Section 306 IPC: Suicide: Break ups and expressing emotions through words do not constitute instigation to commit suicide but suicides depend on the victim’s mental state

**Appeal Against the Conviction for Offences Under Sections 417 and 306 IPC by the Hon’ble High Court** The appellant did not fulfill his promise to marry the deceased, as she ultimately took her own life. The deceased ingested poison and succumbed to her injuries in the hospital, following which she made statements (dying declarations) to witnesses. The mother of the deceased (P.W-1) filed a First Information Report (FIR) under section 306 in conjunction with 34 IPC. Subsequent to the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellant, indicating that there were no charges substantiated in the dying declaration provided by the deceased. The court’s rationale for acquittal was that only the deceased harbored feelings for the appellant, while the appellant did not reciprocate those feelings. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble High Court subsequently convicted the appellant. This case involves two critical dying declarations: one recorded by the Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) and another by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. Both declarations were also validated by a medical practitioner. The content of these dying declarations lacks any allegations of a physical relationship and demonstrates that the deceased alone held affections for the appellant. Furthermore, there were no claims that the appellant had instigated the deceased to ingest poison or that there existed any physical relationship between them. In the context of the abetment of suicide, as articulated under Section 306 IPC, it is essential to note that abetment is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under this provision. In alignment with Section 107 IPC, it is necessary to establish instigation to take a specific action. Instigation is defined as exceeding mere emotional expression; the mere utterance of words does not constitute instigation and does not intentionally incite another individual to commit suicide. Judicial observations have highlighted that conflicts in domestic relationships are prevalent, and the occurrence of suicide is predominantly influenced by the mental state of the victim. A review of pertinent judgments reveals that the dissolution of a romantic relationship does not amount to instigation for suicide. There exists a lack of direct evidence demonstrating that the appellant instigated or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Ultimately, the breach of a promise to marry is characterized as not a matter about a broken relationship.

Murder case acquittal: How to appreciate Circumstantial evidence is explained

The appeal revolves around the modification of a conviction from Section 302 of the IPC (murder) to Section 304, Part 1 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). After an FIR was lodged regarding a dead body found in a shop’s verandah, an autopsy revealed death due to a head injury, leading to the arrest of the appellants based on suspicion. Witnesses testified that they had seen the deceased with the accused, and the trial commenced with charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The trial court convicted the appellants under these charges, but the High Court later reduced the conviction to Section 304, Part 1. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the circumstantial evidence and found that the prosecution’s claims, including motive and the “last seen” circumstance, were insufficient; the significant time gap between when the deceased was last seen with the accused allowed for the possibility of third-party involvement. The court also determined that the recovery of a stone—claimed to be the weapon—was inadmissible, as it was not linked to the injuries through medical testimony and was based on an improper disclosure. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, concluding that the multiple injuries on the deceased indicated an intention to kill, rendering the modification erroneous.

Section 483 BNSS: Bail: Magic mushrooms are natural produce and cannot be termed a mixture and their classification as narcotic drugs depends on the psilocybin content

This is an order from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding a bail petition filed under section 483 BNSS 2023 by the petitioner who got– arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985for possession of 60 grams of magic mushrooms. The petitioner argued that magic mushrooms are not explicitly listed as a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, and the FSL report did not specify the psilocybin content. ​ The court noted that magic mushrooms themselves do not meet the definitions under the NDPS Act and cannot be assumed to contain 60 grams of psilocybin. The court also highlighted procedural violations in handling the contraband. ​ Considering these points, the court granted bail to the petitioner with conditions. The order was delivered by His Lordship Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh. J., on 27.11.2024. ​

Article: The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937- Conundrum

Author of this article is Thiru. S. James Raja, LLM student ( corporate governance and Industrial Jurisprudence) , Central University of Tamilnadu, Thiruvarur, Tamilnadu.

Courts must be loath to grant bail after trial commences

Petition against the order granting bail pending trial-Petitioner lodged FIR against the respondent under sections 376D and 342 IPC-Co-accused was released on bail long time back-Statement under section 164 CrPC was recorded by the Magistrate-After trial started respondent-2 preferred bail application was dismissed by trial court and allowed by the Hon’ble High Court based on the discrepancies between FIR and statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C-Apex court heard the parties but respondent no-2 though notice served-Hon’ble Supreme Court on the practice of courts dealing with bail applications after the trial starts-Courts are loath to entertain bail applications after trial commences-Judicial notice on granting bail after charge framing-Courts granting bail based on discrepancies in the deposition after trial commences will have its own impact on the pending trial-Conclusion-Though the Apex court did not disturb the bail granted imposed certain further conditions-Hon’ble Supreme court did not disturbed the bail order.

PC Act: Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii): Presumption can also be drawn for smaller bribe amounts further accused has not proved that rs.2000 bribe amount was a legal fee or repayment of loan

This judgment outlines the State’s appeal against a High Court decision that acquitted the accused under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. **Overview of Allegations** The case centers on the accused, a treasury assistant, who allegedly requested a bribe to facilitate the encashment of a leave salary bill. This demand was captured on tape, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. Subsequently, a trap was organized based on this information, resulting in the recovery of the bribe from the accused after a thorough investigation was conducted. A final report was compiled, and charges were duly framed under the PC Act. **Trial Proceedings**  During the trial, the prosecution presented a robust case by examining 12 witnesses and introducing 30 documents along with 10 material objects. Notably, the accused did not provide any defense evidence. The trial court ultimately found the accused guilty of offenses under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused subsequently appealed this conviction in the High Court, which led to an acquittal. As a result, the state has pursued this appeal. **Constructive Analysis** The analysis reviews the key components of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, alongside Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. It emphasizes that a presumption under Section 20 can only be warranted when the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. A Constitution Bench has clarified the process for drawing inferences regarding offenses under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act in cases devoid of direct or primary evidence. Importantly, the examination revealed no procedural irregularities in granting sanction for prosecution. **Witness Contributions** The informant (P.W.1) played a significant role by recording the demand for illegal gratification on tape and supplying this evidence to the Lokayukta police. Following the tape recording, phenolphthalein-coated currency notes were presented to P.W.3, whose hands tested positive, validating the evidence. After receiving the bribe, the accused was arrested, and a seizure Mahazar was prepared along with the collection of pertinent materials. The corroborative testimonies from P.W.2 and P.W.3 reinforced P.W.1’s account. Additionally, P.W.4 confirmed that the accused had responsibilities related to receiving and verifying the surrender leave salary bill. P.W.5 provided insights into the sodium carbonate solution test conducted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Supportive testimony was also provided by the hotel owner, while P.W.7 confirmed that the informant prepared the surrender leave salary bill. Furthermore, P.W.12, the I.O., detailed the tape recording and the events of the trap proceedings. **Conclusion** The absence of oral or documentary evidence from the accused in the defense phase brought clarity to the prosecution’s case. The Apex Court upheld the findings regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The accused was unable to substantiate, during cross-examination, that the alleged bribe constituted a legal fee or loan repayment. Notably, the accused did not indicate any loan dealings with the complainant in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The presumption under Section 20 parallels Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, shifting the responsibility to the accused to show evidence of innocence regarding the charged offenses. In applying the “two-view theory” to this case, the conclusion has been reached that the criminal appeal is justified in being allowed. This case exemplifies the ongoing efforts to combat corruption and reinforce accountability within public service.

Death penalty to acquittal: Supreme Court acquitted a death penalty accused by stating that it is shocked to see trial court imposed death penalty instead of acquitting him

The judgment addresses the conviction and sentencing of the appellant, Ashok, who was accused of raping and murdering a ten-year-old girl in 2009. The trial court had sentenced Ashok to capital punishment, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the High Court. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, found significant procedural lapses, including the failure to provide timely and effective legal aid to the appellant and the improper recording of the appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted Ashok of all charges and emphasized the importance of fair trial procedures and effective legal aid. The judgment also includes directives to ensure proper legal aid and fair trial practices in future cases. ​

Merely witnesses are relatives of deceased is not a ground to discard the testimony

The appellant is appealing against a life sentence conviction confirmed by the High Court for the murder of the deceased. The incident occurred after the appellant, angered by the removal of bricks, assaulted the deceased with a knife following a verbal altercation. The investigation concluded that the death was homicidal, as supported by the post-mortem report. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a decision later upheld by the High Court. The prosecution successfully established the appellant’s responsibility for the death, and the claim that the testimony from witnesses (who were relatives of the deceased) should be discarded was rejected. Although the evidence indicates a lack of premeditation and that only a single injury was inflicted, both the trial court and High Court correctly convicted the appellant. The question at hand is whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be maintained was answered that in the case on hand not necessary.

If unnecessary adjournment seeks for cross-examination then the courts are empowered to appoint amicus for cross-examination

We, therefore, find it appropriate that in an event the witnesses are present and the defence counsel unnecessarily seeks an adjournment, learned Trial Judge should appoint an Amicus and direct the cross examination to proceed.

Section 12 (2) POCSO Act: Head Master is the guardian of the school and dutybound to inform the POCSO offence failing which action may be taken

A former headmaster was charged under the POCSO Act for failing to report child sexual abuse. Despite not being directly involved in the abuse, he was implicated due to his negligence in not informing authorities about the incident. The court dismissed his petition to quash the charges, emphasizing the headmaster’s responsibility to protect children and report such crimes immediately.

