Identification of ornaments: It is necessary to examine the person from whom the other identical ornaments were brought
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
