Penal Code 1860Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC...
Penal Code 1860
Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC 508
Appeal against judgment of Allahabad HC which acquitted accused by setting aside conviction recorded by Trial Court under Section 302 and 148 IPC - Partly allowed - Accused convicted under Section 304 Part I r/w Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC 508
Appeal filed by two accused concurrently convicted in a murder case by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - They are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the ground that it cannot be with certainty held that they had common intention - Given the acts attributed to them, the assault by the main accused and the resultant outcome were unexpected. Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Constitutional Courts can impose fixed term sentence even in cases where death penalty was not proposed - "Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on. (Para 13) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to constantly torment, abuse and threaten the accused (appellant) who was his brother - On the night of the occurrence, the deceased had consumed alcohol and had told the accused to leave the house and if not, he would kill the accused - There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a 'slow burn' reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation - There was temporary loss of self-control as the appellant had tried to kill himself by holding live electrical wires - The acts of provocation on the basis of which the accused caused the death of his brother were both sudden and grave and that there was loss of self-control - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650 : AIR 2022 SC 3620
Distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Explained. (Para 54) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
If no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed - When the complaint itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of IPC. (Para 15-18) Wyeth Limited v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 721
That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the 'rarest of the rare' cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well. (Para 15) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Trial Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option - The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336
Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Section 34 - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable - Merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention - A co -perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act - The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (Para 13, 19) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Section 34 - A mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance - The word “furtherance” indicates the existence of aid or assistance in producing an effect in future. Thus, it has to be construed as an advancement or promotion - Scope of Section 34 IPC discussed. (Para 26, 28) Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19 : AIR 2022 SC 805 : (2022) 2 SCC 545
Section 34 - A reading of Section 34 of the IPC reveals that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone. Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34 IPC would Page 4 of 8 come into play. To attract Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime. (Para 8) Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036 : (2024) 1 SCC 443
Section 34 - Appeal against concurrent conviction of appellant by invoking Section 34 IPC - Allowed - The prosecution has failed to prove ingredients of Section 34 of IPC in this case - non examination of two crucial eye witnesses makes the prosecution case about the existence of a prior concert and prearranged plan extremely doubtful. Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287 : (2022) 6 SCC 576
Section 34 - Common Intention - Once it has been established and proved by the prosecution that all the accused came at the place of incident with a common intention to kill the deceased and as such, they shared the common intention, in that case it is immaterial whether any of the accused who shared the common intention had used any weapon or not and/or any of them caused any injury on the deceased or not. (Para 4.2) State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2022 SC 1366
Section 34 - Common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds, a prearranged plan before a man can be vicariously convicted for the criminal act of another. The criminal act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused. In a given case, the plan can be formed suddenly. (Para 9) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 287 : (2022) 6 SCC 576
Section 34 - Co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply, there should be common intention among the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design. Common intention can be formed at the spur of the moment and during the occurrence itself. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact and as such, direct evidence normally will not be available. Therefore, in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention, has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. Constructive intention, can be arrived at only when the court can hold that the accused must have preconceived the result that ensued in furtherance of the common intention. State of Rajasthan v. Gurbachan Singh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1028
Section 34 - For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the coaccused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence. (Para 13) Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036 : (2024) 1 SCC 443
Section 34 - For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be pre -arranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Section 34 - In a given case, where the offence is punishable under Section 302 of IPC, when the common intention is proved, but no overt act of assaulting the deceased is attributed to the accused who have been implicated based on Section 34, vicarious liability under Section 34 will be attracted. (Para 7) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
Section 34 - Relevant Facts - The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co -assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the ingredients of Section 34 IPC are satisfied. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Section 34 - Section 34 IPC comes into operation against the co -perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34 IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Section 34 - The expression "common intention" should also not be confused with "intention" or "mens rea" as an essential ingredient of several offences under the IPC - For some offences, mental intention is not a requirement but knowledge is sufficient and constitutes necessary mens rea. Section 34 IPC can be invoked for the said offence also - In some cases, intention, which is ingredient of the offence, may be identical with the common intention of the co -perpetrators, but this is not mandatory. (Para 18) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 220 : (2022) 7 SCC 521
Section 34 - To bring a case within Section 34, it is not necessary to prove prior conspiracy or premeditation. It is possible to form a common intention just before or during the occurrence. (Para 7) Maheshwari Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1063
Section 45 - ''Life''
Section 45 and 53 - There can be imposition of life imprisonment without any remission till the last breath as a substitution of death sentence. (Para 3) Ravindra v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 156
Section 53 - Punishments
Section 53 - The majority view in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., 2016 (7) SCC 1 cannot be construed to mean that power to impose fixed term sentence cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence - When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of 'rarest of the rare' case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused. (Para 12) Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252 : AIR 2023 SC 1774
Section 84 - Act of a person of unsound mind.
Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105 - The burden of proving the existence of circumstances so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 84 IPC lies on the accused in terms of Section 105 of the Evidence Act; and where the accused is charged of murder, the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing the consequences of his acts is on the defence, as duly exemplified by illustration (a) to the said Section 105 of the Evidence Act - The mandate of law is that the Court shall presume absence of the circumstances so as to take the case within any of the General Exceptions in IPC. (Para 21) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2023 SC 193 : (2023) 3 SCC 372
Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105, 8 - The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged - The behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence has to be looked into. (Para 8-9) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 : (2023) 5 SCC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 823
Section 84 - The existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act - A mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. (Para 4-7) Prakash Nayi @ Sen v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71 : (2023) 5 SCC 673 : (2023) 1 SCR 823
Section 86 - Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated
Section 86 - In so far as the impact of intoxication and causing death while in the state of intoxication is concerned, a reference to Section 86 of IPC is relevant which provides for the offence caused by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of his act. The said provision absolves the accused of committing an offence by reason of intoxication and incapability of knowing the nature of his act. However, for applying the said provision, it has to be noticed that such intoxication has to be administered to him against his will or without his knowledge which means that it should not be a voluntary intoxication. (Para 17) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Section 86 - the following twin conditions have to be satisfied. The first that the accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will. Secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him. (Para 19) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Section 86 - Not only the accused be intoxicated but also the level of his intoxication be such as to render him incapable of knowing and understanding what he is doing or likely to do. Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused. (Para 20) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Section 96 - Things done in private defence
Section 96-106 - Right of Private Defence - Accused need not prove the existence of private self-defence beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea, just as in a civil case. (Para 12) Ex.Ct. Mahadev v. Director General, Border Security Force, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2022 SC 2986 : (2022) 8 SCC 502
Section 96-106 - Right of Private Defence - The right of private defence is necessarily a defensive right which is available only when the circumstances so justify it. The circumstances are those that have been elaborated in the IPC. Such a right would be available to the accused when he or his property is faced with a danger and there is little scope of the State machinery coming to his aid. At the same time, the courts must keep in mind that the extent of the violence used by the accused for defending himself or his property should be in proportion to the injury apprehended. This is not to say that a step to step analysis of the injury that was apprehended and the violence used is required to be undertaken by the Court; nor is it feasible to prescribe specific parameters for determining whether the steps taken by the accused to invoke private self-defence and the extent of force used by him was proper or not. The Court's assessment would be guided by several circumstances including the position on the spot at the relevant point in time, the nature of apprehension in the mind of the accused, the kind of situation that the accused was seeking to ward off, the confusion created by the situation that had suddenly cropped up resulting the in knee jerk reaction of the accused, the nature of the overt acts of the party who had threatened the accused resulting in his resorting to immediate action, etc. The underlying factor should be that such an act of private defence should have been done in good faith and without malice. Ex.Ct. Mahadev v. Director General, Border Security Force, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551 : AIR 2022 SC 2986 : (2022) 8 SCC 502
Section 107 - Abetment of a thing
Section 107 - To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. (Para 9) Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1035 : (2024) 1 SCC 417
Section 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy
Section 120B - Criminal Conspiracy - To make out a case of larger criminal conspiracy, it is essential to establish a link indicative of meeting of minds of the concerned persons for commission of the crime(s). (Para 44) Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 558 : 2022 (9) SCALE 385
Section 120B - The principal ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is an agreement to commit an offence - Such an agreement must be proved through direct or circumstantial evidence- Some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established- It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. (Para 22-25) Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 709 : AIR 2022 SC 4002
Section 120B - To establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement between the parties. Further, the offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy. (Para 36) Sajeev v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974
Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 – Previous Sanction – Contended that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Distinguishing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, held, observations contained are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case or taken as judicially carving out an exception to a statutory prescription – Also held, no public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence and therefore, if the observations are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty – Appeal allowed. A. Srinivasulu v. State of Rep. by the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485
Section 120B - For the charge of criminal conspiracy to be established, an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended common object. (Para 31) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Section 120B - the accused cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy solely for having concealed the location of the incriminating materials / articles and, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of the minds. Given that all the other coaccused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they were innocent of the crime, the fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met. Needless to say, the charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. (Para 32, 33) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Section 120B - The charge of criminal conspiracy requires meeting of the minds prior to commission of offence, and with four of the five appeals being allowed and only the present appellant being convicted, the basic requirement of the section, that is of two or more persons agreeing to or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not per se illegal but it is done by illegal means, is not met. (Para 34) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358
Section 121A - Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121
Section 121A - As the explanation to Section 121A of the IPC discloses, for an offence of conspiracy, it would not be necessary that any act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance thereof. Thus, even though no untoward incident had actually of the IPC, the matter would still come within the four corners of Section 121A of the IPC. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
Section 121A - Conspiracy to wage war against India - The dictionary meaning of the expression "overawe" is to subdue or inhibit with a sense of awe. The expression "overawe" would thus imply creation of apprehension or situation of alarm and as rightly held by the Division Bench (in the case of Mir Hasan Khan v. State (or Ramanand v. State), it would not be necessary that the danger should be one of assassination of or of bodily injury to the members of the machinery or apparatus of the Government but the danger might as well be to public property or to the safety of members of the general public. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
Section 121A - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of four persons for causing the terror attack at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru in December, 2005. Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590
Section 124A - Sedition
Section 124A - Sedition - All pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124A of IPC be kept in abeyance. Adjudication with respect to other Sections, if any, could proceed if the Courts are of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused - If any fresh case is registered under Section 124A of IPC, the affected parties are at liberty to approach the concerned Courts for appropriate relief. The Courts are requested to examine the reliefs sought, taking into account the present order passed as well as the clear stand taken by the Union of India - We hope and expect that the State and Central Governments will restrain from registering any FIR, continuing any investigation or taking any coercive measures by invoking Section 124A of IPC while the aforesaid provision of law is under consideration. (Para 8) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : (2022) 7 SCC 433
Section 124A - Sedition -Centre's affidavit that it has decided to re-examine and re-consider the provision - it is clear that the Union of India agrees with the prima facie opinion expressed by this Court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial regime. In light of the same, the Union of India may reconsider the aforesaid provision of law. (Para 5) S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : (2022) 7 SCC 433
Section 148 - Rioting, armed with deadly weapon
Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC 508
Section 148 - Merely because three persons were chargesheeted / charged / tried and even out of three tried, two persons came to be acquitted cannot be a ground to not to convict the accused under Section 148 IPC when involvement of six to seven persons in commission of the offence has been established and proved. (Para 12) State of Uttar Pradesh vs Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC 508
Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Section 149 - Object of Section 149 is to make specific that person whose case comes within its gamut cannot be permitted to put forth a defence that he did not, with his own hand, commit the offence committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. (Para 17) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854 : AIR 2022 SC 5258
Section 149 - There is no requirement to prove a common intention for an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC - Unlawful assembly and common object discussed. (Para 143-147) Ashok Kumar Chandel v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Section 149, 141 - It is an essential condition of an unlawful assembly that its membership must be five or more - Less than five persons may be charged under Section 149 if the prosecution case is that the persons before the Court and other numbering in all more than five composed an unlawful assembly, these others being persons not identified and unnamed. Mahendra v. State of M.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 22
Section 149 - Mere non-framing of a charge under Section 149 on face of charges framed against appellant would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them - Mere defect in language, or in narration or in the form of charge would not render conviction unsustainable, provided the accused is not prejudiced thereby - If ingredients of the section are obvious or implicit in the charge framed then conviction in regard thereto can be sustained, irrespective of the fact that said section has not been mentioned. [Referred to Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 12 SCC 546] (Para 7) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash @ Pappu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 336 : AIR 2022 SC 1651 : (2022) 6 SCC 508
Section 149 and 302 - Accused were members of the unlawful assembly. No doubt that there is no specific role attributed to the present accused of assaulting the deceased. However, since the accused were members of the unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that such a person, for being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased. (Para 15) Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953 : AIR 2023 SC 5685 : 2024 CriLJ 81
Section 149 and 302 - Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. (Para 23) Parshuram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953 : AIR 2023 SC 5685 : 2024 CriLJ 81
Section 149 - When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. (Para 10) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2023 SC 1889 : (2023) 3 SCR 354
Section 149 - if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. (Para 10.2) Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318 : AIR 2023 SC 1889 : (2023) 3 SCR 354
Section 149 - Cases involving several accused Persons - Section 149 IPC is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possible for the witness to describe the part played therein by each of such persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of the members' involvement especially regarding which or what act. (Para 17.8) Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225 : (2023) 5 SCC 391 : (2023) 2 SCR 965
Section 221 - Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend.
Section 221 - "charge" not defined under Cr.P.C. - a false "charge" in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning - would include a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion - the expression "falsely charges" in this section, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial - "to falsely charge" must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion - the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial - the false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings - in other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made - the statement in order to constitute the "charges" should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. [Para 91, 94] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
Section 221 - Essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence; the complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person, this complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person. [Para 90] Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 598
Section 279 - Rash driving or riding on a public way
Sections 279, 304A – Motor Accident Case – Reduction of sentence of convict – Object of IPC is to punish offenders for offences under the act – IPC punitive and deterrent – Corrective measures ought to be recognised while sentencing convict but deterrence became imperative necessity under certain circumstances – Expressing undue sympathy by imposing inadequate sentence harms justice system by causing the erosion of public confidence in efficacy of law – Held, undue sympathy expressed by the high court unsustainable and order liable to be quashed and set aside thereby restoring the original sentence imposed by lower courts – Appeal allowed. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267 : AIR 2023 SC 1767 : (2023) 3 SCR 766
Section 285 - Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible matter
Section 285 - Essential requirement of Section 285 of IPC w as that the accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
Section 294 - Obscene acts and songs
Section 294 - Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others - The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844
Section 299 - Culpable homicide
Section 299, 300 - Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Locus classicus on the issue viz. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab [1958] S.C.R. 1495. (Para 16-17) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241
Section 300 - Murder
Section 300 - Point whether culpable homicide would tantamount to murder or not discussed. (Para 6) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131 : (2022) 4 SCC 227
Section 300 - The fact that the accused gave several blows/multiple blows on the vital part of the body – head which resulted into grievous injuries and he used “Phakadiyat” with such a force which resulted in Skull fracture and a frontal wound on left side and wounds with 34 stitches on the left side of the skull extended from mid of the left side of the skull along with coronal sutures of 16 cm, we are of the opinion that the case would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. (Para 7) State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 131 : (2022) 4 SCC 227
Section 300 and 376 – Rape and Murder - Death Sentence - Abhorrent nature of crime alone cannot be the decisive factor for awarding death sentence - Due consideration to be given to the equally relevant aspect pertaining to mitigating factors before arriving at a conclusion that option of any other punishment than the capital one was foreclosed. (Para 42) Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 144 : 2022 (3) SCALE 45
Exception 1 to Section 300 - Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken - First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed to possess the general power of self-control of an ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the same situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily lose the power of self-control. The second part emphasises that the offender's reaction to the provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-control in the fact situation - Here again, the court would have to apply the test of a reasonable person in the circumstances. While examining these questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must take into account the whole of the events, including the events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant for deciding whether the accused was acting under the cumulative and continuing stress of provocation. (Para 12) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650 : AIR 2022 SC 3620
Exception 1 to Section 300 - Sustained provocation principle - The last provocation has to be considered in light of the previous provocative acts or words, serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-control - The cumulative or sustained provocation test would be satisfied when the accused's retaliation was immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of provocative conduct, which would satisfy the requirement of sudden or immediate provocation - This principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture. Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation - The provocation may be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of the injury. The idea behind this exception is to exclude the acts of violence which are premeditated, and not to deny consideration of circumstances such as prior animosity between the deceased and the accused, arising as a result of incidents in the past and subsequently resulting in sudden and grave provocation - Thus, the gravity of the provocation can be assessed by taking into account the history of the abuse and need not be confined to the gravity of the final provocative act in the form of acts, words or gestures. (Para 12-14) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650 : AIR 2022 SC 3620
Exceptions to Section 300 - The burden of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be mixed with the burden on the accused of proving that the case falls within an exception. However, to discharge this burden the accused may rely upon the case of the prosecution and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the court. (Para 15) Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 650 : AIR 2022 SC 3620
Section 300 - In order to make culpable homicide as murder the act by which death is caused should fall not only under any one or more of clauses firstly to fourthly under Section 300, IPC but they should also not fall under any of the five exceptions to Section 300, IPC. (Para 21) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854 : AIR 2022 SC 5258
Section 300 Exception 1 - Whether there was a grave and sudden provocation which would lead an accused to lose his power of self-control would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be disputed that how a person responds to a particular situation would depend upon the temperament of a particular person. A hot-tempered person may react differently as compared to a cool-headed person. (Para 8) Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664
Section 300, 302 - Appeal against Madras HC Judgment acquitting murder accused - Allowed - Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness - There can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. State v. Laly @ Manikandan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 851 : AIR 2022 SC 5034
Section 300, 302 - Conviction of a man accused of killing his own father following a fight under the influence of liquor upheld - Maybe it was under the influence of liquor, but the nature of blows was such that the endeavour was to end the life of the deceased, the father. It was certainly an act in a cruel and brutal manner taking advantage of the situation even if there was no pre-meditation - There is no cause made out for application of Exception 4 of Section 300. Chherturam @ Chainu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : AIR 2022 SC 4279 : (2022) 9 SCC 571
Section 300, 302 - Murder case - Trial Court convicted accused for alleged murder of his wife, four children and sentenced him to death - Allahabad High Court dismissed his appeal and confirmed death sentence - Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused - None of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843 : AIR 2022 SC 5273
Section 300, 302 - Whether the accused had an intention to commit the murder of the deceased or not would depend upon a combination of several factors. There cannot be a straightjacket formula for deciding whether there was intention to commit the murder or not. (Para 7-8) Yatendrasingh Ajabsingh Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 664
Section 300, 302, 304 Part II - Appeal against concurrent murder conviction of a husband accused of killing wife - Partly allowed - Modified to Section 304 Part II of IPC - there was no pre-mediation to cause the death and the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the appellant having realised his mistake had thereafter taken immediate steps to shift his wife to the hospital but unfortunately she breathed her last. Jai Karan Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 992
