Plea for parity

Central Council of Research in Homoeo- pathy employed doctors, physicians and research assistants. The doctors and physicians drew a higher scale of pay and also a higher rate on non-practising allowance. The non-practising allowance of the doctors and physicians were enhanced. One research assistant claimed the enhanced sum commensurate to the revisions in the non-practising allowance given to doctors and physicians on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court held that doctors and physicians on the allopathic side forming a class by themselves and drawing higher scale of pay could be treated differently. Just because they were getting the same non-practising allowance some time does not mean that discrimination has been made (Union of India & Anr vs Manu Dev Arya).

Changing colour

A few people were acquitted in a case involving rioting, house trespass for causing injury, etc. on the basis of a purported ‘dying declaration’ in which the accused, who were identified in the FIR, were not named. The person making the ‘dying declaration’ subsequently survived. The Supreme Court held inter alia that when the maker of a ‘purported dying declaration’ survives, the statement made could no longer be treated as the same. The statement can be treated for the purpose of corroboration — in the instant case, for example, the only question asked was who had caused the injury and the declaration was limited to that fact itself (State of Uttar Pradesh vs Veer Singh & Ors).

As the eye sees it

In a case involving murder, the eye witness deposed that the gun shot was fired from a distance of about three to four feet, but according to medical evidence the distance was about 20-25 feet. A plea was raised that there was an inconsistency between the eye witness’s version and medical opinion. The Supreme Court held inter alia that where there is direct evidence of an eye witness that the accused had committed the murder, any inconsistency relating to the distance based on medical opinion is of no significance (Janak Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh).

SOLON