Supreme Court Criminal Digest-August 2023

15 days police custody meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation as a whole : Supreme Court doubts 1992 precedent. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Abkari Act; Section 8 - The testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined - the person receiving the information of the crime or detecting the occurrence thereof, can investigate the same. Questioning such an investigation on the basis of bias or such like factor, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not amenable to a general unqualified rule that lends itself to uniform application. (Para 16-26) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

'Age-old principle "where women are respected, gods live there" would recede to background' : Supreme Court cancels bail to gang-rape accused. Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

Allegations in complaint made in good faith to lawful authority cannot attract offence of defamation. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Antilia bomb scare case - Supreme Court grants bail to former Mumbai Police officer pradeep sharma. Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Bail condition of NDPS accused relaxed - The liberty of an accused who is facing prolonged trial deserves attention of the Court - Prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners violates the constitutional principles of dignity and liberty. (Para 8 - 10) Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670

Bootlegger - Samples which were drawn and collected from the liquor seized from the possession of the appellant detenu were sent to the forensic science laboratory for the purpose of chemical analysis and in all cases, the analysis report states that the samples were found to be unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. (Para 52) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678

Can bail condition requiring assurance from the embassy that foreign accused will not leave India be imposed? Supreme Court to examine. Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 681

Chargesheet filed in a language which the accused does not understand is not illegal; translation can be given. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Cheque case against the firm's partner can be quashed only on strong evidence that he didn't have any concern with issuing the cheque. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

Cheque Dishonour - Concurrent sentencing rule only when cases arise out of a single transaction. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Circumstantial Evidence - Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence - No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member - If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Curtailment of 15 days of police custody by any extraneous circumstances, act of God, an order of Court not being the handy work of investigating agency would not act as a restriction. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. is a bridge between liberty and investigation performing a fine balancing act. (Para 77) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 311, 367 and 391 - Appellate Courts can exercise all powers vested in the Trial Court in an attempt to arrive at a just and fair decision. In the present case, unfortunately the Trial Court as well as the High Court failed to exercise their powers under the aforesaid provisions to summon the witnesses of the charge-sheet to prove the police papers. Despite applications being filed to summon persons who were not shown as witnesses to the charge-sheet, the Trial Court repeatedly rejected the said applications in 2006 and again in 2008 on the flimsy grounds that were not named in the charge-sheet or that the Public Prosecutor had not filed such application in gross violation of Section 311 CrPC. (Para 112, 113) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The decision in CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni (1992) 3 SCC 141, which held that police custody is not permissible beyond first 15 days of remand, as followed subsequently requires reconsideration by a reference to a larger Bench. (Para 79) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The maximum period of 15 days of police custody is meant to be applied to the entire period of investigation – 60 or 90 days, as a whole. (Para 62) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - An order of remand has to be challenged only before a higher forum as provided under the Cr.P.C. when it depicts a due application of mind both on merit and compliance of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 read with Section 19 of the PMLA 2002. (Para 66) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The word “custody” under Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 shall mean actual custody. (Para 60) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - The words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies. (Para 85) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173, 190, 200 - On the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options - Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action - Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process - Thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 - Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report - Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report - Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Although a person working in a Nationalised Bank is a public servant, yet the provisions of Section 197 of the CrPC would not be attracted at all as Section 197 is attracted only in cases where the public servant is such who is not removable from his service save by or with the sanction of the Government. (Para 45) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 197 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the “nexus” between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The “safe and sure test”, is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted “in excess of his duty”, but if there is a “reasonable connection” between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts. (Para 49) A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 614 : 2023 INSC 682