Section 300, 304 Part II - Conviction of appellants modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II - Considerations relevant for determining a culpable homicide amounting to murder and distinguishing it from the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 17) Ajmal v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 609 : (2022) 9 SCC 766
Sections 300 Exception 4, 302 and 498A - The exception clearly in unequivocal term states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking “undue advantage” of the situation. In the instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she can be burnt. The appellant having taken “undue advantage” of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part II of 304 IPC. (Para 21) Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : : AIR 2023 SC 5512 : (2024) 1 SCC 327 : 2024 CriLJ 199
Sections 300 Exception 4, 302 and 498A - The First Information Report and the dying declarations on record clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying “You Die”. The aforesaid evidence clinches the issue and establishes beyond doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and is not entitled to benefit of the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (Para 23 & 24) Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : : AIR 2023 SC 5512 : (2024) 1 SCC 327 : 2024 CriLJ 199
Section 300 - the sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 57) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Exception 4 to Section 300 - Essential requirement - Four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4 - (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and; that (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner - On a plain reading of Exception 4, it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Para 58 & 59) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Exception 4 to Section 300 - It is very difficult to accept the submission that the case would fall within the Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and such benefit be extended to the accused. Assuming for the moment that the incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and fight was also sudden, we should not overlook the fact that the appellants herein inflicted as many as nine blows with a dangerous weapon on the deceased who was unarmed and was helpless. For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 61) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Section 300 - The requirement of Section 300 thirdly is fulfilled if the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted an injury which would been sufficient to have resulted in death of the victim. The determinative fact would be the intention to cause such injury and what was the degree of probability (gravest, medium, or the lowest degree) of death which determines whether the crime is culpable homicide or murder - When the nature of injury being so dangerous as to result in death (Section 300 fourthly), accused's disregard to the consequences of the injury, and an element of callousness to the result, denotes or signifies the intention. (Para 18-19) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241
Section 300 - The standard of reasonableness for applying the “grave and sudden” provocation - mere long-standing preexisting dispute does not attract the exception. (Para 23-24) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241
Section 300 - There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor. (Para 25-26) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241
Section 301 - Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended
Section 301 - The aforesaid provision is based up on the 'Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive' which provides that where there is 'mens rea' of committing an offence, it can be transferred to another. To illustrate the said doctrine, an example could be given of a person who had intention to kill a person but by mistake kills another person, then he would still be held guilty of committing murder even in the absence of intention to kill that particular person. In simpler words, if a person has an intention to commit an offence or cause a death of any person but kills one whose death he never intended to cause, he would still be guilty of causing death. (Para 12) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005
Section 302 - Punishment for Murder
Section 300, 302 - Concurrent conviction of murder accused set aside - There is a fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into consideration the effect of the other attending circumstances, thereby warranting interference. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2023 SC 634 : 2023 Cri LJ 1726
Section 302 - Ante-timing of the FIR - Benefit of Doubt - In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused. Even if we ignore certain other minor discrepancies in the oral evidence, the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, i.e., “tabal” or “palkati” which are more or less similar types of instruments for cutting crops, etc., it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : AIR 2023 SC 3086 : (2023) 7 SCC 350
Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a murder case - Allowed - Conviction set aside - The time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2023 SC 488 : (2023) 1 SCR 969
Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction under Section 302 - Excessive number of injuries do not ipso facto lead to an inference about involvement of more than one person; rather the nature of injuries and similarity of their size/dimension would only lead to the inference that she was mercilessly and repeatedly stabbed by the same weapon and by the same person - The evidence of the eye -witness to the incident, remains unimpeachable and has been believed by the two Courts - Do not find the present one to be a case of manifest illegality so as to call for interference. Suresh Yadav @ Guddu v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 217 : 2022 (4) SCALE 260
Section 302 - Appeal against High Court acquitting some of the accused in a murder case - Allowed - There are no material contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence. The presence of all the accused have been established and proved and the prosecution has also been successful in proving that all the accused shared the common intention - Trial Court judgment restored. State of MP v. Ramji Lal Sharma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 258 : AIR 2022 SC 1366
Section 302 - Brutal Murder - Sentencing - In appropriate cases, imposing a fixed term sentence creates a possibility for the convict to 8 re-integrate into society after serving his/her sentence. It strikes a delicate balance between the victims' plea for justice - This fixed term sentence can only be by the High Court or this Court and not by the trial Court - If there is any circumstance favouring the accused such as lack of intention to commit the crime, possibility of reformation, young age of the accused, accused not being a menance to the society, no previous criminal record etc., the accused may avoid capital punishment - The crime is important but so is the criminal and hence the Supreme Court in recent past has substituted death penalty with fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years - The approach cannot be the vindictive but lack of appropriate sentence leaves the cry of justice of the society un-addressed apart from the fact that other persons who may have the propensity to carry out the crime feel they will get away with the lighter sentence, in case they are caught. State of Haryana v. Anand Kindoo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 780 : AIR 2022 SC 4315
Section 302 - Circumstances to be proved in case of murder by poison- explained. (Para 20 & 26) Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 968
Section 302 - Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC. (Para 60) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736
Section 302 - In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death. (Para 8) Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 529 : AIR 2022 SC 2542
Section 302 - Merely because no fracture was noticed and/or found cannot take the case out of Section 302 IPC when the deceased died due to head injury - Injury on the head can be said to be causing injury on the vital part of the body. (Para 7.2) State of U.P. v. Jai Dutt, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 72 : (2022) 3 SCC 184
Section 302 - Murder Trial - In case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. (Para 34) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : AIR 2023 SC 1599 : [2023] 2 SCR 276
Section 302 - Murder Trial - Omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused would assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (Para 26) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : AIR 2023 SC 1599 : [2023] 2 SCR 276
Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110 : AIR 2023 SC 996
Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court reverses concurrent findings of guilt entered by the trial court and High Court - Says exceptional case where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 : (2023) 2 SCR 682 : (2023) 5 SCC 350
Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court sets aside conviction in a murder case - Notes that the Trial Court and the High Court grossly erred in their appreciation of evidence. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746
Section 302 - Murder Trial - When there is concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Apex Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of such findings of fact, unless there is manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence - Conviction and sentence of mother for killing her 5-year old child upheld. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132 : AIR 2023 SC 1165
Section 302 - Prosecution has failed to prove the real genesis of the incident. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused had any motive to commit the murder of her own father. On the contrary, her father had brought her to the house of PW.1 for treating her mental ailment. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the act was done by the accused, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. The case would fall under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be tenable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Since the accused has been incarcerated for a period of more than 12 years, the said sentence would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the IPC. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322
Section 302 - the circumstances in which the accused is said to have administered poison to her two sons is clearly reflective of her being under a state of tremendous mental stress. However, it is difficult to grant the benefit of bringing the case under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Be that as it may, the Court is not pursuaded to convert the conviction from Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. (Para 10) Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401 : AIR 2023 SC 2263
Section 302 – the Supreme Court commutes death sentence of accused who murdered his sister & her lover from another caste; takes note of 'social pressure' - Accused, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the accused have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case. Thus, the Court after taking into consideration, the young age of the accused at the time of incidence, the manner in which the crime was committed, no criminal antecedent of the accused and the report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the Correctional Home in which the accused is serving his sentence, commuted the death sentence imposed on the accused to the life imprisonment. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361 : AIR 2023 SC 2827
Section 302 - There cannot be any sentence/punishment less than imprisonment for life, if an accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. (Para 5) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nandu @ Nandua, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 732 : AIR 2022 SC 4077 : (2022) 9 SCC 184
Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247
Section 302 - Trial Court does not have the jurisdiction to sentence an accused to life imprisonment which is to extend to the remainder of their life. Narendra Singh @ Mukesh @ Bhura v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 247
Section 302 and 376 - Rape and Murder of Six-Year-Old Girl - Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death - Acquitted - There are seriously inherent contradictions in the statements made by prosecution witnesses and both the Trial Court and the High Court have overlooked it completely - Court cannot make someone, a victim of injustice, to compensate for the injustice to the victim of a crime. Chotkau v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 804 : AIR 2022 SC 4688
Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon. On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles, the evidence is not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused. The courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles. In such circumstances, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside. (Para 33) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : AIR 2023 SC 2554
Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - there was no disclosure in the FIR as to how the dead body was found in the forest - who had seen the deceased in the company of the two persons was not disclosed in the FIR - the prosecution made later improvements in the story and made deliberate attempt to multiply the witnesses - all these circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt in our mind as to whether it is a quintessential case of a blind murder (i.e. taking place at a secluded place in the darkness of night where no one could witness the crime), therefore, to solve the case, while groping for witnesses, the prosecution story kept evolving, either on the basis of information received from time to time, or on guess work emanating from strong suspicion, or police suggestions. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470 : AIR 2023 SC 2554
Section 302, 211 - Accused allegedly took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, and strangulated them. Thereafter, he threw the dead bodies into the canal; and attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning - Concurrent conviction under Sections 302, 211 IPC upheld by the Apex Court. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2023 SC 193 : (2023) 3 SCC 372
Section 302,149 - Conviction of one surviving accused (nine others died during pendency of appeal before HC and SC) under Section 302/149 upheld - The effect and impact of reduction of the number of convicts pending an appeal owing to the death of co-convicts is bound to be different from the effect and impact of reduction of the number of accused/convicts on account of acquittal - The meaning of abatement can only be taken in criminal proceedings as `discontinuation of such proceedings owing to the death of the accused/convict pending such proceedings' - The abatement is certainly different from acquittal. (Para 12-16) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854 : AIR 2022 SC 5258
Sections 302 – Murder – Accused taking the deceased from home on a bicycle - Even if we accept PW4 daughter's testimony that the accused, on that fateful day, took the deceased on a bicycle to the fields that by itself is not conclusive to indicate that he took her to kill her; because, admittedly, the accused held agricultural holding and it is quite possible that he may have taken his wife to assist him in the agricultural operations. It is common practice in villages for ladies to help their menfolk in agricultural operations. The allegation that while taking her a declaration was made that she would be killed does not inspire our confidence for the reason that the motive set out by the prosecution for such a quarrel has not been proved. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - there is no direct eye witness account of the murder. The body of the deceased was found in the open on a railway track. In such circumstances to sustain a conviction the court would have to consider — (i) whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 23) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder – Disclosure Statement and Recovery - The prosecution placed heavy reliance on recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones from the hut of the accused on the basis of disclosure made by him - All papers were prepared at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful - the High Court was justified in doubting the recovery of blood-stained clothes etc. at the instance of the accused from the hut and on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder – Extra Judicial Confession - The alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW4 daughter was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous statement of PW4 made during investigation. PW4 was confronted with that omission during her deposition in court. That apart, the testimony of PW4 with regard to the accused returning home, making extra judicial confession, changing clothes, washing blood-stained clothes and spreading them to dry has been found unreliable and shaky by the High Court for cogent reasons, which do not appear perverse as to warrant an interference. Thus, the circumstance of extra judicial confession is also not proved beyond doubt. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder – Motive - the original motive for the crime was a dispute arising from keeping of jewellery by the deceased with her sister, whereas the statement of prosecution witnesses established that the jewellery had been returned much before the incident, therefore, there existed no cogent motive for the crime - the prosecution failed to prove the motive set out by it. No doubt absence of motive by itself may not be sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case if the other proven circumstances could form a chain so complete as to indicate that in all human probability it is the accused and no one else who committed the crime but, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part. Because, not only it makes the story believable but also helps the court in fortifying an inference which may be drawn against the accused from other attending circumstances. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder – Quarrels and disputes between husband and wife are everyday phenomena and not such an event which may create a strong suspicion of an impending crime much less murder. (Para 24) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 – Murder – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court which acquitted an accused who was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his wife on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery, and extra judicial confession) beyond reasonable doubt. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408 : (2023) 5 SCR 601
