Adv. Noushad Hamsa

01/02/2025

1/2/25 Manorama

18/10/2024

18/10/2024

15/09/2024

TOI 14/9/24

22/06/2024

TOI 22/6/24

09/01/2024

https://www.barandbench.com/news/absence-law-criminalising-adultery-bigamy-delhi-high-court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that absence of a law making adultery an offence does not provide people blanket immunity from marrying other persons dur

09/01/2024

[09/01, 12:35 pm] Adv. Noushad Hamsa: Punjab and Haryana High Court Explains Special Status Of Family Courts

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-explains-special-status-of-family-courts-1513806

*Follow us & Get All Judgements of Supreme Court & other Legal Updates for FREE, without any subscription:-*

https://www.verdictum.in/social-media
[09/01, 12:35 pm] Adv. Noushad Hamsa: https://www.barandbench.com/news/absence-law-criminalising-adultery-bigamy-delhi-high-court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court provided insights into the special status accorded to Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act). The Court dismissed the Petition of a Husband against...

28/12/2023

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=799932108606822&id=100057701198069&mibextid=Nif5oz

Justice B.R. GAVAI,J. allowed the appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 15th July, 2019 by which the Division Bench of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh has affirmed the orders of conviction as recorded by Additional District Judge thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) (g), 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine.

In an appeal, the High Court confirmed the same and hence the present appeal was preferred in front of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Bench observed upon reviewing the entire evidence, that the prosecution has not successfully proven the case against the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt in the present instance.

Though minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would not substantially deter the prosecution case , but there were many inconsistencies in Prosecutrix’s statements. The case was based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix.

Furthermore the medical evidence revealed that no injuries were found on the Prosecutrix, and the possibility of sexual in*******se before the medical examination cannot be ruled out. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report indicated that no semen was found on her clothes or vaginal swab but was found on the underwear of the appellant
The Appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order was set aside.

Case Title: Ved Pal & Anr v State Of Haryana (2023 INSC 1039)