Author: Naina Rajesh

The Supreme Court in Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra acquitted a student accused of murdering his friend, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The case involved the alleged accidental firing of Vaibhav’s father’s revolver, which killed his friend Mangesh. While Vaibhav’s act of hiding the body suggested tampering, the Court held it was not enough to prove murder. Forensic findings supported accidental firing, and no motive was shown. The Court set aside his murder conviction but upheld punishment for destroying evidence, limiting it to time already served.

The Supreme Court, in M/s. Balaji Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr., clarified that for an offence under Section 387 IPC, actual delivery of money or property is not required. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra held that merely putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intent of extortion is enough to establish liability. Overturning the Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash summons, the Court found that threatening the complainant at gunpoint for ₹5 lakhs satisfied Section 387. The case was restored for trial, reinforcing the scope of aggravated extortion.

The Supreme Court of India in We The Women of India v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1156/2021) directed all States and Union Territories to better implement the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It ordered appointment of Protection Officers within six weeks, wide public awareness drives, free legal aid via NALSA and state/district legal services, and identification/notification of shelter homes and service providers at district and taluka levels within ten weeks. The measures aim to ensure timely protection, legal help and safe shelter for victims.