Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 24 - 31, 2025]

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 to 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 372BNS / IPCSections 143, 147, 153 (A), 295, 436 and 332 IPC - In cases of group clashes where a large number of persons are involved, Courts must be cautious to ensure that no innocent bystander is convicted and deprived of their liberty. In such type of cases, the Courts must be circumspect and reluctant to rely upon the testimony of witnesses who make general statements without specific reference to the accused, or the role played by him. The mere presence of persons, who out of curiosity gathered to witness the incidents, should not be a ground to convict them when there is no overt act alleged against them. (Para 15) Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340Section 149 IPC - Unlawful Assembly - General statements by witnesses, without specific attribution of roles, are insufficient to convict individuals in cases involving large crowds, and the police should be cautious to book such individuals who were just bystanders without having any participation in the unlawful assembly. (Para 13) Dhirubhai Bhailalbhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 340Section 196 BNS - Promoting enmity between groups - When an offence under section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of standards of the people who always have a sense of insecurity or those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position. (Para 33) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3(5) BNS - The appellant, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, posted a video on social media featured a poem recited in the background, which the informant alleged incited enmity between communities, hurt religious sentiments, and threatened national unity. Held, the poem does not reference any religion, caste, or community, nor does it promote enmity, hatred, or disharmony. It advocates non-violence and resilience against injustice, using symbolic references (e.g., “throne”) to challenge rulers. No offence under Sections 196, 197, 299, or 302 of the BNS is made out, as the poem lacks mens rea or content to incite disharmony, wound religious feelings, or jeopardize national integration. Abetment under Section 57 BNS is inapplicable absent evidence of incitement. (Para 11 – 19) Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 362Section 302 IPC – Murder – Accused inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased which could only have been possible if the knife was already with him, which clearly indicates that he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife which obviously is a weapon sufficient to cause of death. In other words, the intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the IPC. This persuades to refrain from converting conviction from under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304-I, IPC. No fault can be found with the Trial Court and the High Court, which have rightly reached the conclusion that the accused was guilty as charged. (Para 23) Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 349Section 302 IPC - Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Reliability of Witnesses - Appellant convicted by trial court and High Court under Section 302 IPC for stabbing deceased during an altercation - Held, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Eyewitness testimonies unreliable due to inconsistencies, absence of bloodstains on witnesses' clothes despite carrying bleeding deceased, failure to report incident to nearby police, and delayed recording of statements - Prior enmity between appellant and deceased raised possibility of false implication - Conviction unsustainable; appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Judgments of trial court and High Court set aside - Appeal allowed. (Para 21 & 22) Aslam @ Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365Section 306 and 420 IPC - Abetment of suicide - Cheating - Quashing of Proceedings – Held, there was no proximate or direct instigation leading to the deceased's suicide. The time gap between the alleged fraudulent acts and the suicide indicated the absence of immediate provocation. FIR quashing under Section 306 IPC upheld, but reinstated under Section 420 IPC. The High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning for quashing the case under Section 420 IPC despite material evidence collected during the investigation. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case under Section 420 IPC, and the accused were given the liberty to seek discharge in accordance with the law. Appeal partly allowed. (Para 15, 18 & 19) R. Shashirekha v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363Section...

Supreme Court Weekly Digest March 2025 [March 24 - 31, 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags