Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest November 2022

Circumstantial Evidence - In order to sustain conviction, the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused only and none else. The circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 33] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bai - The powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused - In a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case - Unless a strong case based on any supervening event is made out, an order granting bail is not to be lightly interfered. (Para 19 - 20) Bhuri Bai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 956

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 125 - Income tax returns do not necessarily furnish an accurate guide of the real income. Particularly, when parties are engaged in a matrimonial conflict, there is a tendency to underestimate income. Hence, it is for the Family Court to determine on a holistic assessment of the evidence what would be the real income. (Para 10) Kiran Tomar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 904

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 161 and 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Sections 145,157 - Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are inadmissible in evidence and its use is limited for the purposes as provided under Sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act - statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can also be used only for such purposes. (Para 20) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible. (Para 29, 44) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 164 - Rape victim's statement made under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person (including accused) till charge-sheet/final report is filed - Referred to State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (2014) 8 SCC 913 and A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 505 - Appropriate modifications / amendments be made to the Criminal Practice/Trial Rules incorporating provisions consistent with the directions issued by this Court in these decisions. X v. M Mahender Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 899

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 293 - Ballistic Report forwarded by Director/ Deputy Director/ Assistant Director of a lab under the seal can be said to be in compliance with the statutory requirement under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (Para 167-171) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 319 - Discretionary and extraordinary power which should be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant - The crucial test has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. (Para 11-12) Naveen v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 897

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41A - The observations made in the impugned judgment [State of Telangana vs Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K.] which are contrary to the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 would not be treated as a binding precedent in the State of Telangana. Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. v. State of Telangana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 428 - An indispensable requirement to invoke Section 428 of Cr.P.C. is that there must be a conviction. The conviction must be followed by a sentence of imprisonment. It must be for a term and it should not be imprisonment in default of payment of fine - However, for it to be invoked the existence of detention undergone by the convict during investigation, enquiry or trial in the 'same case' is indispensable. If these requirements are satisfied, the convict would be entitled to the set off for the period of detention which he has undergone. (Para 12) Vinay Prakash Singh v. Sameer Gehlaut, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - SLP against order of HC that imposed anticipatory bail condition that accused will return the salary which she has received while working as a Panchayat Teacher - Allowed - Additional condition of returning the amount drawn by her as salary on appointment as Panchayat Teacher is neither justified nor required under the law while grant of pre-arrest bail to her - HC direction in not sustainable legally and hence set aside. Divya Bharti v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 961

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Rape accused granted bail by the High Court observing that allegations are matter of trial and there is no need of custodial trial - Even the observation that there is no need of further custodial trial is also not relevant aspect while considering the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The same may have some relevance while considering the application for anticipatory bail - Relevant aspects which are required to be kept in mind while considering the bail application are: Seriousness of the offence alleged; material collected during the investigation; statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, etc.- HC directed to reconsider the bail application afresh. X v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 972

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Complaint on the basis of which FIR came to be registered does not disclose any act of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime - Criminal proceedings quashed. Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Scope of exercise of power under Section 482 - Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist - If FIR and the materials collected disclose a cognizable offence and the final report filed under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C. on completion of investigation based on it would reveal that the ingredients to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act and a prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial. (Para 18) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 145,146 - Once the Civil Court is seized of the matter, the proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C. cannot proceed and must come to an end - The interse rights of the parties regarding title or possession are eventually to be determined by the Civil Court. Mohd. Abid v. Ravi Naresh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 921

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 378, 386 - Jurisdiction of the High Court in Appeals against Acquittals. (Para 73-77) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 32 - Clubbing of FIRs - Plea of accused seeking consolidating of all existing and future cases or FIRs/chargesheets to a particular Court or police station - Such direction, if given, would override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure on jurisdictional provisions without notifying the existing as also potential complainants in any manner whatsoever - The alleged cheating and connected offences have occurred at different parts of the country and each victim under the existing provisions of law has a right to prosecute his complaints against the accused through the law enforcement agency under normal circumstances having power to conduct investigation in the particular territory where complaint is lodged - A person who has lost money in, for instance, the State of Telangana cannot be compelled to lodge an F.I.R. only in the Surajpur police station in Uttar Pradesh. We have to consider his inconvenience as well. It is not our opinion that consolidation of F.I.Rs. or cases cannot be directed at all, but such exercise can be undertaken in a given case depending upon the facts and circumstances of such case. Present case does not warrant invoking such powers. Anubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 980