Sections 302 r/w. 34 - In a case rested on circumstantial evidence and 'last seen' theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstances, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the accused. (Para 24) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661
Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B – Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Apartment from where the dead body was found stood in the tenancy and possession of accused - the prosecution has failed to prove a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of them, and no one else, who had committed the murder. In such circumstances, even if the accused failed to explain as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in his apartment, an inference of his guilt cannot be drawn. In a nutshell, it is a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be true" as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge. (Para 86) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418
Section 304A - Causing death by negligence
Section 304A - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur stricto sensu would not apply to a criminal case - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : AIR 2022 SC 2374
Section 304B - Dowry Death
Section 304B - Offence of dowry death - the legislative intent of incorporating IPC section 304B was to curb the menace of dowry death with a firm hand-in dealing with cases under section 304B, such legislative intent has to be kept in mind- a strong message must go in the society that a person who commits such an offence of dowry death and/or the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act shall be dealt with an iron hand. Ajhola Devi v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 695
Section 304B - “Soon before” is not synonymous to “immediately before”. (Para 15) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37 : AIR 2022 SC 933 : (2022) 5 SCC 401
Section 304B - Demand for money raised on the deceased for construction of a house as falling within the definition of the word “dowry”. (Para 12-14) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 37 : AIR 2022 SC 933 : (2022) 5 SCC 401
Section 304B and 498A - Mere death of a wife under unnatural circumstances, in a matrimonial home, within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death. (Para 23) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341 : AIR 2023 SC 2095
Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide
Section 306 - Abetment of Suicide - Student committed suicide following disciplinary Action by educational institution - FIR registered against the teacher, the Head of the Department and the Principal on the complaint filed by student's father that the suicide was instigated by them - Discharging the accused, the Supreme Court observed: We find not an iota of material on record even assuming the complete charge sheet to be correct which could lead to a conviction in a case of abetment as there was absence of the necessary ingredients to make the offence. While we appreciate the anguish of a father who has lost a young son, that cannot result in blaming the world (in the present case, the institution and its teachers) for what is a basic disciplinary action necessary for running the institute. A contra position would create a lawless and unmanageable situation in an educational institution. V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 994
Section 306 - Abetment to commit suicide - Even an indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide would constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. (Para 16) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 : AIR 2022 SC 3530
Section 306 - Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, dramatically affecting the lives of families, friends and communities. However, the court of law while adjudicating is not to be guided by emotions of sentiments but the dictum is required to be based on analysis of facts and evidence on record. (Para 32) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834 : AIR 2022 SC 4994
Section 306 - In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. (Para 36-38) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 834 : AIR 2022 SC 4994
Section 306 - An FIR under Section 306 IPC cannot even be quashed on the basis of any financial settlement with the informant, surviving spouse, parents, children, guardians, care-givers or anyone else - Section 306 IPC falls in the category of heinous and serious offences and are to be treated as crime against society and not against the individual alone. (Para 50) Daxaben v. State of Gujarat, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 642 : AIR 2022 SC 3530
Sections 306, 107 - In order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established - In order to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. (Para 6-10) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Section 306 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 113A - Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. (Para 14) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149
Section 307 - Attempt to murder
Section 307 - Appeal against Rajasthan High court judgment which partly allowed a criminal appeal by maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC, but by reducing the sentence from three years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him in confinement (44 days) - Allowed - Merely because a long period has lapsed by the time the appeal is decided cannot be a ground to award the punishment which is disproportionate and inadequate- trial Court had already taken a very lenient view while imposing the sentence of only three years' rigorous imprisonment. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same. State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : 2022 (6) SCALE 71
Section 307 - There is no minimum sentence under Section 307 IPC - Discretion has to be exercised judiciously and the sentence has to be imposed proportionately and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence committed and by considering the principles for imposing sentence. (Para 9) State of Rajasthan v. Banwari Lal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 357 : 2022 (6) SCALE 71
Section 307 - To sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.' The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction. While grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, 'The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the10 weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. (Para 9) Sivamani v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1024
Section 323 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Section 323 - Even though any harm might not be directly intended, some aggravated culpability must be attached if the person suffers a grievous hurt or dies as a result thereof. (Para 32) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : AIR 2022 SC 2441 : (2022) 7 SCC 628
Section 323 - The hand can also be a weapon by itself where say a boxer, a wrestler or a cricketer or an extremely physically fit person inflicts the same. This may be understood where a blow may be given either by a physically fit person or to a more aged person. (Para 24) Jaswinder Singh v. Navjot Singh Sidhu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 498 : AIR 2022 SC 2441 : (2022) 7 SCC 628
Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
Section 324 - Arms Act, 1950 ; Section 27 - Once the charge against the appellants under Section 324 IPC of voluntarily causing injuries by firearm, which is a dangerous weapon stands established, they cannot escape the punishment for using arms prescribed by Section 27 of the Arms Act. (Para 22) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402 : AIR 2022 SC 2817
Section 324 - The presence of following ingredients is a must which are as follows: 1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person by the accused, and 2. Such hurt was caused. (Para 21) Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh @ Seth Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 402 : AIR 2022 SC 2817
Section 341 - Punishment for wrongful restraint
Section 341 - Wrongful restraint - It has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844
Section 354 - Assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty
Section 354 - Accused was convicted under Section 354 IPC - Sessions Court/ High Court dismissed his appeal/revision - Before Apex Court the accused submitted that a compromise has been entered into between him and the complainant/victim - Dismissing his SLP, the Supreme Court held: No reason to grant any credence to such compromise which is being entered into after the conviction has been confirmed by the High Court. Bimal Chandra Ghosh v. State of Tripura, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 157
