Approver: Evidence of approver can be admitted even he did not inculpate himself with the crime
Since the approver did not inculpate himself with the privy of the crime, the Hon’ble High court dismissed the approver’s testimony, set aside the death sentence conviction, and acquitted the respondents. But Hon’ble Supreme court after discussed sections 133, 157 Evidence Act and section 306 Cr.P.C has concluded that once the approver is being removed from the category of co-accused and become the prosecution witness his sole testimony can be admitted with a little corroboration even he did not inculpate himself with the privy of crime.
Kidnapping: Except kidnapping prosecution did not prove the demand and threat hence section 364A IPC would not attract
Child testifies that his father taught him details – Defense theory suggests accused were known to parents – defence did not prove prior enmity between the accused and the parents – except kidnapping prosecution failed to prove demand and threat and hence section 364A IPC not applicable.
Procedure: Sample collection: Assistant Director has no power to seize the sample of meat under Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle preservation Act 1964
The main issue is that the Assistant Director, who was not legally authorised to take the sample, voluntarily took the meat sample. He also did not issue notice to first three respondents. As a result, Apex Court confirmed the Hon’ble High Court’s order quashing the FIR finding the Assistant Director’s sample collection act was entirely unlawful.
No discharge after framing of charges: MLA is not a person who can be removed with the sanction of the government
Suo-Motu revision was taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court against the discharge order on the second discharge application – Suo-Motu Crl.R.C No: 1559 of 2023.
Section 202 cr.p.c: In cases where jurisdiction is involved as per section 202 cr.p.c Magistrates must wait till the report is received and thereafter summon the accused
Head notes: Challenge is against the dismissal of quash petition against the compliant filed – Section 202 cr.p.c explained in detail – Magistrate called for report under section 202 cr.p.c after evidence (sworn) was over – Police did not file the report under section 202 cr.p.c – Magistrate ought to have waited till the report was received but summoned the accused – Remand is warranted – Dispute is civil nature and no allegation that the accused company was involved in transaction between 2nd accused and 1st respondent-complaint – Quash set-aside and allowed the appeal.
Conviction: Witnesses cannot expected to remember the timing correctly after six years from the incident
Head note: There is no infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court, The accused was convicted as per the evidence of the injured witness and the appeal is dismissed..
Cancellation of bail: Cancelling the bail which granted by another single judge by examining the merits tantamount to judicial impropriety/indiscipline
Head note: Challenge against the order cancelling the bail application – Appellants were added solely on the basis of confessional statements – State preferred cancellation of regular bail – Cancellation of bail came before the single judge who had not granted the bail – Cancelling the bail which granted by another single judge by examining the merits tantamount to judicial impropriety/indiscipline – Law regarding difference between grant of bail and cancellation thereof – Cancellation of bail should come before the same judge who granted bail.
Acquittal: If there are convincing eyewitnesses then non-examination of expert does not affect the prosecution case
Head note: Evidence: appreciation and analysis – Motive for the present incident: In village election informant voted against the accused wife. Also there were case and a case-in-counter going on – Appellant shot PW-1 with gun but the first gunshot hit P.W-1’s mother and she died at the spot – In cross-examination PW-1 states when her mother collapsed he cried but did not hugged her mother but gone to his brother who wrote the FIR but did not accompany PW-1 to the police station – Defence taken was PW-1 while examining a country made pistol a bullet was fired accidently – Appellant acquitted.
Quashing fir: High court cannot conduct mini investigation under section 482 cr.p.c as per Neeharika Infrastructure case
Head note: Prayer – Following Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd case – Conclusion: Crl.O.P dismissed.
Quash set-aside: Prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub-Registrar as per section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908
Quash set-aside: Prosecution may be lodged by or with the permission of the Sub-Registrar as per section 83 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Cheque case: Director cannot be prosecution if the cheque was issued by the company after his resignation
N.I Act: Director cannot be prosecuted after his resignation.