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 161 - Grant of Remission - Governor, in the matter of remission of an appellant convicted under Section 302, was bound by the advice of the State Cabinet. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Judicial Review - Appeal against the High Court judgment which allowed the request for remission itself on the premise that it is covered by the policy - It was not within the domain of judicial review for the learned judge to have himself exercised the power of remission - Though we do not find the exercise of power in the impugned judgment in accordance with law, we would not like to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India insofar as now the respondent having been given the benefit of remission, it would not be appropriate to put him back in custody. State of Haryana v. Daya Nand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 948

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of criminal trial - Murder of former AP Minister YS Vivekananda Reddy from Andhra Pradesh - For transfer of a criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice may not be done - However the Court has to see whether the apprehension alleged is reasonable or not. The apprehension must not only be imaginary, but must appear to the court to be a reasonable apprehension - Petitioners being daughter and wife of the deceased have a fundamental right to get justice as victim and they have a legitimate expectation that criminal trial is being conducted in a fair and impartial manner and uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations - This is a fit case to transfer the trial and further investigation on larger conspiracy and destruction of evidence to the State other than the State of Andhra Pradesh - Trial Transferred to CBI Special Court at Hyderabad. Suneetha Narreddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 996

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - Threefold object of conducting TIP - Necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade -TIP to be held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused - Healthy ratio between suspects and non­suspects during a TIP - TIP is not just an empty formality. (Para 25 - 31) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Criminal Justice System - The criminal justice system of ours can itself be a punishment - The present appeals were preferred assailing that order and interim stay was granted at the threshold. The trial of course naturally did not proceed in view of the stay by this Court. The matter has rested at that for the last thirteen years. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The five golden principles laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 (Para 6) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Defective investigation by the investigating authorities by itself does vitiate the case of the prosecution when there are credible eye-witness testimonies as well as other compelling pieces of evidence. (Para 140) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Criminal Trial - Draft Rules of Criminal Practice 2021; Rule 4 - That some High Courts or governments of the States/ Union Territories have failed to comply with this court's order and are delayed in adopting the Draft Rules or amending the concerned police/practice manuals, cannot prejudice the right of an accused to receive this list of the statements, documents, material, etc. in the possession of the prosecution - To say that the judgment in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510 in relation to this, and the right of the accused to receive the said list of documents, material, etc. would only apply after the draft rules are adopted – would lead to an anomalous situation where the right of the accused in one state, prejudicially differs from that afforded to an accused, in another. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 923

Criminal Trial - Extra Judicial Confession - When the extra judicial confession is not duly proved, or does not inspire confidence or is not corroborated by any other reliable evidence, the conviction could not be based solely on such weak piece of evidence. (Para 8) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together Theory - The failure of the accused, in a case based on circumstantial evidence which included "last seen together theory", to explain under Section 313 Cr.PC as to under what circumstances the victim suffered death, would also not be a ground to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the accused were involved in the commission of the alleged crime - If there is considerable time gap between the persons seeing together and the proximate time of the crime, the circumstances of last seen together, even if proved cannot clinchingly fasten the guilt of the accused. (Para 11-12) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Motive - Sufficiency or insufficiency of motive does not have a direct bearing on the actual evidence against the accused, particularly when the prosecution relies on direct evidence of injured eyewitnesse. (Para 82-85) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Criminal Trial - Motive - Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. (Para 14) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Skull Superimposition Technique - Though identification of the deceased through superimposition is an acceptable piece of opinion evidence, however the courts generally do not rely upon opinion evidence as the sole incriminating circumstances, given its fallibility, and the superimposition technique cannot be regarded as infallible - When the super-imposition report is not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the super-imposition test - When as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else. (Para 13) S. Kaleeswaran v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 903