Quash: Appellant’s possession of buttondar knife was for any of the prohibited categories as indicated in the DAD Notification and hence quashed

The appellant, Irfan Khan, was charged under Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, for possessing a buttondar knife with dimensions exceeding the legal limits. Irfan Khan filed a petition in the High Court of Delhi to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, which was rejected. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the knife’s dimensions did not violate the Arms Act or the DAD notification, as there was no evidence that the knife was meant for manufacture, sale, or test. The Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and all proceedings against Irfan Khan, stating that the prosecution’s case lacked fundamental allegations and evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

Murder case: Acquittal: No utterance of a single word by the witnesses about the illicit affair further recovery of skeletal remains not proved as per law

The appeal arises from a judgment by the High Court of Telangana, which upheld the conviction of the appellant (A1) and acquitted two co-accused (A2 and A3) in a criminal case involving charges under Sections 384, 364, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court convicted A1, A2, and A3 for various offences, including life imprisonment for murder (Section 302 IPC). The High Court upheld the conviction of A1 but acquitted A2 and A3. The prosecution alleged that A1’s wife had an extra-marital affair with the deceased, K. Nagesh. Hence, A1, along with A2 and A3, abducted and murdered K. Nagesh, and concealed the skeletal remains of the deceased’s body. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including the recovery of skeletal remains and DNA profiling with the mother of the deceased. However, the court found inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, particularly regarding the recovery, collection and identification of DNA samples. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence and the motive. The court quashed the convictions and acquitted A1, ordering his immediate release.

When doctrine of lis pendens commences?

The Supreme Court of India reviewed a previous judgment in the case of M/s Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Katta Sujatha Reddy & Ors., where the petitioner sought specific performance of a contract. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit, while the High Court partly allowed it, directing specific performance proportionate to the consideration paid. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the petitioner was entitled to specific performance. The Court concluded that the limitation period began from the date the petitioner received notice of refusal of performance. It also examined the petitioner’s readiness and willingness to perform the contract and the respondents’ failure to provide necessary documents. The Court addressed the doctrine of lis pendens, which bars the transfer of property during litigation, and concluded that it applied in this case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court recalled its previous judgment and restored the High Court’s decision, directing specific performance proportionate to the consideration paid by the petitioner. The review petitions were allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was restored.

Apex court uncovered the ongoing tendency of misusing provisions like section 498A IPC for unleashing personal vendetta against husband and his family

This appeal challenges the by the Hon’ble High court order refused to quash an FIR  filed against Appellant No. 1 for cruelty, harassment and dowry demands under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. Appellants 2 to 6 are accused of instigating these claims. The FIR is criticized by the Hon’ble Supreme court for being vague with allegations deemed unbelievable, particularly since Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home after a dispute and Appellant No. 1 sought a divorce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed relevant legal precedents and highlighted the misuse of Section 498A for personal vendettas, ultimately allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings against the appellant.

Can a state claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens? – SC Answers

The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision, which restored the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, in a land dispute case against the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD). The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on revenue records, while the defendants argued adverse possession since 1879-80. The Trial Court ruled for the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. The High Court reinstated the Trial Court’s ruling, emphasizing that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Haryana and PWD, reinforcing the principle that the State cannot appropriate private property through adverse possession and highlighting the importance of protecting citizens’ property rights.

Murder case acquittal: No witness suggests the presence of accused in the SOC on the fateful day

Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan appealed against their life imprisonment sentences for the murder of Hamida Parween, following a property dispute. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, claiming a motive and a “last seen together” theory. However, the defense argued that no direct evidence linked the accused to the crime. The court found the prosecution’s case unconvincing, leading to the acquittal of all accused, including Abdul Rahman Khan, due to insufficient evidence.

Compensation over incarceration in special circumstance of 11 years after the incident

The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Muthupandi for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, which resulted in the death of a person and six cows. However, considering the long duration since the incident (11 years) and the appellant’s continuous bail status, the Court set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fines. Instead, it ordered that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the appellant be paid to the mother of the deceased as compensation. The Court directed that the compensation amount be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, for disbursement to the mother of the deceased.

Writ: Miscellaneous Applications Not Entertained after disposal of a main writ petition

Miscellaneous Applications Not Entertained after disposal of a main writ petition.

An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused

An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused.

Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Decision in Mumbai Eviction Case and directed to proceed with the principles of natural justice

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, setting aside the High Court’s order that had expedited eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants of public premises. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by framing points for determination in a summary proceeding. The Inquiry Officer was directed to proceed with the eviction proceedings in accordance with principles of natural justice, allowing both parties to present evidence and raise their defenses, except for issues already determined by previous judicial orders.

Plea of alibi gone wrong for murder case also defence on lack of sanction won’t work 

The case revolves around police officials from Murar Police Station, Gwalior, who allegedly forged an arrest to protect Ashok Dixit, an accused in a murder case. The investigation led to the suspension of the involved officials and the filing of a charge sheet against them. The High Court quashed the proceedings due to the lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from prosecution without government approval. The complainant has appealed against this quash order, questioning whether the CJM, Firozabad, could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction.  The appellant, Om Prakash Yadav, lodged an FIR for murder against several individuals, including Ashok Dixit, after witnessing the killing of his brother and the injury of his nephew. On the same day, another FIR was registered against Ashok Dixit for carrying illegal liquor, allegedly to create an alibi. The charge sheet in the murder case was submitted before the CJM, Firozabad, while the investigation into the liquor case continued, implicating several police officials in the forgery.  The appeals arise from a common judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, which quashed the proceedings of two cases pending before the CJM, Firozabad. The primary issue is whether the CJM could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The case highlights the complexities of legal procedures and the protection afforded to public servants under the law.

