Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest- May 2022

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
6 Jun 2022 4:58 AM GMT
Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest- May 2022
x

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non­cognizable. (Para 5.3) Knit Pro...

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and onwards but not more than seven years the offence is a cognizable offence. Only in a case where the offence is punishable for imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only the offence can be said to be non­cognizable. (Para 5.3) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - The sentencing hearing contemplated under Section 235(2), is not confined merely to oral hearing but intended to afford a real opportunity to the prosecution as well as the accused, to place on record facts and material relating to various factors on the question of sentence and if interested by either side, to have evidence adduced to show mitigating circumstances to impose a lesser sentence or aggravating grounds to impose death penalty. (Para 205 -212) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 24 - Public Prosecutor - A public prosecutor occupies a statutory office of high regard. Rather than a part of the investigating agency, they are instead, an independent statutory authority who serve as officers to the court. The role of the public prosecutor is intrinsically dedicated to conducting a fair trial, and not for a "thirst to reach the case in conviction". (Para 171 - 177) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Offering no explanation on incriminating circumstances mentioned above would become an additional link in the chain of circumstances. (Para 47) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 354(3) - Death Sentence - The 'crime test' and the 'criminal test' require to be followed before awarding capital sentence - Consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances with application of mind required. Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 407 - Fault or shortcoming on the part of the staff of the Subordinate Court and for that matter, any delay in compliance by the Court were hardly the reasons for the High Court to immediately adopt the course of transferring the matter. Nazma Naz v. Rukhsana Bano, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 532

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - No express executive power has been conferred on the Centre either under the Constitution or law made by the Parliament in relation to Section 302. In the absence of such specific conferment, it is the executive power of the State that extends with respect to Section 302, assuming that the subject-matter of Section 302 is covered by Entry 1 of List III. A.G. Perarivalan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission or pre­mature release has to considered in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court - The appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments under Section 432(7) CrPC. (Para 13, 14) Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 432 - Remission Policy - The application for grant of pre­mature release will have to be considered on the basis of the policy which stood on the date of conviction. (Para 9) Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah @ Lala Vakil v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 484

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Appeal against Delhi High Court order granting bail to a man accused of kidnapping and murdering the 13-year-old son of a Delhi jeweler in 2014, whose body was found in a drain in East Delhi in November 2014 - Allowed - An important circumstance which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The release of the accused on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance. Mamta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. can be cancelled discussed. (Para 24-26) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - High Court or Sessions Court have a wide discretion in deciding an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. However, the said discretion must be exercised after due application of the judicial mind and not in a routine manner - Considerations for bail discussed. (Para 13- 19) Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - Bail - Posters saying "Bhaiya is back" was put up to celebrate the release of a rape-accused on bail - Bail set aside - Brazen conduct of the accused has evoked a bona fide fear in complainant's mind that she would not get a free and fair trial if he remains enlarged on bail and that there is a likelihood of his influencing the material witnesses. Ms. P v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 448

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The circumstances in which power to quash an FIR could be exercised. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The ground that "no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the proceedings of the case" cannot be a good ground and/or a ground at all to quash the criminal proceedings when a clear case was made out for the offences alleged. (Para 6.3) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - The High Court must pass a speaking and reasoned order in such matters. (Para 6.2) Satish Kumar Jatav v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 488

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - The lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder - Even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the Court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, is enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. (Para 28) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - When an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed and said in relation to Section 438 CrPC applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 21) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21- Fair Trial - It must be emphasized that prosecution by the State ought to be carried out in a manner consistent with the right to fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 27) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 18 - The value attached to the confessional statement, while overriding the provisions of CrPC and the Evidence Act in terms of Section 18 of MCOCA, cannot be gainsaid and cannot be ignored. (Para 18) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - The expression 'other advantage' cannot be read in a restrictive manner and is required to be given its full effect. The High Court has rightly said that there could be advantage to a person committing a crime which may not be directly leading to pecuniary advantage or benefit but could be of getting a strong hold or supremacy in the society or even in the syndicate itself. (Para 14.2-14.4) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(e) - Actual use of violence is not always a sine qua non for an activity falling within the mischief of organised crime, when undertaken by an individual singly or jointly as part of organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate. Threat of violence or even intimidation or even coercion would fall within the mischief. (Para 14.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The matter of settlement because of cross-cases or a matter of acquittal because of the witnesses not turning up, could hardly be of any relevance so far as Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is concerned - What is significant and pertinent is the involvement of the person concerned in the referred activity and filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance in the offence as predicated. Acquittal or discharge is of no significance. (Para 17.5) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (Maharashtra); Section 2(1)(d) - The threshold requirement in terms of clause (d) is that of the activity/activities undertaken by the accused persons either singly or jointly, as a member of an organized crime syndicate, which involves a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of 3 years or more and in respect of which, more than one charge-sheets have been filed before the competent Court within 10 years and cognizance had been taken. (Para 17.1) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Copyright Act, 1957; Section 63 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Part II of First Schedule - Section 63 of the Copyright Act is a cognizable and non­bailable offence. (Para 7) Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 505

