Electronic records objection: Though objection regarding absence of certificate under section 65B IEA not raised while marking but question put to the witness is treated as objection
The judgment in the case of Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap vs. The State of Maharashtra addresses the appeal against the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court for multiple serious offenses, including murder (Section 302 IPC), kidnapping (Sections 364 and 366 IPC), rape (Section 376 IPC), robbery (Chapter 392 read with 397 IPC), and destruction of evidence (Section 201 IPC). The High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence after reviewing the evidence, including the appellant’s extra-judicial confession and other circumstantial evidence linking him to the crime. The sentencing of lower courts set aside. Accused are set at liberty.
No moral conviction: Unless the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment or in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death presumption under section 113A IEA cannot be invoked
In this judgment, the appellant, along with his parents, was tried for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, resulting in his parents acquittal while appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304-B and one year under Section 498-A, along with a fine. The High Court upheld this conviction; however, upon further appeal, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty or harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, ultimately quashing the conviction and acquitting appellant of all charges.
SC/ST Act: As per FIR accused insulted the complainant inside his office hence does not come within public view
The judgment involves an appeal against the dismissal of petitions filed by the Appellant under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The Appellant was charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act concerning an incident registered in Crime No. 676 of 2021. The High Court had rejected the Appellant’s petitions, stating that the allegations were sufficient for trial. However, the Supreme Court found that the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under the SC-ST Act were not made out, leading to the quashing of the charge-sheet and all related proceedings by the Supreme Court, thus offering relief to the Appellant. Following an incident where he allegedly insulted a Revenue Inspector by using caste-based slurs. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the allegations in the FIR, concluded that the incident did not occur in a “place within public view,” a necessary condition for the offences under the SC-ST Act to be applicable. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and set aside the charge sheet and all related proceedings against the appellant.
Supreme court clarified the celebrated Uma devi judgment. State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006 (4) SCC 1). (hereinafter umadevi judgment)
“…Right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood….
Dock identification not relied since the Test Identification was not conducted
In the criminal appeal arising from the conviction of Wahid and Anshu, the court found insufficient corroborative evidence regarding the recovery of looted articles, thus granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. Despite the prosecution’s arguments and witness testimonies, the court determined that the evidence was not compelling enough to uphold the lower court’s convictions. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. They were reported to be on bail, and their bail bonds were discharged.
Transfer of malice: Act of accused was nothing but murder under section 302 IPC r/w section 301 IPC
In the judgment delivered on January 30, 2025, in this case, the Supreme Court revisited the appellant’s conviction originally for murder under Section 302 of the IPC, which was subsequently altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I. The Court acknowledged the significance of the year of the incident (1992) and the appellant’s age (74 years), resulting in a reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone. The Court upheld the High Court’s acceptance of two eyewitness testimonies that implicated the appellant, ultimately dismissing the appellant’s appeal and disposing of the case accordingly.
No Original Documents No Registration of Deed?
In this judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras examined an appeal filed by P. Pappu against the dismissal of his writ petition challenging a refusal check slip issued by the Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, concerning a release deed. The Court noted that the provisions of Rule 55-A were meant to prevent fraudulent transactions but maintained that there should not be an absolute bar on registration without the original documents, as clarifications from the Inspector General allowed for exceptions. Ultimately, the Court set aside the previous orders and directed the Sub Registrar to register the release deed once re-presented by the appellant within four weeks, without insisting on the production of originals within 15 days of presentation. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.
Murder case: Asphyxia can be caused by Chronic tuberculosis and the ligature marks on the neck might be due to long journey of dead body
The document discusses the legal principles regarding the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, focusing on the standards established in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. It elaborates on the need for a conclusive chain of evidence to establish guilt and the responsibilities of both the prosecution and the accused, particularly in relation to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which places a burden on the accused to explain circumstances when the prosecution has met its initial burden. The case details also include instances where key witnesses turned hostile, leaving the prosecution reliant on formal witnesses and their testimonies for establishing the facts of the case. Accused acquitted.
Firearm: Acquittal: Ballistic report opined that two bullets found in the bodies were not sufficient for comparison with the test fired bullets
In the case of Siba Nial @ Trilochan vs. State of Odisha, the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Dhaneswar Kata and his wife, Nirupama Kata, which had been affirmed by the High Court. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on witness testimonies that were found to be inconsistent and lacking in direct evidence linking the appellant to the crime, as key witnesses did not identify any culprits and there were significant gaps in the timeline of events. Additionally, the forensic evidence, including the postmortem and ballistic reports, did not conclusively support the prosecution’s claims. Given these deficiencies and discrepancies, the Court concluded that the guilt of the appellant was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the appellant’s immediate release from jail.
Dowry death: Acquittal: Evidence on record is full of omissions amount to material contradiction to peril the prosecution story of demand of dowry
This judgment pertains to the case where the accused was initially found guilty of the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) for causing the death of his wife under circumstances suggesting dowry-related cruelty. However, upon appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence and determined that the prosecution failed to substantiate the claim of a dowry demand of ₹4,00,000/-, concluding that the financial and social circumstances of the parties made such a demand improbable. Consequently, the court upheld the presumption of innocence and reversed the decision of acquittal, reinforcing the principle that appellate courts are reluctant to overturn an acquittal unless there is compelling evidence of guilt.
PMLA-Bail: Mandatory requirements of Section 45 PMLA not considered while releasing the accused on bail hence matter remanded back for fresh consideration
In this judgment, the Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal filed by the Union of India through the Enforcement Directorate, challenging the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Kanhaiya Prasad under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order to be unsustainable and untenable, highlighting that it failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 45 of the PMLA, which outlines strict conditions for granting bail in such cases. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration and directed that Kanhaiya Prasad surrender before the Special Court within one week, ultimately allowing the appeal.
Portions contradicted with the previous statement can be put in bracket and marked as Exhibit AA, BB, e.t.c
The law is well settled. The portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer. Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses. The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness. The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.
Discharge: When specific remedy is available under section 397 Cr.P.C the CBI ought not to have filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C
In the present case, the Apex Court overturned a High Court order that had set aside a discharge order by a Special Judicial Magistrate, which had previously cleared the appellants of charges under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that the appellants had initially disclosed relevant information regarding a bank loan and mortgage in their first application to the AICTE when seeking approval for educational institutions. The subsequent applications contained inaccuracies regarding the mortgage, but the AICTE had not claimed to be misled or dishonestly induced to grant approvals. The Court concluded that the essential elements of cheating were not established, as the AICTE officials were not implicated in any wrongdoing, and thus restored the discharge order, allowing the appellants to stand discharged from the alleged offences.
UAPA bail granted after five years in custody
In this case, allowed the appellant’s appeal for bail after he had been in custody for nearly five years without a conclusion in trial. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but emphasized the appellant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It criticized the prosecution for planning to examine an excessive number of witnesses, which contributed to trial delays, and highlighted the need for efficient trial management. The Court granted bail with specific conditions, including restrictions on entering certain areas and requirements for online appearances, while warning that any breach of these conditions would lead to automatic cancellation of bail.
Directions issued to manage S. 138 NI Act cases effectively
Directions issued to manage S. 138 NI Act cases effectively.