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - As far as complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act are concerned, for the conduct of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant shall be permitted to be taken on affidavit. In suitable cases, the Magistrate can restrict the inquiry to examination of documents without insisting for examination of witnesses. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1) - In a case where one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, following the procedure under Section 202(1) is mandatory. (Para 4) Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202(1), 203 - After taking recourse to Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., before dismissing a complaint by taking recourse to Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to consider the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. (Para 5) Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 207, 208 - When a copy of the report and the documents are supplied to the accused under Section 207 and/or Section 208, an opportunity is available for the accused to contend that he does not understand the language in which the final report or does not understand the language in which the final report or the statements or documents are written. But he must raise this objection at the earliest. In such a case, if the accused is appearing in person and wants to defend himself without opting for legal aid, perhaps there may be a requirement of supplying a translated version of the charge sheet and documents or the relevant part thereof concerning the said accused to him. It is, however, subject to the accused satisfying the Court that he is unable to understand the language in which the charge sheet is submitted - When the accused is represented by an advocate who fully understands the language of the final report or charge sheet, there will not be any requirement of furnishing translations to the accused as the advocate can explain the contents of the charge sheet to the accused. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed, then the question of providing translation may arise. The reason is that the accused must get a fair opportunity to defend himself. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 211, 215 - In a given case, even if the charge is not framed in the language of the Court, the omission to frame the charge in the language of the Court shall not be material unless it is shown that the accused was misled and it resulted in failure of justice. (Para 14.a) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 227, 239 - An interlocutory application seeking discharge in the midst of trial would also not be maintainable. (Para 15) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 228, 240 - If the accused does not understand the language in which the charge is framed, the Court will have to explain the charge to him in the language which he understands. (Para 14.b and 14.c.) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272 - The power under Section 272 is not a power to decide which language shall be used by the investigating agencies or the police for the purposes of maintaining the record of the investigation. At the highest, for that purpose, the provisions regarding the law governing the Official Language of the State may apply subject to the provisions contained in such enactment. In a given case, while prescribing a form as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 173, the State Government may provide that the charge sheet must be filed in the official language of the State. Therefore, Section 272 deals with only the language of the Courts under CrPC. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 167, 173 - A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground - With the availability of various software and Artificial Intelligence tools for making translations, providing translations will not be that difficult now. In the cases mentioned aforesaid, the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. (Para 19) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 272, 173, 465 - There is no specific provision in CrPC which requires the investigating agency/officer to file it in the language of the Court determined in accordance with Section 272 of CrPC. Even if such a requirement is read into Section 173, per se, the proceedings will not be vitiated if the report is not in the language of the Court. The test of failure of justice will have to be applied in such a case as laid down in Section 465 of CrPC. (Para 18) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 279 - Where evidence is recorded in the language of the Court which is not understood by the accused or his pleader, there is an obligation on the part of the Court to explain the evidence to the accused or his lawyer, as the case may be. (Para 14.g) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Trial courts cautioned against recording statements in a casual and cursory manner. What holds importance is not the mere quantity of questions posed to the accused but rather the content and manner in which they are framed. (Para 31) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 and 386 - Criminal revision petition needs to be considered on merits even in the absence of a party or their counsel. (Para 6) Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 4 (2) - Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Maharashtra); Section 81(5B) - the police have an independent power and even duty under the CrPC to investigate into an offence once information has been drawn to their attention indicating the commission of an offence. This power is not curtailed by the provisions of the 1960 Act. There is no express bar and the provisions of Section 81(5B) do not by necessary implication exclude the investigative role of the police under the CrPC. (Para 27) Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 41A of the CrPC, 1973 has got no application to an arrest made under the PMLA 2002. (Para 35) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 426(2)(b) - Insofar as a life convict is concerned, in law, no part of the sentence remains unexpired. The remission granted by the Government to a life convict, cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for life. What remains unexpired of such a sentence is known only to God (if you believe) and to the Government, if there is a policy of remission. Therefore, Section 426(2)(b) cannot be taken to have included within its fold, the case of a life convict, since in the case of life convict no portion of the sentence remains unexpired, in the technical sense. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail was allowed by the High Court weighing the fact that the accused has filed a settlement arrived at with the victim’s son that too in respect of an offence under Section 302 IPC. The State ought to have approached this Court against the order of bail granted by the High Court but surprisingly, no steps were taken. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and accused was directed to surrender forthwith before the trial Court. A copy of this order forwarded to the Secretary (Home), Government of Gujarat for his perusal and appropriate action. (Para 7 – 12) Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - The offence alleged in the instant case is heinous and would be a onslaught on the dignity of the womanhood and the age old principle of where women are respected Gods live there would recede to the background and the guilty not being punished by process of law or accused persons are allowed to move around freely in the society or in spite of there being prima facie material being present they are allowed to move around freely in the society before guilt is proved and are likely to indulge in either threatening the prosecution witnesses or inducing them in any manner to jettison the criminal justice system, then the superior court will have to necessarily step in to undo the damage occasioned due to erroneous orders being passed by courts below. (Para 17) Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 707 : 2023 INSC 761

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 464, 465 - While deciding whether there is a failure of justice occasioned due to error, omission, or irregularity in the trial, the Court is required to consider the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. (Para 16) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Narottam Dhakad, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 708 : 2023 INSC 770

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet - The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all - The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and while considering an application for discharge are totally different - Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the crossexamination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial - Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 3-9) Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Cheque complaint against partner of a firm - Powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques. Riya Bawri v. Mark Alexander Davidson, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 695 : 2023 INSC 757

