Honour killing: Filicide: Capital punishment modified to 20 years of imprisonment for murdering accused’s own pregnant daughter for inter-caste marriage
**Appeal Against Death Sentence** **Brief Facts:**The appellant murdered his daughter by strangulation due to her inter-caste marriage. A final report (charge sheet) was filed under Sections 302, 316, and 364 of the IPC, and the trial court convicted him on all charges, awarding the death penalty. The High Court confirmed this sentence. **Discussion and Finding:** P.W.1, the appellant’s wife, testified that the murder was an honour killing. P.W.2, the complainant, provided credible testimony that was not doubted. The absence of independent witnesses did not adversely affect the prosecution’s case. The appellant attempted to introduce a witness regarding financial transactions but did not follow through. Evidence showed that the appellant took the deceased in an auto rickshaw under false pretences and subsequently strangled her. The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death aligned with the method described. Only minor discrepancies in testimony were noted. The appellant’s contentions were rejected, and the conviction was upheld. **Capital Punishment Consideration:** The court evaluated prison conduct, probation, psychological evaluations, and mitigation reports, determining that this case did not meet the criteria for “rarest of rare” cases. The appeal was partially allowed, and the death penalty was commuted to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission.
Study on Culpable Homicide
General Study On the Criminal Laws
Posts that are important are being shared here, by going through one may get an easy understanding on the criminal laws.
Subject Study on Default Bail under section 167(2) Cr.P.C
Thorough Subject Study on Default/Statutory Bail.
Discharge: P.C Act: Even taking the entire material as correct the only suspicion which is the speed of sanctioning the proposal was a mere suspicion not enough to frame the charge
The CBI filed a final report (charge sheet) under the IPC and PC Act for a loss of ₹436 crores to the bank due to the accused company. Allegations suggest the bank incurred an undue loss while the company gained. The trial court dismissed the discharge application, but the Hon’ble High Court allowed it. The Apex Court reviewed the submissions and found no allegations against the respondent regarding the SBLC sanction. The only suspicion about the speed of the proposal’s sanction was insufficient for framing charges. The Supreme Court determined that no offence was made out against the respondent and upheld the discharge order.
Section 311 Cr.P.C: Though the accused has right to keep his defence closed till cross-examination but, the accused cannot reserve a few questions for a later point of time placing reliance on section 311 crpc
The trial court dismissed the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application as a dilatory tactic. Witnesses were extensively cross-examined, but there was no justification for their recall. The petitioner did not disclose the intended line of cross-examination. While the accused can keep their defense closed until cross-examination, they cannot reserve questions for a later time by recalling a witness. Further Hon’ble Madras High Court explained the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C and held that the petition lacks specific reasons for recalling witnesses after exhausting the right to cross-examine, making it insufficient.
Subject Study On Section 319 Cr.P.C
Digest on section 319 Cr.P.C: A Basic Understanding.
Section 319 Cr.P.C: Trial court can decide whether an application under section 319 Cr.P.C should be decided with or without waiting for cross-examination
Appeal Against the Setting Aside of Acquittal **Brief Facts of the Case:** In this case, the cross-examination of witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 was deferred. Following this, an application under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was filed by PW1. Despite being summoned, witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 did not appear for cross-examination. They were absent and subsequently submitted an application for adjournment. The trial court directed the prosecution to ensure the presence of PW1, PW2, and PW3 for cross-examination. The respondent then filed an application indicating that she had appealed the trial court’s order. The witnesses stated that they would not face cross-examination until the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was decided. Aggrieved by the above order, the second respondent appealed to the Honourable High Court, and the court granted relief. The Honourable High Court held that the judgment of the Hardeep Singh Constitution Bench mandated that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. must be decided, even in the absence of cross-examination. The Constitution Bench does not require the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to be decided solely based on the chief examination. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether the application should be addressed with or without waiting for cross-examination, based on the evidence available. Ultimately, the complainant does not possess a mandatory right to insist that the application be decided in a specific manner. The appeal was allowed, affirming the acquittal granted by the trial court.
Further Investigation can be permitted only new facts come in trial also Hon’ble Supreme Court categorised the present case as causing delay in trial for no genuine grounds exist
The Hon’ble High Court ordered further investigation in a case involving a hostile phone call from P.W.1. The accused recalled the call and filed a section 311 crpc to call up additional witnesses. The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court allowed it and directed further investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that further investigation is unwarranted and referred to it as causing delay in trial due to no genuine grounds.