Supreme Court Invalidates State Government’s Scheduled Caste Notification, Upholding Constitutional Authority 

The case of Union of India vs. Rohit Nandan revolves around the appeal by the Union of India against a ruling by the Patna High Court that had allowed Rohit Nandan’s writ petition challenging the dismissal of his Original Application by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The High Court’s decision had favored Nandan, granting him recognition under the Scheduled Caste category. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling, restoring the Tribunal’s dismissal and clarifying that Nandan could not continue to benefit from an illegal certification as a member of the Scheduled Caste. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal classifications established by appropriate procedures. This case highlights the complexities surrounding caste classifications and the judicial interpretation of constitutional protections for Scheduled Castes.

Pakistan to Gujarat Border Narcotics: NIA Act is offence centric and not accused centric: Cancellation of bail upheld

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressed the complexities surrounding bail cancellation in the case of Ankush Vipan Kapoor against the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The petitioner, Ankush Vipan Kapoor, filed a Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2819 of 2024, challenging the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that canceled his bail in relation to FIR No. 20/2020. This case sheds light on critical issues of law concerning the powers of investigative agencies, the rights of the accused, and the judicial process in serious criminal allegations.   Present FIR pertains to 500 kgs narcotics smuggling and distribution illicitly transported from Pakistan to Gujarat  The backdrop of this judgment involves serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), where the NIA argued for the cancellation of Kapoor’s bail based on the need for custodial interrogation. The agency’s position was predicated on the belief that the investigation revealed connections between multiple FIRs, showcasing a broader network of organized drug trafficking. During the proceedings, the Supreme Court weighed the arguments presented by senior counsel for the petitioner against the assertions made by the NIA and the Union of India, emphasizing the intricate relationship between different offenses being investigated.  This judgment serves as a notable precedent regarding the balance of justice and the presumption of innocence in cases involving serious allegations. The Court’s decision not only addresses the legal remedies available to the accused but also underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that the rights of individuals are not compromised during the investigative process. As the implications of this ruling unfold, it marks a crucial point in the dialogue surrounding criminal law, procedural justice, and the operational dynamics of the NIA in handling high-profile cases of national concern.

High Court cannot damage the career of judicial officer by way of observations if the trial court did not follow specific format given by High Court

The Supreme Court of India, ruled in favor of Ayub Khan, a District and Sessions Judge in Rajasthan, who had appealed against an adverse observations and directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court for not following its prescribed format ( a particular form) in a bail order. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court can set principles for granting bail, it cannot mandate the format of bail orders, and non-compliance should not be treated as indiscipline or contempt. Consequently, the Supreme Court expunged the adverse remarks and set aside the High Court’s directions, thereby protecting the judicial discretion of trial courts and ensuring that judicial officers are not unfairly penalized for procedural non-compliance.  

Duty of the registry is to control litigants who files synopsis that runs 128 pages

The Supreme Court of India granted Deepti Sharma leave to appeal, condoning delays in filing. Deepti Sharma, who obtained a divorce decree on grounds of cruelty in 2016, challenged a 2019 order from the Allahabad High Court’s Division Bench. This order, passed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was initially directed by the Supreme Court to be heard by a single judge but was instead decided by a Division Bench due to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive.  The High Court had set aside a Family Court order from May 27, 2019, which dismissed Deepti Sharma’s Section 125 CrPC petition for non-prosecution, and restored the petition for a fresh hearing. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s order, which was in favor of Deepti Sharma, and dismissed the civil appeal, directing the Family Court to adjudicate the matter afresh.  The Supreme Court also noted that other related cases, including contempt petitions and a criminal case, were pending in the High Court and requested their expedited resolution. The appellant’s extensive 128-page synopsis was deemed excessive, and the court emphasized the need for concise submissions in future cases.

Supreme Court Mandates Immediate Redistribution of Surplus Land in Landmark Judgment 

Supreme Court Mandates Immediate Redistribution of Surplus Land in Landmark Judgment.

Appeal against acquittal: In appeal against acquittal presumption of innocence is fortified and appellate Court not to take contrary view if trial court’s view is plausible

The case is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.153 of 2011 delivered by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai District. The appellant, the defacto complainant, alleged that the first accused and his wife attacked him and their father, leading to the father’s death. The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and lack of corroboration from independent witnesses. The appellant argued that the trial court erred by not giving due credence to his testimony as an injured witness. However, the High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the trial court’s view was legally plausible and there was no ground to interfere with the acquittal.