Maintenance: If a person fails to pay the maintenance can either be arrested for non-compliance or his properties both movable and immovable including salary can be attached
Head note: Prayer – Fact – Trial Court order – Petitioner side Argument – Respondent Side Argument – Findings – Impact of fails to comply with the maintenance order of court – Attachment of salary is very much valid – Party.
Warrant: Magistrate has power to issue warrant under section 73 Cr.P.C during investigation also
Head note: Non-bailable warrant issued against absconding, accused police officials – accused aided in kidnapping and extortion and Seeking to issue an Non Bailable warrant for the investigation of the police officials under section 73 of crpc.
JURISDICTION OF COURT OF SESSION IN AN APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL IN A COMPLAINT CASE
An article by Thiru. M.Karunanithi., Advocate, Madruai., (Special Public Prosecutor., CBI) & Member, Law Commission of India.
Circular to all Magistrate courts: Criminal courts cannot return final reports for not enclosing certain reports collected during investigation
Head notes: Prayer – Fact – Petitioner’s side Argument – Respondent’s Side Argument – Reference with Supreme Court &High Court Cases – Finding & Conclusion – Madras High Court’s directions – All online final reports will be in compliance of rule.25 Cr.R.P 2019 – Magistrates shall not return the final report on the ground that reports are not enclosed – Direction to the registry to circulate to all criminal courts.
Modification of sentence: Profile of the appellant who is the doctor was considered and reduced the sentence into of fine
Head note: Challenge – Complaint, Trial, Conviction & Appeal confirmed – Criminal revision dismissed – Prayer is to modify the sentence of imprisonment to that of fine – Proper sentence & judgment quoted – Profile of the appellant who is the doctor was considered.
Though the judge assigned reasons retaining file of a case after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety
Head note: The contention is the judge has delivered a detailed judgment after he demitted his office – Though the judge assigned reasons retaining file of a case after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety.
Quash: Normal rule is prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations were withdrawn
Head notes: Factual aspects – Defamation complaint against the petitioner and the appellant seeking transfer – Appellant defamed the Gujarati people as ‘thugs’ – Petitioner withdrawn the offending statements – Respondent was not ready to quash the complaint – Normal rule is prosecution for defamation cannot be quashed on the ground that the offending allegations were withdrawn – Case quashed.
Sentence reduced: It is important to analyse the role of every accused participated in the crime
Head note: Challenge against the conviction under section 302 IPC – Case of the prosecution – Witnesses introduction – Registration of FIR – Charge-sheet and committal – Trial and conviction – High court initially acquitted all the accused – further Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of High court and remanded back – On remand Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the criminal appeals hence this criminal appeal – High Court and Trial court stands out in the culpability of A-3 – Evidence against Accused No.3 – Both Trial and High Courts have mechanically drawn inference against A3 – Apex court analysing the role of the accused in the crime – A-3 did not have intention to kill the deceased – A-3 did not share common intention – A-3 was not liable for section 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC but is liable for section 304 part. II IPC – Previous Judgments of Apex court regarding commuting sentence – Exact role of participation of A-3 – Sentence modified.
Reversal of Acquittal: Appellate court cannot reverse the acquittal on fresh appreciation of evidence and without recording any illegality error of law or of fact in the Trial court judgment
Head note: Challenge: Trial court acquitted the appellants but Hon’ble High court reversed the acquittal and held the appellants guilty of murder hence this appeal – Analysing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court – Issue: Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the order of acquittal – The accused are not unknown to the victims – Presumption of innocence gets strengthened once accused acquitted – Points for consideration while reappreciate and reverse the order of acquittal into one of conviction – The infamous two views theory: When two views are possible, following the one in favour of innocence of the accused is the safest course of action – Conduct of P.W-3 analysed – Conduct of P.W-3 kept on sitting at the bus stand the entire night and further did not inform the outpost police about the incident inspires no confidence – Conduct of P.W-3 informing P.W-2 (after 18 hours) about the incident would inspire confidence if P.W-2 was residing close proximity – Conduct of P.W-3’s presence at the place of incident doubtful though there was a heavy assault by multiple accused persons but did not do any harm to P.W-3 – Conduct of P.W-4 unbelievable: P.W-4 self-admitted himself in the hospital despite he was unconscious – Injuries not believable: Injuries on the P.W-4 as per the wound certificate were simple in nature even though he was attacked by an axe at three sensitive places – Trial court was carefully analysed and appreciated all the factors – High court cannot reverse the acquittal without recording any illegality error of law or of fact in the Trial court judgment
Section 138 N.I Act: Time barred debt or not itself a prima facie for evidence and cannot invoke section 482 cr.p.c to quash the same
Head note: Challenge against quashing the summoning order u.s. 138 N.I Act – Quash is based on time barred cheque – Time barred debt or not itself prima facie for evidence and cannot invoke section 482 cr.p.c to quash the same.