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. (Para 33) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – High Court can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. (Para 11) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - the complainant had named the appellant and alleged complicity based on a misconception and therefore, at this stage, having realized the same, has indicated that he does not wish to prosecute the complaint as against the appellant. Therefore, the FIR as against the appellant, would not be appropriate and all further action unnecessary. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - When it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh consequences for the persons named as accused - The right to not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution - The requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed. (Para 34) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the 2 initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 30) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. (Para 26) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - Test Identification Parade - An accused is under an obligation to stand for identification parade. An accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same. If the coercion is sought to be imposed in getting from accused evidence which cannot be procured save through positive volitional act on his part, the constitutional 38 guarantee as enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution will step in to protect him. However, if that evidence can be procured without any positive volitional evidentiary act on the part of the accused, Article 20(3) of the Constitution will have no application. The accused while subjecting himself to the TIP does not produce any evidence or perform any evidentiary act - The accused concerned may have a legitimate ground to resist facing the TIP saying that the witnesses had a chance to see him either at the police station or in the Court, as the case may be, however, on such ground alone he cannot refuse to face the TIP. It is always open for the accused to raise any legal ground available to him relating to the legitimacy of the TIP or the evidentiary value of the same in the course of the trial. However, the accused cannot decline or refuse to join the TIP. (Para 35) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 54A - This Section is restricted to identification of persons only. So, this Section has no application where the question of identification of articles arises. (Para 33) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 426 and 427 - If an escaped convict already serving life term is subsequently convicted, subsequent sentence will run concurrently with previous life sentence. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82, 83 - The High Court by its impugned order even while granting bail to the accused issued detailed and elaborate guidelines with respect to the manner of issuing proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of Sections 83 Cr.P.C. and 174A IPC. Therefore, to the extent, they issue directions to the State and to all Courts within the territories of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh; are hereby set aside. However, to the extent that the order grants bail to the accused, is left undisturbed. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

Correctness of witness statements cannot be decided in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings. Manik B. v. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Courts should impose realistic conditions of bail considering the economic and social position of the undertrial prisons or else the act of grant of bail does not subserve its purpose. In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 610

Criminal Trial - Principle governing “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth. (Para 7) T.G. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 671

Custody under Section 167 CrPC includes custody of other investigating agencies such as ED, not just police. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

'Enquire into violence against women in Manipur from May 4' : Supreme Court explains mandate of committee of three women judges. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - When an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete - Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not dispute his presence at home at the relevant time and does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 114(a) - A presumption of fact must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. (Para 36) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 21) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - In the case at hand, the deceased gave his statement in the form of a written statement and narrated the entire incident and circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. Subsequently, he died on account of injuries suffered by him in the incident in question. This fact is not in dispute and hence, the FIR lodged on the basis of a written statement of injured is liable to be treated as a dying declaration, which itself is a substantive piece of evidence and is admissible under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. (Para 95) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Statement by an injured person recorded as FIR can be treated as a dying declaration and such a statement is admissible. The dying declaration must not cover the whole incident or narrate the case history. Corroboration is not necessary for this situation; a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction. (Para 91) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Weight Assigned in Criminal Proceedings – Great caution must be exercised while placing reliance on dying declarations even as the law attaches a presumption of truthfulness to such statements – No hard and fast rule for determining when a dying declaration should be accepted – Duty of the court is to decide this question in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case and be fully convinced of the truthfulness of the declarations – Held, dying declarations not sufficient evidence in present case – Appeal allowed. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Statement by an injured person which was later converted into an FIR, is admissible in evidence and is to be read as a dying declaration or his last statement. (Para 114 (a)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 56 - Doctrine of Judicial Notice - Law in respect of taking judicial notice of any fact – (i) The doctrine of judicial notice, as provided under Section 56, is an exception to general rules of evidence applicable for proving any fact by adducing evidence in the Court of law. (ii). According to Section 56 of the Evidence Act, judicial notice of any such fact can be taken by the Court, which is well-known to everyone, which is in the common knowledge of everyone, which is authoritatively attested, which is so apparent on the face of the record, etc. (iii). Except in the rarest of rare cases, judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters in the normal course of proceeding, and the case is decided on the basis of oral, material and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to find out the guilt or innocence. (Para 66) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 56 - Judicial notice is taken of the judgment in the Habeas Corpus petition regarding the conduct of the accused, the investigating agency, the Public Prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the trial. The two administrative reports of the respective judges, who were constitutional functionaries, also have to be given due credence and cannot be ignored outright regarding the conduct of the accused, public prosecutor and the Presiding Officer conducting the Trial. (Para 114 (f), (g)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 74 - FIR is a public document. (Para 82) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 78 and 81 - Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence and it can only be treated as secondary evidence - Extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater credibility only because it is published in a newspaper and is available to the public at large. (Para 15) Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Conduct of the accused – Accused was instrumental in making all possible efforts to wipe out the evidence against him and the Prosecution machinery as also the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, if we may say so, was used as a tool of his highhandedness. The obvious question pops up in the mind of any prudent person, as to why he was instrumental, when he was not guilty of the offence to which he was being tried. The obvious answer to this would reasonably come to mind of any prudent person that his guilty mind was fearful about the result. All these aspects leave no room for doubt that the subsequent conduct of the accused is one of the major circumstances pointing towards his guilt for the incident. (Para 72, 73) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8, 27 - The conduct of an accused is relevant, if such conduct influences or influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where he had concealed the weapon of offence would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act or not. (Para 78) Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Extra-judicial confession - While extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence, they can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of inducement. The court must be convinced of the reliability of the confession, and this evaluation takes into account the surrounding circumstances. (Para 6) Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : 2023 INSC 739

