The Oregon Court of Appeals has decided to reschedule the Arken case hearings to an unknown date in the future. At the same time, the court wisely decided to include the Robinson case for hearing simultaneously. As we know, the legal system moves at the speed of a glacier and these two cases seem to be in an interstadial whereupon they aren’t moving at all. Eventually, these cases will be heard and decided by the Appellate branch, but we all know that this is just a brief hiatus before the big act before the Oregon Supreme Court. I’m still holding on my prediction of 2012 (or 2013) for final resolution of these cases. That would make the matter about 10 years to get through the entire legal system. Not bad for cases that were supposed to be “fast-tracked”. It’s a long hard road to get from here to there. Hopefully we will ALL still be alive to realize any benefits from these cases (note the optimism).
Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds of the Court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depicts depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of “emotion” in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment 14 Page 15 by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious namely cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter-se. 21. However, we have some other cases decided by this Court commenting upon the nature of offence under Section 307 of IPC. In Dimpey Gujral case (supra), FIR was lodged under sections 147,148,149,323,307,552 and 506 of the IPC. The matter was investigated and final report was presented to the Court under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court had even framed the charges. At that stage, settlement was arrived at between parties.
The court accepted the settlement and quashed the proceedings, relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 24. Thus, we find that in certain circumstances, this Court has approved the quashing of proceedings under section 307,IPC whereas in some other cases, it is held that as the offence is of serious nature such proceedings cannot be quashed. Though in each of the aforesaid cases the view taken by this Court may be justified on its own facts, at the same time this Court owes an explanation as to why two different approaches are adopted in various cases. The law declared by this Court in the form of judgments becomes binding precedent for the High Courts and the subordinate courts, to follow under Article 141 of the 20 Page 21 Constitution of India. Stare Decisis is the fundamental principle of judicial decision making which requires ‘certainty’ too in law so that in a given set of facts the course of action which law shall take is discernable and predictable. Unless that is achieved, the very doctrine of stare decisis will lose its significance.
The related objective of the doctrine of stare decisis is to put a curb on the personal preferences and priors of individual Judges. In a way, it achieves equality of treatment as well, inasmuch as two different persons faced with similar circumstances would be given identical treatment at the hands of law. It has, therefore, support from the human sense of justice as well. The force of precedent in the law is heightened, in the words of Karl Llewellyn, by “that curious, almost universal sense of justice which urges that all men are to be treated alike in like circumstances”. 25. As there is a close relation between the equality and justice, it should be clearly discernible as to how the two prosecutions under Section 307 IPC are different in nature and therefore are given different treatment. With this ideal objective in mind, we are proceeding to discuss the subject at length.
27. In the case of Dimpey Gujral (supra), observations of this Court to the effect that offences involved in that case were not offences against the society. It included charge under Section 307 IPC as well. However, apart from stating so, there is no detained discussion on this aspect. Moreover, it is the other factors which prevailed with the Court to accept the settlement and compound he offence, as noted above while discussing this case. 29. At this juncture, we would like also to add that the timing of settlement would also play a crucial role. If the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence when the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be somewhat liberal in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings/investigation. Of course, it would be after looking into the attendant circumstances as narrated in the previous para. Likewise, when challan is submitted but the charge has not been framed, the High Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. However, at this stage, as mentioned above, since the report of the I.O.
30. We have found that in certain cases, the High Courts have accepted the compromise between the parties when the matter in appeal was pending before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the trial court. Obviously, such cases are those where the accused persons have been found guilty by the trial court, which means the serious charge of Section 307 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt at the level of the trial court. There would not be any question of accepting compromise and acquitting the accused persons simply because the private parties have buried the hatchet. 33. In the present case, FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 was registered under Section 307/324/323/34 IPC. Investigation was completed, whereafter challan was presented in the court against the petitioner herein. Charges have also been framed; the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. At this juncture, parties entered into compromise on the basis of which petition under Section 482 of the Code was filed by the petitioners namely the accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings under the said FIR.
As per the copy of the settlement which was annexed along with the petition, the compromise took place between the parties on 12.7.2013 when respectable members of the Gram Panchayat held a meeting under the Chairmanship of Sarpanch. It is stated that on the intervention of the said persons/Panchayat, both the parties were agreed for compromise and have also decided to live with peace in future with each other. 35. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the accused persons because of some previous dispute between the parties, though nature of dispute etc. is not stated in detail. However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz., “respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till now, which could not be finalized”. This becomes an important aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant. In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future, this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness who conducted medical examination, it may become difficult to prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction, therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to drag these proceedings.