Criminal Trial - Test Identification Parade (TIP) - If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless. (Para 29) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Criminal Trial - Where there are credible injured eye-witness testimonies, certain minor variations, such as non-recovery of blood-stained clothes, certain other weapons etc. will not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. (Para 164) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Death Penalty - It may be true that if the accused involved in the heinous crime go unpunished or are acquitted, a kind of agony and frustration may be caused to the society in general and to the family of the victim in particular, however the law does not permit the Courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone. No conviction should be based merely on the apprehension of indictment or condemnation over the decision rendered. Every case has to be decided by the Courts strictly on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any kind of outside moral pressures. Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Death Penalty - Supreme Court acquits three persons who were sentenced to death by the trial court and the High Court for rape and murder of a 19-year old girl- Supreme Court notes lapses in investigation and trial - No Test Identification of accused done- Accused no identified during trial by witnesses- many witnesses no cross-examined- recoveries not proved. [Paras 32-34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Death Sentence - Effect of delay in execution of death sentence due to pendency of Mercy Petition discussed. (Para 12-17) B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Death Sentence - Solitary Confinement - Accused sentenced to death for rape and murder of a housewife - The incarceration in solitary confinement and segregation from 2006 to 2013 was without the sanction of law and completely opposed to the principles laid down by this Court in Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration & Ors (1978) 4 SCC 494 - The incarceration in solitary confinement thus did show ill effects on the well-being - He is entitled to have the death sentence imposed upon him to be commuted to death sentence to life - He shall undergo minimum sentence of 30 years and if any application for remission is moved on his behalf, the same shall be considered on its own merits only after he has undergone actual sentence of 30 years - If no remission is granted, the sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean till the remainder of his life. B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Death Sentence - When there is challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by acts of terrorism, such acts are taken as the most aggravating circumstances - The cumulative effect of the aggravating factors and the mitigating circumstances must be taken into account before the death sentence is awarded. (Para 29-30) Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 165 - Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act confers unbridled powers upon the trial courts to put any question at any stage to the witnesses to elicit the truth. The Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but issupposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion. [Para 34] Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 926

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B - The decision in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473 as clarified in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 1 is the law declared on Section 65B of the Evidence Act. (Para 22-24) Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 9 - The evidence of a TIP is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial. Therefore, TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained. (Para 26) Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 955

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Rising rate of juvenile delinquency in India is a matter of concern and requires immediate attention - We have started gathering an impression that the leniency with which the juveniles are dealt with in the name of goal of reformation is making them more and more emboldened in indulging in such heinous crimes - It is for the Government to consider whether its enactment of 2015 has proved to be effective or something still needs to be done in the matter before it is too late in the day. (Para 79) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice Act would thus be extended to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence inspiring confidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he is alleged to have committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to his rescue. (Para 72) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Juvenility Claims - Age Determination Techniques - There are better techniques available and are used for determination of age across the world. For example, the United States Immigration Department uses 'wisdom teeth' technique for determination of age - Another technique is 'epigenetic clock' technique - Such techniques should be introduced in our country as well. (Para 75) State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Kathua rape-murder case - SC sets aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court which held that one of the accused in the Kathua rape-murder case was a juvenile - The accused was not a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence and should be tried the way other co-accused were tried in accordance with the law. Law to take its own course. State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Shubam Sangra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 965

Mercy Petition - Procedure governing petitions for mercy in death sentence cases provides the mercy petition must be filed within seven days of the disposal of the appeal or dismissal of special leave petition - The concerned instructionrequires suitable modification so as to enable the convicted accused to file mercy petition after exhaustion of remedies in Court of law. (Para 29) B.A. Umesh v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 907

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 2(xvii) - Once it is found that the seized material contain 'morphine' and 'meconic acid' it is sufficient to establish that the seized material comes within the definition of Section 2(xvii) of the NDPS Act (opium poppy). State of Himachal Pradesh v. Angejo Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 990

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 21 - The quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the "small or commercial quantity" of the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Intelligence Officer, Thiruvananthapuram v. K.K. Naushad, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 978

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - Presumption under Section 139 includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. Jain P. Jose v. Santhosh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141 - For maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of NI Act, arraigning of the company as an accused is imperative and non-impleadment of the company would be fatal for the complaint. (Para 19-21) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138, 141, 142 - Whether the amendment in the complaint and the impleadment of an additional accused subsequent to filing of the complaint is pemissible? The argument that an additional accused can be impleaded subsequent to the filing of the complaint merits no consideration, once the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 142 of NI Act has expired. More particularly, in view of the fact that neither any effort was made by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings to arraign the company as an accused nor any such circumstances or reason has been pointed out to enable the Court to exercise the power conferred by proviso to Section 142, to condone the delay for not making the complaint within the prescribed period of limitation. (Para 22-23) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138,141 - Whether it is necessary to specifically state in the complaint that the person accused was in charge of, or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - the liability arises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account of holding an office or a position in a company. Therefore, in order to bring a case within Section 141 of the Act the complaint must disclose the necessary facts which make a person liable. (Para 26-31) Pawan Kumar Goel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 971

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - There is no requirement to prove a common intention for an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC - Unlawful assembly and common object discussed. (Para 143-147) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302, 304 Part II - Appeal against concurrent murder conviction of a husband accused of killing wife - Partly allowed - Modified to Section 304 Part II of IPC - there was no pre-mediation to cause the death and the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the appellant having realised his mistake had thereafter taken immediate steps to shift his wife to the hospital but unfortunately she breathed her last. Jai Karan Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 992