Failure of the major stakeholders in the criminal delivery system - Three main stakeholders in a criminal trial, namely the Investigating Officer, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities cast upon them. The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the highhandedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas Corpus petition. They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused rather than prosecuting the accused with due diligence and honesty. The Presiding Officer of the Trial Court acquitting the accused as also the learned Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision, were both well aware of the facts, legal procedures, as well as the law regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case. Both the courts below ignored the administrative reports as also the judgment of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. In fact they should have taken judicial notice of the same. They completely failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident, which was extremely relevant and material in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They failed to draw any adverse inference against the accused with respect to their guilt. (Para 107, 111) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

'Far-fetched, vague allegations' : supreme court quashes Section 498A IPC case by wife against mother-in-law & brothers-in-law. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

FIR is a public document u/s74 Evidence Act; Injured person's statement recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

'Great caution needed' : Supreme Court lists out factors to be considered while relying on dying declarations. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Habeas corpus writ not maintainable against ED alleging illegal arrest; Plea to be raised before Magistrate. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

HC can act on Section 482 petition to quash FIR even if chargesheet has been filed during its pendency. Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

How can we start selling bail like this: supreme court says onerous bail conditions must not be imposed ordinarily. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

If an escaped convict already serving life term is subsequently convicted, subsequent sentence will run concurrently with previous life sentence. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 647

If the sale of liquor is dangerous to public health, it becomes an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. (Para 65) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

In a cheque case against a company, persons can't be made accused only because they're managing the company's business. Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

'In sectarian conflict, mob uses sexual violence to send a message of subordination; state bound to stop this'. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

In the case on hand, the detaining authority has specifically stated in the grounds of detention that selling liquor by the detenu and the consumption by the people of that locality was harmful to their health. Such statement is an expression of his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Not only that, the detaining authority has also recorded his satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the detenu from indulging further in such activities and this satisfaction has been drawn on the basis of the credible material on record. No error, much less an error of law, in the impugned judgement of the High Court. Appeal dismissed. (Para 71) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

In time of sectarian violence, mobs use sexual violence to send a message of subordination to the community that the victims or survivors hail from. Such visceral violence against women during conflict is nothing but an atrocity. It is the bounden duty of the state – its foremost duty, even – to prevent people from committing such reprehensible violence and to protect those whom the violence targets. (Para 17) Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

'Investigate if Manipur police officers colluded with violence' : Supreme Court to supervising officer - Directions. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

Judge also has a public duty to see that the guilty man does not escape : the supreme court upholds the conviction of a man for killing wife. Wazir Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 : 2023 INSC 674

Law with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence - Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - Facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 18, 19) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Magistrate can take cognizance of a protest petition after rejecting the police final report. Zunaid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 730 : 2023 INSC 778

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act does not curtail power of police investigation under Cr.P.C. Dhanraj N. Asawani v. Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 652 : 2023 INSC 710

Marking of Evidence - the marking of a piece of evidence as ‘exhibit’ at the stage of evidence in a Trial proceeding is only for the purpose of identification of evidence adduced in the trial and for the convenience of the Court and other stakeholders in order to get a clear picture of what is being produced as evidence in a Trial proceeding. (Para 85) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Mere urging that delay casts a suspicion on the investigation, without any evidence being led in furtherance thereof, cannot be sustained. Inordinate delay has been taken as presumptive proof of prejudice, but in particular cases where the accused is in custody. (Para 30) Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

Merely because the prosecution witness has made a statement that he did not author the first information report the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved especially when there is an admission on his part with respect to the signature made in the FIR. (Para 5) Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 50 - Accused were not informed about their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer - There was a violation of the safeguard provided by Section 50 of the NDPS Act - Conviction cannot be sustained. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Only when the conviction arise out of the single transaction, concurrent sentence would be merited - Where there were several transactions over a period of time for which the cheques tendered towards payment, were dishonoured, convict cannot take benefit out of the ratio in V.K. Bansal v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 211. K. Padmaja Rani v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 584

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Offences by Companies - A person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence under Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) of the Act, only if such a person was "in charge of" and was "responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company" at the time the offence was committed. Just because a person is managing a company and is involved in its day-to-day affairs, he does not automatically come under the ambit of Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 19) Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 622 : 2023 INSC 692

Newspaper reports only hearsay evidence, extra-judicial confession has no greater credibility because newspapers reported. Dinesh B.S v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 594

No evidence : Supreme Court acquits two men accused in 26 year old rape case. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Non-exhibition of Evidence - In the present case, considering the failure of State machinery and failure of the Trial Court to ensure a fair trial from the perspective of the victim side, the aspect of non-marking of the FIR and Written Statement of the deceased as an exhibit, non-production of the formal witnesses to prove the lodging of FIR/ Written Statement and the flimsy rejection of application for examination as a witness in the Trial proceeding do not vitiate the genuineness of the FIR and Written Statement, and we refuse to give any discount to the accused persons for non-exhibition thereof. (Para 89) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 and 506 - Office Altercation - Nature of allegations are of very trivial nature - there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015 – Held, that continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment - As such a petty incident which took place in their office should have been resolved by the parties on that day itself, instead of stretching it so far. (Para 6) Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 8 to Section 499 - It is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation - In this case, the accused lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that a person had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land - Defamation complaint quashed. Kishore Balkrishna Nand v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2023 INSC 675