Criminal Investigation - Test Identification Parade - TIPs should normally be conducted at the earliest possible time to eliminate the chance of accused being shown to witnesses before the identification parade, which might otherwise affect such witnesses' memory - There is no hard and fast rule that delay or failure in holding the TIP ipso facto renders the evidence inadmissible or unacceptable; it however, affects the credibility and weight attached to such identification.(Para 100) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Being related to the victim, by itself, is no reason at all to discredit the testimony of a witness. (Para 34) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles applicable to appreciation of evidence in cases involving circumstantial evidence discussed. [Referred to Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 et al.] (149-151) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances concerned "must or should be" established and not "may be" established - The accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a court can convict him. The conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures. The entire chain of circumstances on which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. (Para 10) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Criminal Trial - Death sentence imposed on accused in case of rape and murder of 8 year old commuted to that of imprisonment for life with the stipulation that he shall not be entitled to premature release or remission before undergoing actual imprisonment for a period of 30 years - The present case cannot be considered as one falling in the category of 'rarest of rare cases'. Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Description of a witness as 'chance witness' cannot and will not by itself denude the admissibility or relevance of the evidence of such a witness if nothing was brought out to make his version suspicious and thereby unacceptable. (Para 37) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - DNA Reports - The need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence - Being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case - This court has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance was to corroborate. (Para 121) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021 - The prosecution, in the interests of fairness, should as a matter of rule, in all criminal trials, furnish the list of statements, documents, material objects and exhibits which are not relied upon by the investigating officer. The presiding officers of courts in criminal trials shall ensure compliance with such rules. (Para 179) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - Last seen theory – discussed. (Para 32-32.5) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - Last Seen Together - In absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "Last seen together", even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed. (Para 14-17) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Criminal Trial - Sanction - The validity of sanction could always be determined by the Trial Court during the course of trial where sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of cross-examining the sanctioning authority. (Para 18.2) Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - 1988 Road Rage Case - Sentence awarded to Navjot Singh Sidhu enhanced to one year imprisonment - When a 25 year old man, who was an international cricketer, assaults a man more than twice his age and inflicts, even with his bare hands, a severe blow on his (victim's) head, the unintended consequence of harm would still be properly attributable to him as it was reasonably foreseeable - The indulgence was not required to be shown at the stage of sentence by only imposing a sentence of fine and letting him go without any imposition of sentence. Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Necessity of maintaining a reasonable proportion between the seriousness of the crime and the punishment - While a disproportionately severe sentence ought not to be passed, simultaneously it also does not clothe the law courts to award a sentence which would be manifestly inadequate, having due regard to the nature of the offence, since an inadequate sentence would fail to produce a deterrent effect on the society at large - A long period had lapsed by the time the appeal was decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which was disproportionate and inadequate. (Para 25 -32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Criminal Trial - Sentencing - Public opinion neither an objective circumstance relating to crime, nor the criminal, and the courts must exercise judicial restraint and play a balancing role. (Para 227) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - The evidence tendered by the related or interested witness cannot be discarded on that ground alone. However, as a rule of prudence, the Court may scrutinize the evidence of such related or interested witness more carefully. (Para 26) Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Criminal Trial - The omission of some of the prosecution witnesses to mention a particular fact, or corroborate something, which is deposed to by other witnesses, therefore, does not ipso facto favour an accused. What is important, however, is whether the omission to depose about a fact is so fundamental that the prosecution version becomes shaky and incredulous - unless it is shown that the omission to examine a witness, who had previously participated during the investigation and whose statement was recorded by the police, undermines the prosecution case, or impacts on it significantly, the foundation of the fact or facts which are sought to be proved, remains unshaken as long as that fact is deposed to or spoken about by other witnesses, whose testimonies are to be seen in their own terms. Therefore, the omission to examine the individuals left out, but who the prosecution claimed, had participated during the investigation, did not affect its case, as far as the circumstances held to have been established by it, are concerned. (Para 159-161) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Criminal Trial - The recovery of the dead body, which was in a concealed condition from an unused and dilapidated building based on the disclosure statement of an accused is a crucial incriminating circumstance - Discovery of the body at the instance of the accused is a crucial circumstance, in a case resting on circumstantial evidence. (Para 41) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - There would be nothing wrong in relying on the testimony of police officers if their evidence is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence. (Para 40) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Criminal Trial - When other circumstances are available non-detection of blood group by itself would not be fatal. (Para 44) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Death Sentence - Appellants' conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for a minimum term of 25 years. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Death Sentence - Practical guidelines issued to collect mitigating circumstances of the accused at the trial stage- The trial court must elicit information from the accused and the state -The state, must - for an offence carrying capital punishment - at the appropriate stage, produce material which is preferably collected beforehand, before the Sessions Court disclosing psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused - State, must in a time-bound manner, collect additional information pertaining to the accused - Information regarding the accused's jail conduct and behaviour, work done (if any), activities the accused has involved themselves in, and other related details should be called for in the form of a report from the relevant jail authorities. (Para 213-217) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events. Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 503

