The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment clarifying the evolving nature of consent in sexual relationships. The Court, in a recent order, emphasized that initial consent in a relationship does not automatically translate to perpetual consent. This case involved an FIR filed against a man accused of rape. In fact, The accused argued that the relationship with the woman was consensual and the FIR was a retaliation for a blackmailing complaint he had filed against her. Understanding the Sexual Relationships Case: Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka Importance of Ongoing Consent: A Shift in Focus The Court, however, took a different stance. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar stated that “the character of such Sexual Relationships at it was when started will not continue to prevail” if one partner withdraws consent. This highlights a crucial shift in focus – consent is not a one-time event; it’s an ongoing process requiring continual affirmation from both partners. Key Takeaways for a Clearer Understanding Here are the key takeaways from the Court’s decision: The Court acknowledged a previous ruling (Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 INSC 827). In fact, This ruling established that a consensual Relationships cannot be considered rape. However, they emphasized the importance of ongoing consent in this case. Impact and Significance of the Ruling The Court upholds individuals’ right to withdraw consent, protecting them from non-consensual sexual activity. Moreover, The landmark judgment is expected to impact rape cases significantly in India. […]
News Tags: Legal Precedent
Confused about adding accused during trial in India? The Supreme Court clarifies the standard for using Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing stronger evidence beyond mere allegations. Know your legal rights and stay informed! Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Adding Accused Under Section 319 of CrPC The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a judgment clarifying the standard for adding accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section empowers courts to proceed against individuals not named in the chargesheet if they appear to be guilty of an offense. Key Points of the Judgment: Case Background: An FIR was filed against an individual for house trespass and assault. The complaint mentioned the presence of two other individuals during the incident but did not specifically accuse them. The complainant later filed a Section 319 Crpc application arguing that the investigating authorities omitted their names. Lower Court Decisions: Supreme Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court‘s decision as it relied solely on a “prima facie” satisfaction based on vague allegations. The Court stressed that the standard is higher and requires stronger evidence, exceeding a “prima facie” case but not reaching the level of conviction certainty. Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and upheld the trial court’s decision. Significance: This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for invoking Section 319 Crpc to prevent its misuse. Finally, It emphasizes the need for substantial evidence beyond mere speculation to add additional accused persons […]
In a groundbreaking decision, Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar of the Madras High Court have delivered a verdict with significant implications. The court ruled that, as per the Indian Succession Act of 1925, a mother is not entitled to her son’s assets if he dies intestate, leaving behind a widow and children. On fact, This pivotal judgment, part of a case involving a Christian family, is supported by a precedent set in 2021. Moreover, It sheds light on the intricacies of inheritance law and challenges a district court’s order that allocated a portion of the deceased husband’s properties to his mother. The court’s meticulous consideration of the Indian Succession Act’s provisions and the appointment of an amicus curiae underscore the significance of this legal precedent. Mother Denied Entitlement to Son’s Intestate Assets as per Indian Succession Act: HC Verdict Madras High Court Rules on Christian Family Case Under Indian Succession Act Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar Uphold Decision Based on Precedent The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, declared that the mother of a person who dies intestate is not entitled to claim any rights over the properties left behind. Justices R. Subramanian and N. Senthil Kumar delivered this verdict while addressing the case of a Christian family governed by the Indian Succession Act of 1925. Concordance with Prior Order The judges based their decision on a similar order issued by the High Court in 2021, supporting the legal stance taken in the present case. […]
