Sunday, May 16, 2010

Scanty injuries

"Coming to the most harangued argument that there are scanty injuries on the body of the victim, it is to be noted that according to the victim's version, her mouth was gagged and she was physically lifted from the spot when she was going to see the marriage party. It is also her deposition that while her modesty was being outraged by one, the other two accused had gagged her mouth and the third was pressing her hands. In such a situation it is preposterously puerile to imagine that victim will sustain graver injuries on her person since she was unable to resist. Medical report of complain of pain on her mouth and neck prove some physical pressure exerted on her. Evidence of P.W.3 further indicates that she was subjected to sexual intercourse to such an extent that even eight hours after the ignominy she was bleeding from her private part even on slight touch. P.W.3 is clear in her deposition that the injury sustained by P.W. 1 could be the result of sexual abuse performed on her.
Adding insult to injury is the defence taken by the appellants. Firstly and foremost the defence suggestion is palpably false. But for ipse dixit of suggestion, there is no other circumstance worth in name to support such temerity, and secondly accused failed to muster any evidence to support their claim. No co villager or any other person countenancing their defence entered into the witness box to bolster up their defence case. There is no hitch in my mind to observe that the defence of the appellants is per se untrue. Lastly but not the least, appellant had no license to rape the victim, even if, according to them, she was not a virgin."
(Allahabad High Court in Vipin and another vs State of UP, May 14, 2010


"While pressing into service the definition of the word 'debt' appearing in Section 2 (g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short as the 'Recovery Act'), it is vehemently contended before us that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short the 'Tribunal') lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim of the Bank against the appellant.  The appellant was neither a borrower nor was there any kind of privity of contract between the two. As such, money claimed from them was not a 'debt' and, therefore, rigors of the recovery procedure under the provisions of the Recovery Act could not be enforced against the appellant. This is a submission which, at the first blush, appears to be sound and acceptable. But, once it is examined in some depth and following the settled canons of law, one has to arrive only at a conclusion that the contention is without any substance and merit. At the very outset, as a guiding principle we may refer to the maxim 'a verbis legis non est recedendum' but before we proceed to examine the merit or otherwise of the principal contention raised before us, it will be necessary for us to refer to the basic facts giving rise to the present appeal, particularly, in view of the fact that it has a wretched and long history which began in the year 1988."
(Supreme Court in Eureka Forbes Ltd vs Allahabad Bank & Ors, May 3, 2010


Welcome to the new blog... with quotes from verdicts!