Successful prosecutions – A few ideas
An article by Thiru. M.Karunanithi., Advocate, Madruai., (Special Public Prosecutor., CBI) & Member, Law Commission of India.
Head note: Hon’ble Supreme court – Facts: Murder for gain – Unlawful assembly not attracted – Test Identification Parade usually conducted immediately after the arrest – Vague and bald statements of the witnesses regarding the injuries caused to them – Confronting s.161 statement – Cannot connect accused with the injuries (crime) – Recovery: It is necessary to examine the person from whom the ornaments were brought.
Life sentence reduced: No separate sentence for POCSO is imposed while maintaining conviction under section 376 AB IPC
Head note: Death sentence reduced into imprisonment for life in High Court – Challenge is on the question of sentence alone – Trial and sentence – Alternative for life punishment is rigorous imprisonment not less than 20 years with fine – The act of appellant is only barbaric and not brutal – Reason for referring the act as barbaric – In capital punishment only constitutional courts can modify or fixed the term for life sentence – Life sentence modified for 30 years includes the period already undergone – Alternative punishment under section 42 of the POCSO Act – No separate sentence for POCSO is imposed while maintaining conviction under section 376 AB IPC.
Limitation: Court cannot use the judgment decided on the complaint case for police cases
Head note: Prayer – Issue raised – Judicial Magistrate issued notice to the prosecution under section 473 cr.p.c (want of limitation) – Kishore vs. State – Information to the police is akin to a complaint under section 2(d) crpc – General principle of criminal law – Old code, 1898 Cr.P.C: Prosecution need not be quashed based on delay in instituting the complaint – Law commission recommendation to introduce limitation in prosecution – Introduction of limitation for prosecution in new Code, 1973 – Difference between information and complaint – Cognizance – Sarah Mathew’s case deals with the complaint and not with the police report – In Kishore vs. State Hon’ble Madras High court mixed up the word information as complaint – How to use judgments? Courts should place reliance on decisions as to how the factual situation fits- FIR quashed – Notes for understanding for students – Author’s note.
Section 391 Cr.P.C: If no questions put to the witnesses or lead evidence the appellate court has no obligation to allow application filed under section 391 Cr.P.C
Head note: Challenge – Facts – Petition for sending cheque for handwriting expert is dismissed by trial court – Application under section 391 Cr.P.C dismissed for additional evidence is dismissed by the appellate court – Law regarding section 391 Cr.P.C – Appellate court noted that not a single question was put to the witness regarding the issue on hand – Section 118(e) N.I Act presumption regarding indorsements is in favour of the complainant and the accused could rebut by leading evidence – Accused could have procured a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the bank to prove the signature in the cheque is not genuine – Accused did not put any question to the bank official regarding the genuineness of signature in the cheque – If no questions put to the witnesses or lead evidence in the trial court the appellate court has no obligation to allow application filed under section 391 Cr.P.C.
SC/ST Act: No intention accused had to insult the complainant based on her caste
Head note: Apex Court – Compromise petition filed under section 320 Cr.P.C and allowed for some IPC offences but denied for section 3(1)(xi) SC/ST Act – Hon’ble High court in appeal accepted the compromise application in respect of other IPC offences but reduced the sentence of SC/ST Act – Hon’ble Supreme court finds no intention that the accused had to insult complainant based on her testimony