Witness saw accused with blood-stained shirt but did not see him together with the deceased cannot be a proof for last seen theory

This judgment is a criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.232 of 2019) decided by the High Court of Judicature at Madras concerning the appellant, Aravindan, who was convicted in S.C.No.69 of 2017 for murder under Section 302 IPC. The case arises from an incident on 13.06.2016, wherein the deceased, Chinnasamy, was killed by the appellant during a quarrel while under the influence of alcohol. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged by the deceased’s son, leading to the investigation and arrest of the accused. The prosecution presented evidence, including witness statements and a confession made by the accused. The court highlights the importance of both circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimonies (PWs 6, 7, and 8). It scrutinizes the credibility of these witnesses, noting that PW-7, the son-in-law of the deceased, and the other witnesses did not report the incident to the police or inform the deceased’s family, raising questions about their reliability. The court refers to established legal principles regarding the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence. It emphasizes that the evidence presented must be compelling enough to exclude any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. The court insists that all links in the chain of evidence must be established to substantiate a conviction. The sheer delay in forwarding statement recorded under section 161 Crpc was flagged as indicative of potential issues with the integrity of the prosecution’s case. Given the doubts raised about the reliability of the evidence and the failure of the prosecution to meet the requisite legal standards, the court suggests that the accused should not be convicted based on the evidence submitted and finally acquitted the accused by setting aside the sentence.

Quashing FIR based on settlement in special statute like PC Act would impact the society at large 

The case involves allegations against the appellants related to fraud and cheating concerning a loan of Rs. 25 Crores obtained from SICOM Ltd. in 2013. The complaint, lodged by respondent no. 3 with the Central Bureau of Investigation, claims that the appellants diverted funds from the loan account and changed building plans without bank consent, which resulted in the collateral’s reduced value. Initially valued at Rs. 107.7 Crores in 2014, the property’s value plummeted to Rs. 3.45 Crores when it was revalued in 2018 after the account was designated as a Non-Performing Asset. The FIR was registered against the appellants on 24.07.2022, and a chargesheet was filed on 31.12.2021. The appellants sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet through a Writ Petition which was ultimately rejected by the High Court. Thereafter Hon’ble Supreme Court dismisses the appeal stating that the quashing of FIR for settlement in special statute like PC Act would affect the society at large. 

Company is the drawer of the cheque and the authorised signatory is merely a limb that signs the cheque

The main legal issue addressed in this case revolves around the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, particularly concerning the lack of the company’s involvement as an accused party. The High Court emphasized that, without the company being arraigned as an accused and the necessary compliance with the requirements for vicarious liability under Section 141, the accused could not be convicted as the sole accused. This highlighted the importance of having the principal offender, in this case, the company part of the proceedings for the complaint to be considered valid. The conclusion reached in this case is that the appeal is to be dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court is upheld. The court affirmed that the findings of lower courts regarding the accused’s liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were correct. It emphasized the necessity of a clear showing of liability and compliance with legal provisions, confirming that the proceedings followed the appropriate legal framework. The High Court’s ruling signifies the importance of adhering to the established legal principles to sustain a claim under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 

Suicide instigation should put in such position that the victim has no other option but to commit suicide

The appellants were accused of abetting the suicide of Jyoti Nagre, who committed suicide by hanging herself on March 20, 2015. The appellants were charged under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the allegations of mental and physical torture by the appellants, which led to the deceased’s suicide. The trial court and the High Court had dismissed the appellants’ plea for discharge from the charges. The Supreme Court, however, found that there was a significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the act of suicide, which weakened the prosecution’s case. The Apex Court highlighted the importance of establishing a clear connection between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. The Court concluded that the appellants’ words and actions did not directly result in the deceased’s suicide, as there was no immediate instigation or abetment involved. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal, overturned the decisions of the lower courts, and discharged the appellants from all charges.

After the accident vehicle caused the accident dragged in high speed about 15 feet hence the act of rash and negligence proved

In our considered opinion, the Petitioner has miserably failed to raise a reasonable doubt to probabalise the version narrated by him. The High Court and the Courts below are right in concluding that the act of the Petitioner was a rash and negligent one and have thereby rightly convicted the accused Petitioner.

Parents visiting right is modified keeping the child’s well-being and health

The Supreme Court judgment revolves around a custody dispute between Sugirtha and Gowtham. The couple married on September 9, 2021, and had a daughter on June 6, 2022. Following allegations of cruelty and domestic violence, Sugirtha filed for divorce in June 2023. The Family Court granted Gowtham visitation rights, requiring Sugirtha to bring their daughter to Karur every Sunday. Sugirtha appealed, arguing that the 300-kilometer round trip from Madurai to Karur was too burdensome and posed a threat to the child’s health and safety. The Madras High Court dismissed Sugirtha’s appeal but modified the visitation schedule to allow visits in Karur for two months and then alternate weekends. The Supreme Court acknowledged Gowtham’s right to visitation but prioritized the child’s health and well-being. It modified the visitation location to Madurai and set specific guidelines for the visits, ensuring that the child’s health and best interests were not compromised. The Supreme Court’s decision aims to balance Gowtham’s visitation rights with the child’s best interests and health. The court emphasized that while the father has the right to visit his child, it should not come at the cost of the child’s health and well-being. The judgment reflects the court’s effort to ensure that the child’s welfare remains paramount in custody disputes.