Forgery case: Quashed: If in certain cases where the wrong is being settled between the parties amicably then High Court would be justified in quashing even offences that are not compoundable
The High Court dismissed a quash petition in a case involving a group loan secured by accused no.1 and collateral security executed by accused no. 3 & 4. The case involved fake title documents, a complaint, and a charge sheet filed by the CBI. The court ruled that the charges are crimes against society. The accused appealed the compromised settlement, arguing that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be futile due to the compoundable nature of cheating offenses under Article 142 of the Constitution and the application of B.S.Joshi case principles. In view of the settlement arrived between the parties continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility.
Reversal of conviction: Though post-mortem report indicates the death was unnatural and murder cannot be ruled out but since no direct eye-witness to the incident the link of causation between the accused and offence is missing
FIR and charge sheet was filed against seven accused for abduction and murder Trial court convicted 5 accused and acquitted 2 accused Hon’ble High Court convicted all the accused Discussion Question of law It is evidence that offence of murder was committed after the commission of the offence of abduction Prosecution relied on the four eye witnesses only The prosecution ought to have examined the three natural witnesses of the incident Witnesses presence at Sikandra Chowk at 10:00 PM must be explained to the satisfaction of the Court Merely because victim belonged to her family only the family members are present at the place of occurrence in natural court Mere presence of make up articles cannot be a conclusive proof and no other belongings such as clothes etc not found in the house No witness has come forward to depose that the informant was a resident of the said house Post-mortem report is not a conclusive evidence of facts mentioned in the report but if there is no such credible evidence available generally post-mortem report can be taken as true Appreciation of evidence on record to reverse the acquittal Though post-mortem report indicates the death was unnatural and murder cannot be ruled out but since no direct eye-witness to the incident the link of causation between the accused and offence is missing.
Reversal of acquittal: Any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own further accused must explain what prejudice he got in delay in forwarding the fir to the magistrate
The Prosecution Case and analysis The post-mortem report established the homicidal death. There were eleven eye-witnesses. The court depositions and analysis of evidence were considered. The apex court agrees with the reasoning given by the High Court for disbelieving P.W.42. P.W-1 did not describe the hospital room. Any person can be an informant of a case, and the police may also register a case on their own. Evidence can be relied upon, especially when the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact. P.W-25 himself is an absconded accused in a murder case. The chequered past of a witness cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts. The principle of Doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus equally applies to a declared hostile witness. Identification and non-recovery of vehicles and weapons were noted. When the accused raises a specific contention about delay in forwarding the FIR, then they must demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case. Attesting Witnesses and Retaliatory Firing. Charge of conspiracy. In light of the above discussion, Hon’ble Apex Court reversed the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court.
PMLA case: Formal arrest: If a person is already in judicial custody in connection with another case, can be formally arrested in respect of investigation of the subsequent case and section 19(3) PMLA is not bar
Violation of Section 19(3) PMLA –Petitioner not found- within 24hrs – Impugned order null and void –ED found guilty-PT warrant issued-Central jail no.4 Tihar – Inability to produce-in Judicial custody- NDPS case- not come into physical custody-Accused in judicial custody-not necessary for production of accused-Within 24hrs- not violation u/s 19 of PMLA & 167 of Cr,P.C-criminal original petition devoid of merits-dismissed-miscellaneous petition closed.
Section 307 IPC: Attempt to commit murder: Intention may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and in this case doctor’s opinion is enough
Appeal against the Judgment of the Honorable High Court Confirming the Acquittal. Background Facts and Procedural History: The appellant was abused and beaten into unconsciousness when he was appointed as the chairman of the waqf board. After being discharged from the hospital, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged under sections 294, 323, and 506 of the 34 IPC. The charges were framed under Sections 294, 332/34, and 307/34 IPC. Consideration by the Supreme Court: Section 307 IPC was considered along with its ingredients. The court must ascertain the intention and knowledge regarding the nature and extent of the injury suffered. The principle governing the application of section 34 IPC was also discussed, noting that intention may need to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case rather than relying solely on hard evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the trial court was directed to conduct the trial for the charges framed.