Section 363 - Punishment for kidnapping
Sections 363, 364A – Kidnapping for ransom vis-à-vis kidnapping simpliciter – Proof of kidnapping for ransom – Punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such has a higher evidentiary threshold – Three stages or components, namely, first, kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; second, threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and third, when the demand is not met, then causing death – Fulfilment of second ingredient, namely, threat to cause death or hurt – Intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making them silent not adequate – Held, prosecution's case did not prove second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt as a result of the victim's statement being subsequently modified to reflect crucial differences that would enable the prosecution to drive home the kidnapping for ransom charge – Further held, conviction under Section 364A ought to be altered in exercise of power under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure into the lesser offence under Section 363 – Appeal partly allowed. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167 : AIR 2023 SC 1243 : 2023 Cri LJ 1913 : (2023) 6 SCC 76 : (2023) 2 SCR 164
Section 366 - Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.
Section 366 - Appeal against High Court judgment which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of abducting/kidnapping a girl - Allowed - The abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own free will - No fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appellants. It would be a futile exercise. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : (2022) 6 SCC 589
Section 366 - Section 366 IPC would come into play only where there is a forceful compulsion of marriage, by kidnapping or by inducing a woman. This offence also would not be made out once the abductee has clearly stated that she was in love with the accused and that she left her home on account of the disturbing circumstances at her parental home as the said relationship was not acceptable to her father and that she married the accused on her own free will without any influence being exercised by the accused. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 362 : (2022) 6 SCC 589
Section 375 - Rape
Section 375 - Whether a woman is "habituated to sexual intercourse" or "habitual to sexual intercourse" is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC are present in a particular case. (Para 62) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890 : AIR 2022 SC 5393
Section 375 and 90 - The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time - For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage - FIR lodged three years thereafter - Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself Distinction between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649
Section 375 Exception 2 - Sex with minor wife aged 16 years - Supreme Court acquits husband relying on exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170
Section 376 - Punishment for Rape
Section 376(2)(n) - Offence of committing repeated rape on same woman - The complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship - Now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC - Observations while granting anticipatory bail to accused. Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : AIR 2022 SC 3478
Sections 376 and 450 – Statement of Prosecutrix – Indian Failure of Police to Send Seized Clothes to Forensic Laboratory – Once the court believes the version of a survivor of sexual assault, that is sufficient to establish an offence punishable under Section 376, IPC – Failure of the police to send seized articles to the forensic science laboratory would not affect the outcome in such a case – Held, there was no merit in the appeal by the appellant-accused – Appeal dismissed. Somai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 989
Sections 376 - The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. All the same, when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony. (Para 5) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600
Sections 376 - Proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that 13 the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. (Para 9) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600
Sections 376 - Since age was such a crucial factor in the present case, the prosecution should have done a bone ossification test for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. (Para 9) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600
Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape & Murder of 6-year-old girl - Numerous lapses in investigation - the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A of CrPC. There is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis. A premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record. Lock panchnama is not prepared. No samples of blood and semen of the accused can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff, allegedly an additional sample is taken from the accused more than a month after the arrest. Alleged disclosure statement of the accused was never read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language. The accused was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence. What was the basis of the accused being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery. Persons who may have shed light on essential aspects went unexamined. Such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment imposed on the accused and set him at liberty. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461 : AIR 2023 SC 2938
Section 376 - Accused concurrently convicted under Section 376 IPC for rape - Allowing his appeal and acquitting him, the Supreme Court observed: The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC. Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66 : (2023) 1 SCR 1061
Section 376 - It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC - Difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused - In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. (Para 20) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66 : (2023) 1 SCR 1061
Section 384 - Punishment for Extortion
Section 384 - To attract the offence the following twin ingredients are to be satisfied: (i) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; (ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to any person any property or valuable security. In the absence of such ingredients / accusations in the chargesheet to constitute the said offence it cannot be said a prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 384 is made out. (Para 11) Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072
Section 394 - Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery
Section 394 - Appeal by accused convicted under Section 394 IPC - Allowed - Prosecution has not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stands displaced. Venkatesh @ Chandra v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 387
Section 397 - Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
Section 397 - If the charge of committing the offence is alleged against all the accused and only one among the 'offenders' had used the firearm or deadly weapon, only such of the 'offender' who has used the firearm or deadly weapon alone would be liable to be charged under Section 397 IPC. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14 : AIR 2022 SC 518
Section 397 - The use of the weapon to constitute the offence under Section 397 IPC does not require that the 'offender' should actually fire from the firearm or actually stab if it is a knife or a dagger but the mere exhibition of the same, brandishing or holding it openly to threaten and create fear or apprehension in the mind of the victim is sufficient. (Para 17) Ram Ratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14 : AIR 2022 SC 518
Section 403 - Dishonest misappropriation of property
Sections 403, 415 - Appeal against Allahabad High Court order that refused to quash FIR registered against a tenant under Section 415,403 IPC - Allowed - No criminal offence is made out, even if we accept the factual assertions made in the complaint, which was registered as the First Information Report. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281
Sections 403, 415 - Failure to pay rent may have civil consequences, but is not a penal offence under IPC. Neetu Singh v. State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 281
Sections 406, 420 - Appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court refusing to quash an FIR registered against appellant - Allowed - Two simultaneous proceedings, arising from the same cause of action amounted to an abuse of the process of the law which is barred - It cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC. Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 : (2022) 7 SCC 124
Section 405 - Criminal breach of trust
Section 405 - "Entrustment" - It extends to entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks, servants, business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a position of 'trust'. (Para 24) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 : (2022) 7 SCC 124