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide - Student committed suicide following disciplinary Action by educational institution - FIR registered against the teacher, the Head of the Department and the Principal on the complaint filed by student's father that the suicide was instigated by them - Discharging the accused, the Supreme Court observed: We find not an iota of material on record even assuming the complete charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra position would create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educational institution. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld - Wife's submission that she would not like to contest the appeal and she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life - In this proceeding, we cannot pass any order on that count. For that purpose, the wife may take such steps as may be advised. Considering the overall circumstances, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Defamation complaint against Mr. Aroon Purie (Editor in Chief of India Today) and author of an article and others - Nothing specific has been attributed to Editor-in-Chief and therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article - With regard to the role ascribed to author, his case stands on a different footing - Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial- In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial. (Para 21) Aroon Purie v. State of Nct of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894

Police Act, 1960 (Kerala) - While offences under the Indian Penal Code or under special enactments such as Prevention of Corruption Act, Arms Act and so on and so forth are substantive offences, the commission of which may make a person a criminal, an offence under certain enactments such as Kerala Police Act are not substantive offences - Protest is a tool in the hands of the civil society and police action is a tool in the hands of the Establishment. All State enactments such as Kerala Police Act, Madras Police Act etc., are aimed at better regulation of the police force and they do not create substantive offences. This is why these Acts themselves empower the police to issue necessary directions for the maintenance of law and order and the violation of any of those directions is made a punishable offence under these Acts - Kerala Police Act, 1960 is actually the successor legislation of certain police enactments of the colonial era, whose object was to scuttle the democratic aspirations of the indigenous population. (Para 45-47) Ravi Namboothiri v. K.A. Baiju, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 933

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - Appeal against High Court quashed PMLA proceedings against 'Bribe Giver' - Allowed - So long as the amount is in the hands of a bribe giver, and till it does not get impressed with the requisite intent and is actually handed over as a bribe, it would definitely be untainted money. If the money is handed over without such intent, it would be a mere entrustment. If it is thereafter appropriated by the public servant, the offence would be of misappropriation or species thereof but certainly not of bribe. The crucial part therefore is the requisite intent to hand over the amount as bribe and normally such intent must necessarily be antecedent or prior to the moment the amount is handed over. Thus, the requisite intent would always be at the core before the amount is handed over. Such intent having been entertained well before the amount is actually handed over, the person concerned would certainly be involved in the process or activity connected with "proceeds of crime" including inter alia, the aspects of possession or acquisition thereof. By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime. The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person. Directorate of Enforcement v. Padmanabhan Kishore, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 896

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; Section 3 - When the accused stand discharged of the scheduled offence, there could arise no question of they being prosecuted for illegal gain of property as a result of the criminal activity relating to the alleged scheduled offence. Indrani Patnaik v. Enforcement Directorate, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 920

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 19(1), 21 - Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault - Prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is of utmost importance and we have no hesitation to state that its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offence thereunder would defeat the very purpose and object of the Act. (Para 12-15, 22) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Maroti Kashinath Pimpalkar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 898

Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case - Supreme Court orders premature release of all 6 convicts. R.P. Ravichandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 954

Red Fort Attack case 2000 - Death penalty awarded to Lakshar-e-Toiba militant Mohammed Arif affirmed by dismissing Review Petition - Even after eschewing circumstances which were directly attributable to the CDRs relied upon by the prosecution, the other circumstances on record do clearly spell out and prove beyond any doubt his involvement in the crime in question - The suggestion that there is a possibility of retribution and rehabilitation, is not made out from and supported by any material on record - The aggravating circumstances evident from the record and specially the fact that there was a direct attack on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India, completely outweigh the factors which may even remotely be brought into consideration as mitigating circumstances on record. Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 902

Riot Victims - Supreme Court issues a slew of directions to the State for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of riot victims who have not yet been compensated - Also issues directions for revival of dormant riot cases. Shakeel Ahmed vs Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 910

Statement of Prosecutrix – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) – Sections 376 and 450 – Failure of Police to Send Seized Clothes to Forensic Laboratory – Once the court believes the version of a survivor of sexual assault, that is sufficient to establish an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC – Failure of the police to send seized articles to the forensic science laboratory would not affect the outcome in such a case – Held, there was no merit in the appeal by the appellant-accused – Appeal dismissed. Somai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 989