Petitioner should not be found fault for presenting words from ‘Manusmriti’ that degrade women

The court quashed the private complaint against Thol. Thirumavalavan, who was accused of making derogatory remarks about Hindu women in a YouTube video, stating that his speech was based on the book “Manu Smriti” and did not constitute hate speech or any of the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 295-A, 298, 500, 509 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The court found no evidence to support the allegations and concluded that the petitioner did not intend to degrade the reputation of Indian women.

As per Section 323 of Cr.P.C the Magistrate before signing judgment may commit the case if the same has to try by court of Sessions

The Hon’ble High court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal case against K. Kalyanasundaram, proprietor of M/s. Emkay Bio Products, who was the accused of manufacturing substandard drugs [“not of standard quality”].  Complaint lodged was under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(i) r/w Section 17-B (d) punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court found that the drugs, tested by both the Government Analyst and the Central Drugs Laboratory, did not meet the required standards. The petitioner’s arguments about cognizance, procedural delays and storage conditions affecting the drug quality were not accepted, and the court ruled that these issues should be addressed during the trial. Consequently, the criminal proceedings will continue in the Sessions Court.

In the light of investigation order freezing the account without quantifying the amount and period cannot be passed by the police

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the fifth respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 23.07.2024 by defreezing the petitioner’s account bearing Account No: 50100456613718 and IFSC Code: HDFC0004221 and releasing the entire amount of Rs.9,69,580/- plus the amount of Rs.2,48,835/- held by the fifth respondent.

High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings if the allegations taken in its entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused

This Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging the High Court’s dismissal of an application for quashing an FIR in a matrimonial dispute/cruelty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the need for specificity in allegations, noting that vague accusations against family members without concrete evidence can lead to misuse of legal processes, resulting in unnecessary harassment of innocent parties. The Court highlighted the principle that generalized claims in domestic disputes should not result in criminal prosecution, especially when family members have not been residing in the matrimonial home. Consequently, the appeal was considered in light of these principles, aiming to protect individuals from unjust implications in such cases and Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the case.

Subject Study on Sanction

Subject Study on Sanction.

Section 174A IPC [section 209 BNS 2023] is a stand alone, independent and substantive offence that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is extinguished

Daljit Singh, who was acquitted of the main offence i.e section 138 N.I Act but subsequently faced an FIR under Section 174A IPC and was granted bail under specific conditions. The appellant, was declared a proclaimed offender in connection with a business dispute involving the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Despite being acquitted of the main offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court held that the offense under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-appearance in response to a proclamation is a standalone offense and can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is nullified. Consequently, the Court quashed the High Court’s judgment and all related criminal proceedings, including the FIR under Section 174A IPC, and declared the appellant’s status as a proclaimed offender null and void.

Bail was not granted as per the rigour of section 21(4) of MCOCA hence matter remanded to the Hon’ble High Court for fresh consideration

The judgment pertains to an appeal concerning the grant of bail to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in a case linked to offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). The widow of the victim challenged the Hon’ble High Court’s decision, arguing that the bail order was akin to a mini-trial and did not properly consider the stringent conditions under Section 21(4) of MCOCA. The appellant raised concerns about the High Court’s approach in addressing the correctness of the prosecution case rather than focusing solely on the conditions for bail under MCOCA. The judgment highlighted that the accused, initially not charged under MCOCA, had their charges altered through a supplementary report to ensure denial of bail. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had made impermissible findings on the merits of the case and failed to adequately consider the evidence and legal provisions. Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the accused should remain on bail under the same conditions until the High Court’s new decision.

A mere statement without intention would not attract offence

The present appeal challenged the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad’s decision to reject appellant’s request to quash the chargesheet and proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 1074 of 2019 under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in the complaint is of inappropriate behavior and threats made by the appellant against the complainant, who was also a director in their joint company, M/s LAJ-IDS Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the evidence, including statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and concluded that the charges against Naresh Aneja were not substantiated. The Court emphasized that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements for the offenses under Sections 354 and 506 IPC, as there was no evidence of criminal force or intent to cause alarm. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Naresh Aneja, while clarifying that the observations were limited to him and did not affect the case against RK Aneja. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.

No Sanction Quash: The appellant’s official duty would be in furtherance of the act and covered with section 197 Cr.P.C r/w 83 M.P Housing Board Act 1972

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment quashing the High Court’s decision, which had refused to dismiss an FIR and the subsequent proceedings against the appellant, a Madhya Pradesh Housing Board official accused of facilitating a fraudulent property transfer. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any intent or knowledge of forgery. It concluded that his actions were safeguarded under Section 83 of the M.P. Housing Board Act, 1972, which is similar to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, protecting public servants acting in their official capacity. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and closed all related proceedings.