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120A - One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself - The offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. (Para 38) Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - In a case involving 149 of the IPC one cannot expect a witness to speak with graphic detail about the specific overt act that can be attributed to each of the accused. (Para 5) Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Penal Code, 1860; Section 195A - To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A - False evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. (Para 16) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 300, 302, 304 - A duty is enjoined upon the Court of Sessions to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder. (Para 6) Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as they need to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable. The evidence regarding the Call Detail Records (CDRs) also is one which does not inspire any confidence. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed. (Para 21) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 304 Part 1 - Conviction altered from S 302 to S 304 Part 1 - the possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased cannot be ruled out - The weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon - it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. (Para 13) Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306, 107 - To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. (Para 9) Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. (Para 8) S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376(D), 228A, 506 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail - Special leave to appeal has been filed by the victim assailing the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands - The High Court noted that as the accused Jitendra Narain, an IAS officer has already been transferred to Delhi, if some stringent conditions are put, the Respondent No.2 would not be in a position to influence any of the witnesses in the Islands. The Division Bench also noticed that Jitendra Narain being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. The Court further noticed that there was no material to impress that in case he was released, he would influence the witnesses or there would be any danger of justice being thwarted. On such considerations, the Division Bench proceeded to grant bail, subject to conditions. Held, not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments. (Para 4, 12) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

Penal Code, 1860; Section 386 - The victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. (Para 22) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

Penal Code, 1860; Section 390 - Theft amounts to ‘robbery’ if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to ‘robbery’, the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt, etc., had been caused. If hurt, etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in Section 390, IPC, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. (Para 14) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 489C - Accused-appellant found to be in possession of 43 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.10. He was a vegetable vendor - Sentence of 5 years imprisonment modified to the one already undergone while retaining the conviction. Palanisamy v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details regarding how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, allegedly subjected her to dowry harassment. After leaving her matrimonial home in February 2009, the wife took no action until 2013 when she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. The allegations seem so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the in-laws. Permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would undoubtedly result in a clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. (Para 20 - 22) Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 - Arms Act, 1959; Section 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004; Sections 16, 18 and 20 – Bail Application - Appellant was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in custody throughout, except for the brief period when this Court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to the medical treatment of his wife. He has been interrogated and a charge sheet has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300 witnesses named are to be examined and, in that regard, further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending, and a supplementary charge sheet would be filed, the process will not conclude in the near future. In so far as the role alleged against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial evidence to be proved by the prosecution. Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart, there is no adverse report about the conduct of the appellant while he was out on interim bail. Further, he would also be aware that violating any of the conditions of bail would be detrimental to his own interest. In addition, it has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying good health has to undergo a reversal of bariatric surgery. Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view, taking note of the role assigned to the appellant as also the circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant in custody. Held, that the appellant is to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the appellant diligently adhering to the said conditions and participating in the process of trial. (Para 10 - 12) Pradeep Rameshwar Sharma v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699 : 2023 INSC 755

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 201 - There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the accused. Most importantly, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the accused. In any case, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 16) Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679 : 2023 INSC 739

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 307 - Accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder. The tainted investigation shows the highhandedness of the accused, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party. Adverse inference against the accused is drawn in view of their subsequent conduct. (Para 114 (b), (j)) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 333, 353 and 451 – granted the benefit of probation to a social worker who was convicted of assaulting a public servant and reduced her sentence to 1 month. The incident related to 1992 when she had barged into the office of the Directorate (Women and Child Development) and abused and pushed a public official who got injured in her right finger. The matter was over 30 years old where appellant was out on bail all these years. Now, she’s an old lady of 62 years. The court acknowledged that there was no scuffle as such and the appellant was only raising the concerns of laborers. The court was cognizant that hurting a public servant is a serious offense where a 10-year jail term can be granted. But the court while considering all the factors in totality was of the view that leniency can be shown to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal partly by upholding the conviction but at the same time reduced the jail term to 1-month simple imprisonment for offenses under sections 333 and 451 IPC. It also imposed a fine of 25,000 to be given to the injured public servant. (Para 3 - 13) Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) - Criminal Appeal against concurrent conviction in rape case - There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence - Accused Acquitted. Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592 : 2023 INSC 666

Person receiving information of crime or detecting the occurrence can investigate it. Sathyan v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 627 : 2023 INSC 703

'Presumption of innocence a human right; life & liberty are not matters to be trifled with': Supreme Court acquits 1995 murder case accused. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

