(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6492 of 2005) St.

Theresa's Tender Loving Care Home and others Appellants Vs. State of A.P. Respondent, decided on 10/24/2005. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar. Subject Index: Family Courts Act, 1984 -- Section 19(1) -- Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 -- Section 47 -- appeal against order rejecting inter-country adoption -- adoption resisted by State Government on ground of child trafficking -- relinquishment deed executed by mother of child a fake and fabricated document -- child not suffering from any ailment as held out by the organisation arranging for adoption -- organisation already being prosecuted for offences of cheating, manipulation / fabrication of documents -- adoption not permitted.

(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 51 of 2006) Bachpan Bachao Andolan Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others Respondent(s), decided on 4/18/2011. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik. Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32 petition filed under in the wake of serious violations and abuse of children who are forcefully detained in circuses the Supreme Court held that in order to implement the fundamental right of the children under Article 21A it is imperative that the Central Government must issue suitable notifications prohibiting the employment of children in circuses. Further the respondents are directed to frame proper scheme of rehabilitation of rescued children from circuses directions issued regarding children working in the Indian circuses.

(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 309 of 2012) Bavo @ Manubhai Ambalal Thakore Appellant(s) Vs. State of Gujarat Respondent(s), decided on 2/3/2012. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 376 and 506(2) punishment of rape conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of the offence under whether the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable or excessive to consider the victim was aged about 7 years on the date of the incident and the accused was in the age of 18/19 years and also the incident occurred nearly 10 years ago the conviction imposed on the appellant is confirmed. However, the sentence of life imprisonment modified to RI for 10 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- sentence modified. (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 769 of 2006) State of U.P. Appellant Vs. Chhoteylal Respondent, decided on 1/14/2011. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 punishment of kidnapping and rape acquittal of the offences under appeal against on the basis of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecutrix was about 17 years

of age at the time of occurrence of crime, thus convicted the A-1/respondent for the offences charged and ordered different sentences accordingly. However, the High Court reversed the judgement of the trial court and acquitted A-1 appeal the prosecutrix at the relevant time was less than 18 years of age. She was removed from the lawful custody of her brother and was taken to a different village by two adult males under threat and kept in a rented room for many days where A-1 had forcible sexual intercourse with her the Supreme Court opined that the absence of alarm by her at the public place cannot lead to an inference that she had willingly accompanied A-1 and A-2. The circumstances made her submissive victim and she had no free act of the mind during her stay with A-1 as she was under constant fear. Further viewed that the absence of injuries on the person of the prosecutrix is not sufficient to discredit her evidence, therefore held that the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable impugned judgement of acquittal passed by the High Court set aside and of the trial Court restored appeal allowed. (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 145-146 of 2011) Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik Appellant(s) Vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent(s), decided on 2/29/2012. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar. Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 sections 376(2)(f), 377, 302 punishment of rape and murder conviction and the sentence of death awarded to the accused-appellant under in challenge the circumstances and the chain of events proved by the prosecution fully established against the appellant-accused the Supreme Court held that the crime committed by the accused is not heinous simplicitor, but is a brutal and inhuman crime where a married person, aged 31 years, chooses to lure a three year old minor girl child on the pretext of buying her biscuits and then commits rape on her. Further, intending to destroy the entire evidence and the possibility of being identified, he kills the minor child conviction and sentence order upheld appeals dismissed. (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2011) Daya Nand Appellant Vs. State of Haryana Respondent, decided on 1/7/2011. Name of the Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha. Subject Index: Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 application of the provisions of IPC, 1860 section 376 r/w section 511 conviction and sentence under for commission of the offence under the appellant attempted to commit rape on the prosecutrix plea of juvenility the Supreme Court held that in view of the Juvenile Justice Act as it stands after the amendments introduced, the appellant can not be kept in prison to undergo the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court. The sentence imposed against the appellant is set aside and he is directed to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Narnaul, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act appeal disposed. (Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 667 of 2002) Muzaffar Ali Sajjad and Others Appellants Vs. State of A.P. and Others Respondents, decided on 3/9/2004. Name of the Judge: Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.

Subject Index: child marriage Restraint Act, 1929 -- Section 10 -- process issued without holding enquiry -- not legal -- complaint set aside.

Gaurav jain vs. uoi air 1997 sc 3021 Mc Mehta vs. state of tamil nadu (1991) 1 scc 283 Tukaram V State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185