons from Gujarat and Mumbai. The others convicted in the case are Mustafa Dossa, Feroz Abdul Rashid Khan, Tahir Merchant, Karimullah Sheikh, Abdul Qayuum Sheikh and Riyaz Ahmed Siddique.
Pronouncement of the sentence is scheduled for June 19 where the court will decide if the convicts shall be sentenced with death or life imprisonment.

CBSE told to declare NEET results 2017

Scheduled to be declared in the first week of June, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the CBSE Board to declare the much awaited NEET results of 2017.

The apex court directed a stay on the Madras High Court’s order, which had granted an interim stay on the publication of NEET results as it was alleged that the question paper differed vernacularly in Tamil and English and was allegedly not uniform.

The Supreme Court directed the publication of NEET results directing the high court to not interfere in the medical admission schedule.

Himachal HC says right to sanitation is a fundamental right, directs construction of toilets along highways

Stating that right to sanitation is in consonance with right to life, the Himachal Pradesh High Court directed the state to construct public and private toilets easily accessible to women on national and state highways with readable signage.

The court provided the state with various suggestions to maintain the sanitation and hygiene of the public and private toilets. The court specifically laid down the directions to facilitate proper disposal of sanitary napkins on highways and make sure the toilets are safe for women. Every dhaba and restaurant on the highways should have clean public toilets, medical aid should be provided to commuters on appropriate places on the road.

Hefty compensation, reservation in jobs for acid attack victims

In a relief to acid attack victims, the Uttarakhand High Court has laid down mandatory directions to be followed by the state government to tackle the increasing incidents of acid attacks in the state. It directed the state government to constitute a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board within a month to compensate the victims of the attack. Upholding the judgment of Laxmi vs. Union of India and others passed by the Supreme Court in 2015, the High Court of Uttarakhand directed the state to provide medical assistance to the victims.

Immediately after the registration of the FIR, the victims shall receive an ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1 lakh from the state government; victims who sustained third or fourth degree burns shall receive Rs. 7000 per month; victims who sustained first or second degree burns are bound to receive Rs. 5000 per month and all the victims are bound to receive Rs 3 lakh.

Protection to the eyewitness, reservation to the victims of acid attack and burning under physically challenged persons in public employment and construction of a separate scheme for their rehabilitation were among the mandatory directions to be followed by the State government.

“A one-night consensual affair cannot be called a marriage.”

While trying to determine the legitimacy of a child born out of a void marriage, the Bombay High Court upheld Section 16 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, which gives an illegitimate child similar inheritance rights like that to a legitimate child.

Describing marriages in Hindu Dharamshastras performed customarily and by ritual ceremonies, the court said a physical relationship between a man and a woman performed out of consent cannot be termed as marriage.
Further, the court said a relationship to be coined as a marriage would require a desire of both the parties to term their bond as marriage, in other words when a man and a woman accept their marriage and give each other a status of a husband and a wife.

Calcutta HC laments marriage within the same religion still considered ‘superstitious’

The Calcutta High Court on Monday lamented the belief held by the “narrow-minded people” who still believe marriages should take place within the same religion or financial status as “superstitious” in the revision petition of Ashok Kumar Todi vs. CBI. The legal issue of the case was whether it is an abetment to commit suicide if it is caused due to mental pressure caused by serious criminal intimidation.

A Muslim man and a Hindu woman tied the knot and were subjected to life threats and condescension from Priyanka’s, the wife, side of the family on coming out with the truth about their marriage. At the end of two months, on immense persuasion Priyanka returned home to her parents for a week.

Seven days later, Rizwanur, the husband, tried hard to contact his wife but in vain and 15 days later, the police found the body of Rizwanur.

Family of Rizwanur filed a petition defying the suicide and claiming the death of their son as a planned murder against Priyanka’s family, who are the owner of ‘Lux Cozy’ company.

The Calcutta High Court termed Rizwanur’s act as abetment.

Delhi High Court refuses to modify the sentence of a rape convict

The High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the trial court and denied the modification of two sentences operating concurrently of a rape convict who is presently serving the sentence of 10 years under Section 376 (punishment for rape) of IPC and seven years under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC.

Having served a year of the sentence and claiming to not rebut against the crime committed at the time of the trial, the convict, Vijay Vaidh, requested the court to modify his sentence.

Vijay worked as a driver with the victim’s father-in-law and was subsequently fired but continued to visit the house of the victim. One day on the pretext of having water, he gained entry into the and strangulated the victim in an attempt to kill her. Having failed to kill the victim, he instead committed rape on her out of vengeance.

Taking defence of having a family and a daughter of a marriageable age, the lawyer appearing for the convict pleaded the Court to modify the sentence on family grounds.

Appealed to the High Court, he requested the court to modify his sentence wherein the court refused .

“Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could no longer endure under such serious threats,” said the Court.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. No Comments.