Prevention of Corruption Act - HC cannot reverse special court findings on validity of sanction unless it finds that failure of justice had occurred. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The question with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised at the subsequent stage of the trial also - The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial - Competence of the court trying the accused also would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law. (Para 10) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19(3), 19(4) - Findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the accused challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said subsection (3). (Para 12-14) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595 : 2023 INSC 669

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 - Any non-compliance of the mandate of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 would enure to the benefit of the person arrested. For such noncompliance, the Competent Court shall have the power to initiate action under Section 62 of the PMLA, 2002. (Para 39) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 19 (3) - When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the PMLA, 2002 no writ of Habeus Corpus would lie. Any plea of illegal arrest is to be made before such Magistrate since custody becomes judicial. (Para 82) V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 45 - The respondent has undergone over 620 days of custody. Since in the exercise of its discretion, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent should be released on bail, we are not interfering with the order under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Para 3) Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Production of Document - At the stage of evidence, when any document/paper is formally produced for being treated as a piece of evidence, the Court looks at two basic aspects. Firstly, the existence of the document on the Court’s record and, secondly, the proof of its execution or its contents being sufficiently deposed to by a witness having requisite knowledge thereof, whereafter, the document in question is marked as exhibit. At the stage of exhibiting any document as a piece of evidence, the truth of what is stated in the document is not considered. It is left open to final evaluation at the trial after cross-examination, and the entire testimony of the witness about the existence and contents of the document is weighed in conjunction with various other factors emerging during a trial. At the final evaluation stage, the Trial Court concludes whether the document speaks the truth and decides what weight to give it for final decision. In other words, its evidentiary value is analysed by the Courts at the time of final judgment. (Para 85) Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Prolonged incarceration of undertrials violates constitutional principles of dignity & liberty: SC relaxes bail conditions imposed on Nigerian accused in NDPS case. Ejike Jonas Orji v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 670