CBI had the authority to investigate offences involving Central Government employees under a Central Act without needing state consent

In this judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with appeals from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a common judgment in two Writ Petitions delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated: 13.04.2023,. The Hon’ble High Court had previously quashed the FIRs, charge sheets, and subsequent proceedings against a respondent who had faced allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arising from claims of illegal gratification. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in ignoring critical factors, emphasizing that a Circular Memo related to the bifurcation of the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh was not properly considered. The memo clarified that all laws applicable to the undivided state as of 01.06.2014 would continue to apply to the newly formed states post bifurcation, thereby raising questions regarding the applicability of the law in the case at hand. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision, emphasizing that the laws applicable to the undivided state continued to apply to both new states until altered, repealed, or amended. ​ The Court also highlighted that the CBI had the authority to investigate offenses involving Central Government employees under a Central Act without needing state consent. ​ The judgment reinstated the cases to the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool, directing the trial court to proceed in accordance with the law. ​

Once a foreigner is released on bail he cannot leave India without the permission of the Civil Authority and the Court should direct the investigating agency or the State to inform the concerned Registration Officer

The Hon’ble Supreme Court addresses the procedural particulars/details concerning bail applications filed by foreigners under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992. The Apex court questioned whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer in bail applications filed by foreigners. Apex court clarifies that while the Central Government has the authority to regulate the entry, presence, and departure of foreigners under Section 3 of the Act, the Civil Authority’s role in granting permission to depart from India is crucial, especially when a foreigner is required to answer a criminal charge. The court emphasized that the Civil Authority must refuse permission for a foreigner to leave India if their presence is needed for criminal proceedings. However, the Hon’ble Supreme court found no propriety in mandating the inclusion of the Civil Authority or Registration Officer as parties in bail applications, as this could lead to unnecessary delays. As an alternative, the Hon’ble Supreme court directed that upon granting bail to a foreigner, the investigating agency or state must immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer, who will then notify all relevant authorities. It is emphasized that these authorities possess no standing to contest bail unless the charges are under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. This ensures that appropriate steps can be taken in accordance with the law, balancing the need for procedural efficiency with the enforcement of legal provisions governing foreigners.

Return of property in NDPS Act: Hon’ble Supreme court after explain four scenarios held that in the absence of specific bar under the NDPS court can invoke general power under sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C

The judgment in the case of Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam revolves around a Criminal Appeal filed against the order of the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging a prior order from the Additional Sessions Judge regarding the custody of a vehicle seized during a police investigation. The appellant, Bishwajit Dey, had acquired a truck for commercial purposes, which became subject to legal scrutiny due to its involvement in a case amid ongoing investigations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, decided to grant leave for the appeal, expressing concern about the delay and procedure regarding the seized property. The Court referred to provisions concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial, highlighting that the law encourages timely orders from magistrates to mitigate the risks associated with holding vehicles in police custody for extended periods. Citing precedents, the judgment underscored the necessity for courts to act promptly in situations where the seized property, especially vehicles, might suffer decay or become less valuable over time. The judgment aims to provide clarity on procedural norms about the handling of seized property, seeking to ensure that the rights of individuals, alongside legal proceedings, are upheld without undue delay. The decision reflects the larger principle of upholding justice while balancing the interests of the state in managing evidence and the rights of individuals whose property is at stake.

Mere contradictions would not make the entire story of prosecution false [Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus explained]

This appeal is against the convictions of certain accused persons involved in the murder of two individuals during a political clash between RSS/VHP and CPI(M) in 2002. The appellants were convicted [under various sections of the IPC and the Explosive Substance Act] by the Hon’ble High Court that acquitted several accused while convicting the appellants. The Apex Court upheld the conviction of A1 to A3 and A11 and A12 in this appeal. The Hon’ble High Court had previously acquitted A4 to A10 and A13 to A15 while it confirmed the conviction of A1 to A3 and A11 and A12. The appellants argued that the FIR was ante-timed and that there were inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. However, the Supreme Court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses to be credible and consistent, and held that minor contradictions did not undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution’s case. The court also upheld the conviction of A3 under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was affirmed.

Supreme court quashes fir in property dispute emphasizes civil in nature and held it is impossible to appreciate how appellant deceived the respondent

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant, who sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, lodged against him concerning a property dispute. Following the filing of civil suits, the 4th respondent accused the appellant of selling part of the property without consent from all legal heirs, leading to the registration of the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, quashed an FIR lodged against the appellant, who was accused of selling a portion of a disputed property without the consent of all legal heirs. The Apex Court found that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and that the ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC have not been made out in the FIR lodged against the appellant. Moreover, the complaint was filed two years after civil suits were instituted, indicating an abuse of the process of law. The Court clarified that it made no adjudication on the merits of the pending civil dispute between the parties.