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30 - Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession - The extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused. (Para 11-12) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32(1) - Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306 - Dying Declaration - In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act , subject to meeting certain necessary pre­conditions (1) That her cause of death must come into question in the matter - For instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC - As long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility. (2) Prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this. Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32(1) - Test for Admissibility - The cause of death must come into question in that case, regardless of the nature of the proceeding, and that the purpose for which such evidence is being sought to be admitted should be a part of the 'circumstances of the transaction' relating to the death - The test is not that the evidence to be admitted should directly relate to a charge pertaining to the death of the individual, or that the charge relating to death could not be proved. (Para 17) Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 65B(4) - Certificate under Section 65B(4) is a mandatory requirement for production of electronic evidence - Oral evidence in the place of such certificate cannot possibly suffice. (Para 20-21) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Doctrine of Res Gestae - The essence of the doctrine is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue "as to form part of the same transaction" that it becomes relevant by itself. A conduct of the accused after the incident may become admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act, though not in issue, if it is so connected with the fact in issue. (Para 36) Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 480

Fair Investigation - Supreme Court criticises Madras High Court for keeping preliminary enquiry report in sealed cover without sharing with the accused- "When the State has not pleaded any specific privilege which bars disclosure of material utilized in the earlier preliminary investigation, there is no good reason for the High Court to have permitted the report to have remained shrouded in a sealed cover. (Para 28) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Fair investigation - The principles of natural justice demanded that the appellant be afforded an opportunity to defend his case based on the material that had exonerated him initially, which was originally accepted by the State. (Para 22) S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 507

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Expeditious disposal of cases - Establishment of pilot courts presided over by retired judges in 5 districts of 5 states with the highest pendency (namely, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh) directed - Guidelines covering the pilot study issued. In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 508

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - The burden is on the prosecution to show that the person prosecuted was in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business. (Para 7) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141 - Vicarious liability in the criminal law in terms of Section 141 of the NI Act cannot be fastened because of the civil liability - Vicarious liability arises only when the company or firm commits the offence as the primary offender - Unless the company or firm has committed the offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable. (Para 11-14) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141(1) Proviso - The onus to satisfy the requirements and take benefit of the proviso is on the accused. Still, it does not displace or extricate the initial onus and burden on the prosecution to first establish the requirements of sub-section (1) to Section 141 of the NI Act. (Para 7) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 141(2) - The onus under Section 141(2) of the NI Act is on the prosecution and not on the person being prosecuted - Sub-section (2) to Section 141 of the NI Act does not state that the persons enumerated, can be prosecuted and punished merely because of their status or position as a director, manager, secretary or any other officer, unless the offence in question was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on their part. (Para 8) Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 457

Newspaper Reports - Courts cannot take judicial notice of facts stated in a news item published in a newspaper. A statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence, unless proved by the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. (Para 70) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

Penal Code, 1860; Section 124A - Sedition - All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused - If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India - We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration. (Para 8) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 124A - Sedition -Centre's affidavit that it has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision - it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. (Para 5) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 285 - Essential requirement of Section 285 of IPC was that the accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death. (Para 8) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - Even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. (Para 32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Penal Code, 1860; Section 323 - The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. (Para 24) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498

Penal Code, 1860; Section 405, 406 - The sine qua non for attracting the provision is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - To make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. (Para 8) Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 416, 420 - Essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Sections 3, 4 - Even in cases of PMLA, the Court cannot proceed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities - The allegation must be proved beyond 20 reasonable doubt in the Court -It is incumbent upon the Court to look into the allegation and the material collected in support thereto and to find out whether the prima facie offence is made out. Unless the allegations are substantiated by the authorities and proved against a person in the court of law, the person is innocent. (Para 18) J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 456

Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 5, 6 - Conviction of accused set aside after noticing that he married the victim and has two children - Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the appellant and the prosecutrix. We have been informed about the custom in Tamilnadu of the marriage of a girl with the maternal uncle. Dhandapani v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - There should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed vis-à-vis allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person, the domestic relationship should be subsisting - Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. (Para 52, 42-44) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 12 - Not mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order- Even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as a final order - The Magistrate is obliged to take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report received by him when the same has been filed from the Protection Officer or the service provider in a case where the application is made to the Magistrate on behalf of the aggrieved person through a Protection Officer or a service provider. (Para 52, 45-51) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 17(1) - Every woman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence by the respondent - She cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence - She can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act (Para 25-30,40) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 17,19 - It is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of seeking relief. If a woman has the right to reside in a shared household, she can accordingly enforce her right under Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act. If a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek relief under the provisions of the D.V. Act including her right to live or reside in the shared household under Section 17 read with Section 19 of the D.V. Act. (Para 52, 22-41) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Sections 2(f), 17 - The expression 'joint family' cannot be understood as understood in Hindu Law - The expression 'family members living together as a joint family', means the members living jointly as a family. In such an interpretation, even a girl child/children who is/are cared for as foster children also have a right to live in a shared household and are conferred with the right under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. When such a girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the protection of Section 17(2) comes into play. (Para 36) Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 474


Next Story