'Prosecutor has duty to State, accused and Court; they are not representatives of any party. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 3 - A support person – whether involved from the early stages of lodging a report or brought on board shortly thereafter - can play a tremendous role in offering encouragement, reassurance, and guidance, merely from their knowledge of the legalese, armed with a compassionate child-friendly approach. Their potential in providing moral support and guidance, which directly translates to better and more just outcomes both in terms of prosecution, and rehabilitation, cannot be overstated. To fulfil their role as envisaged, their primary focus must be the child’s immediate care and protection, and to play the role of a helpful intermediary between the child, its family/guardian, and the various institutional stakeholders and authorities. In these interactions, the support person should bear in mind the principles enunciated in Section 3 of the Act, 2015 while engaging with the child victim, and their families. These include – the principles of dignity and worth, participation, best interest, safety, positive measures, non-stigmatising semantics, non-waiver of rights, equality and non-discrimination, and right to privacy and confidentiality. (Para 6) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The enactment and bringing into force of the POCSO Act was not merely in furtherance of this country’s commitment to international instruments, but its resolve to and attempt at creating a world as secure and as free from fear, for the most innocent and vulnerable section of its citizens, i.e., children and young adults. Behaviour - physical, verbal, and non-verbal, ranging from what discomfits a child to as horrifying as rape and physical sexual abuse have been criminalized. Special mechanisms to provide access to the justice delivery system, and ensure speedy justice, have been devised. Yet, a society’s commitment to such a cause does not cease by mere enactment of any law, but its willingness, and those governing and administering it, to create and ensure effective overall frameworks which support and strengthen its institutions. (Para 1) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - There are numerous aids prepared, to help in understanding the role of the support person, and how to maximise their impact. The Ministry of Women and Child Development released the Model Guidelines under Section 39 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which offers detailed guidance for the use of professionals and experts under the POCSO Act (albeit issued in 2013, i.e., prior to the POCSO Rules, 2020). Similarly, another useful resource tailored specifically for the use of support persons, is the ‘Handbook for Support Persons 2021 – Assisting Child Victims of Sexual Violence’ which is a handy open access resource, available for download from the internet. These resources, comprehensively elucidate child-friendly best practices, and explain what not to do, as a support person, in a lucid and accessible manner. (Para 7) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 - Importance of a support person accompanying the child victim at the time of recording statement and deposition - In addition to maintaining confidentiality of all information, and addressing the concerns of the child and family, the support person is responsible for accompanying the child during recording of statement, medical examination, depositions, and to assist in all other interactions at the investigation, pre-trial, and trial stage. The support person is to make available public or private emergency and crisis services; ensure availability of free legal aid; provide assistance with navigating the victim compensation scheme; track the status of investigation, arrest, and filing of charges of the accused person; follow the dates of the court proceedings to enable the victim or family to attend as required; and be abreast of any other developments such as grant of bail, detention status, etc. of the accused. (Para 5) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 39 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 – Directions issued on Comprehensive assessment of support persons ecosystem, Participation of relevant authorities for such assessment, Data collection from district child protection unit, Guidelines and training, Periodic training of all personnel, Reporting mechanism establishment, Standard operating procedure (sop), Role of support persons, Remuneration of support persons to be commensurate with qualification and experience, Model guidelines and precedent consideration, Comprehensive victim support, Role of support institutions and state's responsibility for implementation - Concerned authorities to file a status report by October 4, 2023. (Para 11) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 39 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rules 4, 5, and 10 - Model Guidelines - A support person is to provide information, emotional and psychological support, and practical assistance which are often crucial to the recovery of the child. This can go a long way in helping them cope with the aftermath of the crime and with the strain of any criminal proceedings – in many ways a support person acts as guardian ad litem for the child. (Para 4) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - In crimes against children, it is not only the initiating horror or trauma that is deeply scarring; that is aggravated by the lack of support and handholding in the days that follow. In such crimes, true justice is achieved not merely by nabbing the culprit and bringing him to justice, or the severity of punishment meted out, but the support, care, and security to the victim (or vulnerable witness), as provided by the state and all its authorities in assuring a painless, as less an ordeal an experience as is possible, during the entire process of investigation, and trial. The support and care provided through state institutions and offices is vital during this period. Furthermore, justice can be said to have been approximated only when the victims are brought back to society, made to feel secure, their worth and dignity, restored. Without this, justice is an empty phrase, an illusion. The POCSO Rules 2020, offer an effective framework in this regard, it is now left to the State as the biggest stakeholder in it – to ensure its strict implementation, in letter and spirit. (Para 12) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - Role of a ‘Support Person’ - From the point of registering an FIR/complaint under the POCSO Act, the victim and their family are required to interact with the police machinery, medical officers and hospitals, the Magistrate, Special Court and/or Juvenile Justice Board, the concerned CWC, and other stakeholders – which in itself can be daunting and overwhelming (over and above the already traumatic experience of the crime itself), often dissuading them from pursuing the case altogether. Noticing the need for support at various stages, the role of a ‘support person’ was institutionalised in the POCSO Rules, 2020, to fill this lacuna. (Para 3) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 - Role of a ‘Support Person’ - The present writ petition, arose from the strife caused to an individual victim in her painstaking struggle for justice while navigating the police, investigation stage, and court processes, for the prosecution of an offence under the POCSO Act. At numerous stages, she was revictimized, and faced severe hardships; the issues arising from the individual case, have been dealt with by way of continuing mandamus, wherein this court through a series of orders has monitored the aspects requiring special attention. During those proceedings, it was noticed that the role of a ‘support person’ as envisaged in the POCSO Rules, 2020, despite being a progressive step – remains unfulfilled, or is given effect to, in a partial or ad-hoc manner, thus limiting its positive potential in offering support to victims and their families. (Para 2) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rule 4(14) ‘Form-A’ - A support person has been appointed only in 4% of POCSO cases. The availability of services of a support person is not merely directory or suggestive – but a legal entitlement. (Para 9) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020; Rules 2(f), 4(8) and 5(6) - Clearly delineating the scope of assistance to be rendered by a support person, the Rules also stipulate that if the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), in contravention of its duties fails to appoint one, or for whatever reason, the child victim and their family wish to engage someone else, they are free to seek assistance from a qualified support person externally [ref: proviso to Rule 5(6)]. Termination of their services, for whatever reason, is also covered under Rule 4(11). (Para 3) Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

Registration of FIR - The Supreme Court set aside the Order of the High Court which had allowed the registration of FIR against MLA for allegedly making provocative remarks during the Panchayat elections - Requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to take fresh decisions after granting him an opportunity of hearing. Suvendu Adhikari v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 636

Registration of FIR mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence : supreme court reiterates. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 639

Section 149 IPC - Cannot expect witness to speak about specific overt act by each accused with graphic detail. Bhole v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Evidence of witnesses on behalf of the complainant in cheque cases can be taken on affidavit. Vishwakalyan Multistate Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd. v. Oneup Entertainment, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 706

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate has to examine witnesses named in the complaint before dismissing the complaint u/Sec 203 Cr.P.C. Dilip Kumar v. Brajraj Shrivastava, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 597 : 2023 INSC 670

Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. procedure mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside magistrate's jurisdiction. Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Section 27 Evidence Act - Disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629 : 2023 INSC 705

Section 307 IPC - Conviction for attempt to murder can be sustained even if injuries to the complainant were very simple in nature. S.K. Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Criminal antecedents of accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash criminal proceedings. Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 : 2023 INSC 683

Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The High Court can try to read in between the lines while considering a plea to quash the FIR. Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684

Section 50 NDPS - Conviction cannot be sustained if accused were not informed about their right to be searched before magistrate/gazetted officer. Mina Pun v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 724 : 2023 INSC 776

Sessions Court should first see if the case is of 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' before proceeding with murder trial. Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Shabby trial, tainted investigation: Supreme Court reverses acquittal of former MP Prabhunath Singh in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