Closure report & section 319 Cr.P.C: Accused dropped in the closure report is not a bar to summon them under section 319 Cr.P.C

This case involve two petitioners who were summoned by the Trial court to face trial. The petitioners have challenged this summoning order before the Hon’ble High court, but the High court upheld the Trial court’s order to summon them. The legal standards for invoking a section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that such powers should be used cautiously and only when there is strong evidence indicating that another person may be guilty. The witness had identified the petitioners as participants in the crime, despite a closure report by the police that had initially exonerated them. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court has the authority to summon individuals for trial if strong evidence emerges during the proceedings, even if they were not initially charged by the police

Conviction based on Extra-Judicial confession is confirmed

The judgment revolves around the conviction of the appellant who was convicted for the offences under Sections including kidnapping (IPC Section 364), murder (IPC Section 302), and destruction of evidence (IPC Section 201) of the IPC for the murder of Selvam (deceased). The prosecution has established that appellant, due to a financial dispute, lured Selvam to his field, attacked him with a wooden log, and buried him alive. The body was later exhumed and forensic evidence confirmed the identity of the deceased. The trial court’s conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen together, extra-judicial confession, and recovery of the deceased’s vehicle based on the confession of the accused. The appellant’s counsel contended that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly questioning the validity of the last seen theory and the lack of corroboration for the extra judicial confession. The High Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Acquittal upheld: Witness’s inability to recall even a few of 30 witnesses who witnessed the occurrence would make the witness untrustworthy

This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against the acquittal of Respondents 2 and 3, previously charged under Sections 294(b), 323, and 307 IPC, later altered to Section 302 IPC, after the death of the appellant’s father, allegedly resulting from an assault by the accused. The prosecution’s case highlighted a family dispute on July 25, 2010, leading to an altercation where the deceased, attempting to mediate, suffered fatal injuries allegedly inflicted by the accused with a wooden log. An FIR was filed, and investigations led to a charge sheet against both respondents. The trial court, after evaluating 13 witnesses and 21 documents, acquitted the accused, noting insufficient corroborative evidence and credibility issues with P.W.1’s solitary eyewitness testimony. The trial court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thus extending the benefit of the doubt to the accused. The appellant contended that P.W.1’s testimony, as an injured witness in daylight, deserved due consideration and that the trial court’s emphasis on doubt led to a perverse judgment. However, the appellate court, citing precedents from the Supreme Court on the standard for reviewing acquittals, upheld that the trial court’s judgment was a legally plausible view that respected the presumption of innocence reinforced upon acquittal. The key question of law addressed was whether an appellate court could overturn an acquittal by re-appreciating evidence, given the trial court’s advantage in observing witness demeanor and the plausibility of its findings. Thus, the court held that since the trial court’s view was legally tenable, the acquittal should stand, and the appeal was dismissed. [Courtesy: TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY OCTOBER 2024].

Court cannot presume suicide under section 113A IEA without proof of evidence of aiding or instigating

The document pertains to Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2015 in the Supreme Court of India, where Ram Pyarey, the appellant and brother-in-law of the deceased, appeals against the High Court’s dismissal of his earlier appeal and the trial court’s conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case involves allegations that the deceased was subjected to harassment and demands for dowry from her in-laws, leading her to commit suicide by self-immolation. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the invocation of Section 113A of the Evidence Act requires cogent evidence of cruelty and harassment, which was lacking in this case, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction. The appellant’s bail was confirmed and his bail bonds were discharged.

Section 125(4) Cr.P.C: “No divorce No maintenance?” Supreme Court decided on factual aspect

The judgment addresses whether a husband who has obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can avoid paying maintenance to his wife if she refuses to return to their home. The court clarified that even if there is a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, it does not automatically negate the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Appreciation of hostile witness explained [A must carry judgment by prosecutors]

A must carry judgment for all prosecutors.

DNA evidence: The court cannot rely on the DNA report if the prosecution fails to prove when the blood was taken from the accused for comparison

The Hon’ble Madras High Court acquitted Kalimuthu (A2) and Sethupathy (A1) of all charges framed against them in a case involving the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault of a minor girl in 2017. The court found several inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case, including delays in lodging the complaint and sending the FIR to the Magistrate, lack of proper identification of the accused, and procedural issues with the DNA evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered the release of both accused.

The remedy against any judgment is to prefer a petition under Article 136 of the constitution and not under Article 32

The Writ Petition seeks several reliefs, primarily to declare a previous judgment by the Bombay High Court as illegal due to a lack of hearing for the necessary parties. The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the High Court cannot be declared illegal under Article 32 of the Constitution, and it dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioners to seek remedies through other legal means.

Section 306 IPC [s.45 BNS]: Duty of realising outstanding loans for employer cannot be said to have instigated to commit suicide

The appellant’s challenge against the Hon’ble High Court’s decision to maintain charges under Section 306 of the IPC related to the alleged instigation of suicide of Ranjit Chauhan. The Apex court after reviewing the evidence concluded that the case against the appellant was groundless for framing of charges and consequently discharged the appellant from the proceedings in the Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 by setting aside the earlier High Court order. The appeal was thus allowed.