Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest: July 2023

1996 Lajpat Nagar blast case - The bomb blast caused at the behest of the accused persons resulted in the death of 13 persons and 38 persons suffered injuries. There was further damage caused to the livelihood of the shopkeepers, whose shops were burnt down due to the said bomb blast. It is evident that these accused persons were part of the plan for future blasts in the nation as well. The incident took place on May 21, 1996, i.e., approximately 27 years ago, the trial court awarded the sentence of death on April 22, 2010, i.e., more than 13 years ago are all mitigating circumstances in not awarding the sentence of death even though it falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. (Para 208) Mohd Naushad v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508 : 2023 INSC 605Accused not filing a petition to quash FIR / Chargesheet has no relevance in deciding bail application. Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 554 : 2023 INSC 637All laws on preventive detention are necessarily harsh. They curtail personal liberty of an individual, who is kept behind bars without any trial. In such cases, procedure is all a detenue has. Laws of preventive detention must therefore be strictly applied. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 529Anticipatory Bail - Personal liberty is important, but courts must also consider the gravity of offence & impact on society. Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 514 : 2023 INSC 612Arnesh Kumar Guidelines - The Supreme Court reiterated the guidelines laid down for arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for other offences punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years in its 2014 Arnesh Kumar judgement - Also directed high courts and police chiefs to issue notifications and circulars in terms of the 2014 judgement to ensure strict compliance. (Para 12) Md. Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583 : 2023 INSC 660Attempt to culpable homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. Abdul Ansar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510 : 2023 INSC 602Bail orders must be backed by reasons considering vital aspects': Supreme Court sets aside 'casual & cryptical' HC order. Rohit Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 560 : 2023 INSC 642Ballistic expert evidence - In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent. (Para 23, 24) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614Cannot grant interim protection to accused while rejecting anticipatory bail plea : Supreme Court 'amazed' at HC's self-contradictory order. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Afzal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 566Child Witness- Corroboration of the testimony of a child witness is not a rule but a measure of caution and prudence. A child witness of tender age is easily susceptible to tutoring. However, that by itself is no ground to reject the evidence of a child witness. The Court must make careful scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness. The Court must apply its mind to the question whether there is a possibility of the child witness being tutored. Therefore, scrutiny of the evidence of a child witness is required to be made by the Court with care and caution. (Para 8) Pradeep v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 501 : 2023 INSC 599Circumstantial Evidence - The 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” - The 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 - The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and 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 5-8) Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 : 2023 INSC 614Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102, 104 - the power under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to impound a passport. The reason is that the provisions of the ...

Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest: July 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest: July 2023

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers