Judgement's Digest Portal

Bilaspur, September 21st, 2024: This year’s third National Lok Adalat was successfully organized on September 21, 2024, across the state under the able guidance of Hon’ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice of the High Court of Chhattisgarh and Patron-in-Chief of the Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority. This National Lok Adalat spanned judicial levels from the Taluka courts to the High Court, making justice more approachable and swifter. To boost the morale of Judicial Officers and instill a strengthened sense of security and faith in the institution of Lok Adalat among citizens, the Hon’ble Chief Justice virtually connected with all 23 District Courts of the State from the High Court. He interacted with Principal District Judges and Judicial Officers, encouraging them to ensure the successful resolution of disputes in the National Lok Adalat. His engagement was pivotal to the success of the event, as he shared insights, assessed ongoing proceedings, and inspi...

"Minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix should not be a ground for rejecting an otherwise credible prosecution case." In this context, the court is emphasizing that small inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim (prosecutrix) do not diminish the overall reliability of her account, especially when it is corroborated by other substantial evidence. The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a notable judgment, upheld the conviction of Dulamani Yadav for the rape of a minor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The ruling, delivered by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasized that minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony do not undermine the credibility of her account. The case highlights important legal issues, including the sufficiency of victim testimony, the establishment of the victim’s age, and the applicability of various laws in cases ...

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the life sentences of Arshad Khan and Syed Nadeem (@Bada Monu) for the murder of Deepak Naidu, emphasizing the accused's failure to explain the incriminating circumstances, which served as a vital link in the chain of evidence. The court dismissed the appeals of the accused, affirming the trial court's verdict under Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, along with the Arms Act violations. The case stemmed from a murder on June 15, 2019, in Raipur, where Naidu was killed following a dispute with Arshad Khan's father. The trial court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, forensic links, and the recovery of the murder weapon. The defense argued false implication and lack of direct evidence, but the High Court held that the circumstantial evidence was strong enough to establish the accused's guilt. The court highlighted the doctrine of "last seen together" and the forens...

  In a significant legal development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted six individuals previously convicted in a 2015 double homicide and robbery case, citing a lack of sufficient evidence and the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers. The accused were earlier sentenced to life imprisonment by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur. Background of the Case 1. Incident Details: On the night of September 26-27, 2015, victims Bodhan Prasad (trailer driver) and his helper, Nilesh Kumar, were allegedly abducted and murdered by the accused. Their bodies were later discovered in a forest in Surajpur district. 2. Prosecution's Case: The accused were charged with murder, robbery, and causing the disappearance of evidence. Their confessions made to police officers and certain circumstantial evidence led to their conviction in 2018. Key Legal Issues 1. Inadmissibility of Confessions: The defense argued that under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, confessi...

The Office of the Accountant General plays a crucial role in handling the financial matters of government servants, including their retiral benefits. However, certain limitations exist when it comes to the recovery or adjustment of dues from a retired government servant’s retiral benefits. One of the key limitations is the timeframe within which such recoveries can be made. According to established rules, the Accountant General’s Office is allowed to recover or adjust any negative balance from a government servant's retiral dues only within six months from the date of retirement. Negative balances may arise due to overpayments, unadjusted advances, or other financial discrepancies that occurred during the individual's service period. The government can make these recoveries directly by deducting the amount from the employee’s final settlement of retirement benefits, which may include gratuity, pension, and other entitlements. However, if the government fails to recover the nega...