Section 27 IEA: Mere exhibiting the disclosure statement to the IO is not sufficient but the IO must give description about the conversation while recording disclosure statements in evidence
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder. The trial court acquitted a1, a2, and a3 but convicted a4, a5, and a6. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reversed the acquittal of a1, a2, and a3 and confirmed the conviction of the other accused.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed its previous judgments and explained the four principles to reverse the acquittal. Findings are necessary to reverse the acquittal. The Hon’ble High Court did not follow the settled principles in reversing the acquittal.
It is important to note that though many were present except the deceased, none other received a single injury in the incident. PW-1, who witnessed the incident, hid in the bushes. After the incident was over, PW-1 reached his home and informed the incident to other persons and to the police. In natural course, witnesses were bound to inform the incident to the police, and their statements would have mandatorily been entered in the daily dairy, which was not brought on record in this case, creating doubt.
PW-1, who was an eye-witness to the incident, is totally contradicted by P.W-6. It is clear that the complainant party created eye-witnesses to the incident and suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence.
Motive is a double-edged weapon. The requirement under the law to prove a disclosure statement is explained. A confession statement is nothing but a memorandum reduced in writing during interrogation, which is inadmissible except for any discovery. The Investigating Officer (IO) must narrate the conversation of the interrogation in the witness box as per Section 60 of the Evidence Act. Judgments on proving disclosure statements are also examined.
Mere exhibiting the memorandum prepared by the IO is not proof of its contents. Since the IO did not give any description about the conversation while recording the disclosure statements, those statements cannot be read in evidence.
Section 27 IEA: I.O did not narrate the exact words spoken by the accused while making a disclosure statement
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed an appeal related to a case of robbery and assault. However, the assailant was not identified. The appellant was arrested on suspicion and case articles were recovered from him. The informant identified the articles, and a final report was filed. Conclusions were reached during the trial and appeal that the appellant is the offender. The trial and high court courts convicted the accused based on the recovery of the articles. However, Apex court observed that the investigating officer did not narrate the exact words spoken by the accused while making a disclosure statement. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide any evidence to show that the recovered articles were sealed at the time of recovery. As a result, the accused was acquitted.
Act 14 of 1982: Sexual offender: Unexplained delay of 21 days in considering the representation is prejudice to the detenu (with direction to the state government on giving counselling to the arrested teenagers)
Prayer-Detenu was detained as sexual offender-Petitioner side contention on procedural safeguard violations-Respondent’s side Contention-Delay in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority-Cited with precedents-Unexplained delay of 21 days in considering the representation is prejudice the detenu-High Courts Directions.
Cheating: After consideration if the land was not transferred to the complainant or did not exist or had been sold or transferred to somebody else then it is cheating
The State has challenged an order rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, which had quashed the FIR registered against the respondent for cheating in the sale of land. The respondent had neither returned the amount nor handed over the land to the complainant. However, it is not the case that the land was not transferred to the complainant, or did not exist, or had been sold or transferred to somebody else. Therefore, the case is purely of a civil nature and not of cheating. Since proceedings against other accused were quashed for the same nature of the case, proceedings against the co-accused cannot continue.
Protest petition: When the Magistrate does not treat the protest petition as a complaint and rejects it then the complainant can file a fresh complaint
An appeal has been filed against an order under section 482 CRPC to quash a summoning order. The summoning order was issued after a final report was lodged based on information received. However, a protest petition was filed alleging the investigation was unfair. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejected the police report and summoned the accused after taking cognizance of the protest petition and affidavits that supported it. The CJM concluded that the investigation was indeed unfair. The question now is how to proceed with filing a closure (final) report. The magistrate must treat the protest petition as a complaint and has the power to reject it. If the complaint is rejected, the complainant has the option of filing a fresh complaint. Since the Magistrate considered the affidavits and protest petition, the Apex court has set aside the cognizance taken under section 190(1)(b) and directed the case to proceed as a complaint case.
Cancellation of bail: Accused are not entitled to bail if they are dreaded criminals
The appellant, who is the complainant, challenged the order that granted suspension of sentence. An FIR was registered based on the complaint, and after investigation, three separate trials were conducted. The trial court convicted five accused under section 302 IPC and acquitted two accused. The complainant challenged the impugned order of granting bail on the ground that the accused are dreaded criminals. Two accused respondents are not entitled to the grant of bail for their subsequent conduct, which includes murder.
PMLA & Cognizance: Under PMLA special court can take cognizance only by way of complaint filed by the authority authorized on this behalf
The complaint filed by the ED authority is being challenged on the grounds that, except for Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, no other offences are considered scheduled offences. Without a scheduled offence, there cannot be any proceeds of crime. Furthermore, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), a special court can only take cognizance of a case only through a complaint filed by an ED authorized authority. In this case, as there is no scheduled offense in the complaint filed by the ED authority is available, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the case.
Homicide not amounting to murder: Though the accused shot the deceased but the weapon (Firearm) was not brought for the purpose of committing an offence in the liquor party
This is a summary of a legal case where the accused were convicted under sections 302 r/w 34 IPC for a fire shot incident that occurred during a liquor party. The conviction was upheld by the High Court after sentenced by the Trial court. However, it was found that one of the accused (A2) had refused to shoot the deceased, and therefore, vicarious liability under section 34 did not apply to him. Although the other accused had attempted to shoot the deceased, the weapon (a firearm) was not brought for the purpose of committing an offense during the liquor party. As a result, the sentence was modified to “homicide not amounting to murder”.
Section 451 Cr.P.C: Petition for disposal (return) of property cannot be filed directly by invoking Article 226 without invoking section 451 Cr.P.C before the concerned court
Understand the legal procedure for disposal of property in court cases. Discover the steps to file before the concern court and high court.
Observation of Hon’ble High Court that once the police recorded statements of the Doctor and PW-4, the statements of PW-4 and the Doctor before the Court became meaningless is contrary to section 162 Cr.P.C
Challenge against the reversal of acquittal by the Hon’ble High Court – Facts of the case: Section 302 IPC – Trial court acquitted the appellants but Hon’ble High Court overturned the sentence and sentenced to life – It is well-settled principle that an order of acquittal further strengthens the presumption of innocence of the accused – Unless there is statutory presumption the accused is not required to discharge any burden – Hon’ble High Court accepted the statements given before the police under section 161 cr.p.c and rejected the statement given before the court.
Terrorist Act: Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution even for Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (SHOMA KANTI SEN)
Terrorist Act: Any act must be done with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security or sovereignty of India or such act must be accompanied with an intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country.
Appeal against dismissal of bail- FIR was registered- Investigation was expanded and section 120-B IPC was added- Initial and supplementary chargesheet were filed- During initial chargesheet bail was filed before sessions which was got dismissed-Case explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court-Whether the course adopted by the High Court could be invalidated because another course suggested by the appellant is available?-Courts hearing the question of bail must scan the case diary or report under section 173 Cr.P.C to for an opinion on accusation-Analysing of materials for allegations against the appellant for commission of offence-What is terrorist act is being explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?-Bail is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