The case of Salem v. United States Lines Co., 370 U.S. The seaman filed a compensation claim for his injuries under the Jones Act. The ship owner disputed the claim that was based upon the fact that the ship owner was negligent for not maintaining certain safety features on his vessel that could have prevented the seaman’s fall. The ship owner argued that in order to be compensated, the seaman needed to have someone who was an expert in vessel engineering testify that the ship owner was negligent. In cases that involve highly technical, scientific or medical information, an expert witness is almost always required to explain the evidence to the court. However, in this case, the Supreme Court found that nearly any reasonable person could understand that the ship lacked necessary safety features and that the seaman would not have been injured if the conditions on the ship were safe. Many injuries that occur on vessels are the result of a ship owner’s negligence. A Texas Jones Act lawyer can help you to determine whether you may be eligible for compensation for your injury. A Texas Jones Act lawyer can evaluate the facts of your case to determine whether expert testimony is needed to prove your claim. A Texas Jones Act lawyer may be able to conclude that your employer’s negligence will not require the use of an expert witness by researching relevant case law and statutory provisions. If an expert witness is required in your case, a Texas Jones Act lawyer may be able to secure a reputable expert to testify on your behalf. If you have been injured at sea, you should contact a Texas Jones Act lawyer immediately to protect your right to compensation under the law.
Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case that, if one side gets its way, could limit or even ban the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. With the stakes high, many observers have been hoping for some indication of how the justices will rule in the case. But the strongest statements came from justices who have fairly consistent records on issues of race and education. Justice Antonin Scalia didn’t leave doubt about his disdain for affirmative action, and some of his comments angered advocates for minority students. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, by contrast, didn’t leave much doubt of her disdain for those who minimize the role of race in American society. But the votes of those two justices (and others who spoke) haven’t been much in doubt. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself on the case because she worked on it while in the Justice Department before joining the Supreme Court. Her recusal leaves only three justices who have generally been open to the consideration of race in education.
Nothing said by Justice Sotomayor or the two others — Justice Stephen G. Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — suggested that they have changed their view. The other five have generally been dubious of the consideration of race. Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his habit, did not ask questions, but if he didn’t vote against affirmative action, most court observers would be stunned. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom supporters of affirmative action hope to sway despite his past skepticism on the consideration of race by schools and colleges, didn’t really tip his hand. At one point, he wondered if the case should be remanded to a district court to gather more evidence, but as his questions continued, he seemed to doubt that anything new would come out of such a move. The case attracting all the attention is Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. This is actually a return to the court for the case.
Ruling 7 to 1, the court in 2013 found that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had erred in not applying “strict scrutiny” to the policies of UT Austin. The case is back at the Supreme Court because the original plaintiff and her lawyers maintain that lower courts did not adequately follow the Supreme Court’s directions in considering the case after the 2013 ruling. The plaintiff in the case is Abigail Fisher, a white woman rejected for admission by the university who said her rights were violated by UT Austin’s consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. Fisher’s lawyers argued that the University of Texas need not consider race because it has found another way to assure diversity in the student body. That is the “10 percent plan,” under which those in the top 10 percent of students at Texas high schools are assured admission to the public college or university of their choice. The university maintains that it does not get enough diversity through the 10 percent plan, and should have the right to consider race.
The most discussed line of questioning came from Justice Scalia, who argued that affirmative action may hurt black students. His language had many on social media calling him a racist. Black scientists, he said, “come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them,” he added. While Scalia’s words angered many who read about them, he was actually making an “overmatching” argument that has been used by many critics of affirmative action (and rejected by many supporters of affirmative action). The argument is viewed by many as an attempt to suggest that one can be against the consideration of race in admissions and at the same time concerned about minority students. Defenders of affirmative action, of course, note that while there are of course many minority students (not to mention white students) who may not thrive at competitive colleges, many others do — and very much want that chance. Although Scalia’s questions attracted the most attention, other justices’ comments may have focused more on issues that could be crucial to the outcome. The justices who in the past have been supportive of affirmative action had questions about whether the plaintiff’s lawyers would be challenging the consideration of race if Texas did not have the 10 percent plan. They seemed to be suggesting that a defeat for Texas would limit admissions options and diversity throughout American higher education, not just at the University of Texas.
He is the most greedy, Insensitive and non performing Legal representative. Romal rana reviewed Shri Gopal Verma Advocate On Record Supreme Court of India in Pragati Maidan 5th Oct, 2018Gopal Vermaji is a great communicator and lawyer. Aabha Saurav reviewed Legal- Eye in Sector 49 7th Sep, 2018Best civil lawyer in Gurugram. Civil lawyersCountry: IndiaLegal assistance for: Education issuesLegal assistance type: Legal ConsultationCourt type: I’m not sure. Let the lawyer decide ! Weirdest Laws In India! India is one of the biggest democracies in the world. But we do have our fair share of stupidity when it comes to having weird, unnecessary laws. 6 Courtroom Crime Movies That You Need To Watch! How Does Piracy Affect The Digital World? The war against piracy is an endless struggle for several creators and this problem is just increasing day by day. India has extremely progressive animal welfare rights and gives extensive protection to animals. However, they are still mistreated at times because of the lack of awareness in our society.