'Sudden provocation as Rs. 500 for daughter not given' : Supreme Court modifies murder conviction of wife who killed husband. Nirmala Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585 : 2023 INSC 662

Supreme Court acquits convict on death row; orders immediate release. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 698 : 2023 INSC 758

Supreme Court affirms bail granted to former Andaman Chief Secretary Jitendra Narain in Port Blair gang rape case. XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

Supreme Court allows former MP & murder convict Prabhunath Singh to appear virtually for hearing on sentence. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Supreme Court dismisses Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging ED custody. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Supreme Court on evaluating criminal revision petition - Presence of party not obligatory. Taj Mohammed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 689

Supreme Court orders release of vegetable vendor convicted for possessing 43 counterfeit ten rupees notes. Palanisamy v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Supreme Court quashes Gujarat Police FIR against senior advocate & former ASG IH Syed after complainant says allegation was based on misconception. Iqbal Hasanali Syed v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 620

Supreme Court sentences former MP Prabhunath Singh to life imprisonment in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664 : 2023 INSC 738

Supreme Court sets aside order suspending conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal; asks Kerala HC to decide afresh. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Supreme Court surprised by Gujarat HC granting bail to murder accused based on 'settlement' with victim's son; chastises state for not challenging order. Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 728

Test Identification Parade - In a case where an accused himself refused to participate in the TIP, it is not open to him to contend that the statement of the eye witnesses made for the first time in Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied upon. Such a plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a TIP. However, in a case where the accused himself declines to participate in a TIP, the prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in Court during the course of the trial of the case. Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 703 : 2023 INSC 765

Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If the accused are already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, then the sanctity of TIP before the court is doubtful. (Para 13) Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2023 INSC 678

The 3 months limit under Article 22(4)(a) applies only at the initial stage till the advisory board's report. Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

The Court directed to constitute a committee of three former High Court women Judges that will essentially look at relief and rehabilitation of the survivors and to appoint officers from other States to monitor the investigation of the criminal cases related to the ethnic clashes. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 626

The grant of bail subject to onerous conditions, is ordinarily in exceptional circumstances and cannot be as a matter of course. Mursaleen Tyagi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 700

The law regarding the parameters or circumstances to be considered in granting bail or refusing bail – Discussed. (Para 9) XXX v. Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718 : 2023 INSC 767

The period of detention should be determined only after the Advisory board gives a report justifying it. (Para 33) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734

The presumption of innocence is a human right - When confronted with a situation where it has to ponder whether to lean with the Prosecution or the Defence, in the face of reasonable doubt as to the version put forth by the Prosecution, this Court will, as a matter of course and of choice, in line with judicial discretion, lean in favour of the Defence. We have borne in mind the cardinal principle that life and liberty are not matters to be trifled with, and a conviction can only be sustained in the absence of reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and insistence on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt are not empty formalities. Rather, their origin is traceable to Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India. Of course, for certain offences, the law seeks to place a reverse onus on the accused to prove his/her innocence,but that does not impact adversely the innocent-tillproven-guilty rule for other criminal offences. (Para 18-20) Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 682 : 2023 INSC 749

The Supreme Court closed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed for controlling indiscriminate circulation of child pornography and videos of gang rape and rape through WhatsApp and other social media after the expert committee constituted by the Court for the matter, submitted its report on how it proposes to address the issue. The expert committee had reached a consensus on the larger issue and had made substantial progress in addressing it. Held that, what was left to be monitored were technical aspects of implementation, which could be done by the Union. (Para 7 – 11) In Re Prajwala letter dated 18.2.2015 videos of sexual violence and recommendations, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 604

The Supreme Court emphasises the importance of “support persons” for victims under the POCSO act; issues guidelines. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 667 : 2023 INSC 745

The Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to a woman for assaulting a government official during a laborer's protest 30 years ago. Razia Khan v. State of M.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605 : 2023 INSC 667

The Supreme Court sets aside directions issued by P&H High Court regarding appearance of prosecution witnesses. State of Haryana v. Darshan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 638

The Supreme Court transfers CBI cases to Assam for pre-trial steps. Dinganglung Gangmei v. Mutum Churamani Meetei, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 729

Threatening a person to withdraw fir/complaint or settle dispute will not attract offence under Section 195A IPC. Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618 : 2023 INSC 687

To attract Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate existence of suicide. Yaddanapudi Madhusudhana Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641

'Trivial' : Supreme Court quashes 2014 criminal case over petty office altercation. Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606 : 2023 INSC 668

Unitech Case : Supreme Court rejects ED's challenge to bail granted to Preeti Chandra in money laundering case. Directorate of Enforcements v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 603

Violation of Section 19 PMLA will vitiate arrest; Magistrate should ensure that ED followed the arrest procedure. V. Senthil Balaji v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 : 2023 INSC 677

Whether the material was sufficient or not is not for the Courts to decide by applying the objective basis as it is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. (Para 71) Pesala Nookaraju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 678 : 2023 INSC 734