Lalu-Rabri freed of corruption charges: Centre won’t appeal & State can’t

The Supreme Court on 01.04.2010 in the matter of Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar [JT 2010 (3) SC 433)] held that the State Govt. of Bihar is not competent to file an appeal under S. 378 of Cr. P.C. against the order acquittal passed by the CBI court.
Charges were framed against the two under the Prevention of Corruption Act, of which they were acquitted by the CBI Court, Patna. The Centre decided not to appeal, however, the State went ahead with filing an appeal before the High Court.
The High Court found the appeal maintainable against which the duo sought the well-found support of the Supreme Court.
The highlights in this story have been successfully stolen by the Centre’s willful indifference towards the matter.

Abetment to suicide is a big deal!

The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [JT 2010 (1) SC 17] discussed the meaning of the word ‘suicide’ and has done the much awaited task of constraining the ever-widening definition of ‘abetment to suicide’. It has been stated that mere discord and differences which are part of day to day life cannot form the basis of conviction under S. 306 of IPC for abetting suicide. For that, there has to be a clear mens rea and it requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.

Supreme Court on private defence

The Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 15.01.2010 in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010 AIR SCW 832) elaborates the scope and foundation of the right to private defence. Justice Dalveer Bhandari in his decision has discussed the march of law which led to the evolution of principle of right to private defence and the said judgment can be said to be a comprehensive ready referencer on this principle. The law takes the baton ahead for you and says that “The law does not require a law abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an imminent unlawful aggression.... there is nothing more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger.” The key points emerging out of this decision in respect of right to private defence are:
• Self preservation is the basic human instinct recognized in criminal jurisprudence
• It is available only in necessity of averting a sudden impending danger
• A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to claim this right
• It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defence step by step with any arithmetical exactitude
• Accused need not take any specific plea of self defence; however, it can be assumed from the material on record