Section 405 - "Property" - The definition in the section does not restrict the property to movables or immoveable alone - There is no good reason to restrict the meaning of the word 'property' to moveable property only when it is used without any qualification in Section 405. (Para 25) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 : (2022) 7 SCC 124
Section 405 - An alleged breach of the contractual terms does not ipso facto constitute the offence of the criminal breach of trust without there being a clear case of entrustment - The offence of criminal breach of trust contains two ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with property, or with any dominion over property; and (ii) the person entrusted dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property to the detriment of the person who entrusted it. (Para 20-23) M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701 : AIR 2022 SC 5021
Section 405, 406 - The sine qua non for attracting the provision is the entrustment of the property with the accused persons. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
Section 406, 420 - A man, well versed in commerce, would certainly be expected to check the valuation of the property before entering into any transaction. Jayahari v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 106
Section 405, 406 - A mere dispute on monetary demand does not attract the offence of criminal breach of trust - Mere wrong demand or claim would not meet the conditions specified by Section 405 of the IPC in the absence of evidence to establish entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal, which action should be in violation of any direction of law, or legal contract touching the discharge of trust. (Para 15) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423
Section 406 - Punishment for criminal breach of trust
Sections 406,420 - Breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating - Fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating - A mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. (Para 34) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 : (2022) 7 SCC 124
Sections 406,420 - In order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating, the complainant had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused. (Para 42, 23-36) Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 : (2022) 7 SCC 124
Section 406 - Essential ingredients - In the absence of basic ingredient of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal of any such property to satisfy the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the charge of commission of the offence thereunder cannot be attracted. (Para 11) Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072
Section 411 - Dishonestly receiving stolen property
Section 411 - In order to bring home the guilt under Section 411 IPC, the prosecution must prove (1) that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused, (2) that some person other than the accused had possession of the property before the accused got possession of it, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property. (Para 21-22) Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 746 : AIR 2022 SC 4170 : (2022) 9 SCC 676
Section 415 - Cheating
Section 415, 420 - Firstly, to constitute cheating, a person must deceive another. Secondly, by doing so the former must induce the person so deceived to (i) deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (iii) intentionally induce the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and such an act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 701 : AIR 2022 SC 5021
Section 415, 420 - The sine qua non of Section 415 of the IPC is “fraudulence”, “dishonesty”, or “intentional inducement”, and the absence of these elements would debase the offence of cheating - For the offence of cheating, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should also have dishonestly adduced the person deceived to deliver any property to a person; or to make, alter, or destroy, wholly or in part, a valuable security, or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. (Para 17) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423
Section 416 - Cheating by personation
Sections 416, 420 - Essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are deception on the part of the accused or dishonest inducement by them, resulting in any person delivering any property to such accused or alteration or destruction of whole or any part of valuable security. Gurukanwarpal Kirpal Singh v. Surya Prakasam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 519
Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Clubbing of FIRs - FIRs lodged against accused under various provisions of IPC (Section 420 IPC etc) and other State enactments in various states - Directs clubbing of all the FIRs State-wise, which can proceed together for one trial as far as possible - Multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public interest. Abhishek Singh Chauhan v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 608
Section 420 - To make out a case against a person for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a dishonest inducement to deceive a person to deliver any property to any other person. (Para 8) Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 468 : AIR 2022 SC 2268
Section 420 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? - Referred to larger bench. J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 669 : AIR 2022 SC 3772
Section 420 - Ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating - Explained. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402
Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 - Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 29A – Allegation that the Memorandum annexed with the application for registration was false – Held, Even the application under Section 29A of the Act, 1951 was made as far as back in the year 1989 and thereafter even the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the ECI, which came to be dismissed by the ECI and thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year 2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date of filing of the application for registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951, which was made in the year 1989. Even assuming the complaint's averments to be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences, for which the learned Trial Court has passed the summoning order. (Para 5.12, 6) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053
Section 420 - Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence of cheating. The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied. There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. (Para 5.6) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053
Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : (2023) 5 SCC 360
Section 463 - Forgery
Sections 463, 464 and 471 - For the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non - Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document both are different and distinct. (Para 5.9) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053
Section 464 - Making a false document
Section 464, 470 471 - The condition precedent of an offence under Section 471 of the IPC is forgery by making a false document or false electronic record or part thereof - A person is said to have made a 'false document': (i) if he has made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; (ii) if he has altered or tampered a document; or (iii) if he has obtained a document by practising deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. Unless, the document is false and forged in terms of Sections 464 and 470 of the IPC respectively, the requirement of Section 471 of the IPC would not be met. (Para 18) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423
Section 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife.
Section 494, 495 – Bigamy - Appeal against Gauhati HC order which dismissed petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding under Sections 494 and 495 IPC (bigamy) despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage - Allowed - High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a 'highly contentious matter' which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence on the record. Rehana Begum v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86 : 2022 (2) SCALE 272
Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
Section 498A - Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against relatives of husband would simply result in an abuse of the process of law - If allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution. (Para 19 - 21) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 : AIR 2022 SC 820 : (2022) 6 SCC 599
Section 498A - Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC - the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in -laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (Para 18) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 : AIR 2022 SC 820 : (2022) 6 SCC 599
Section 498A - General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged. (Para 22) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 : AIR 2022 SC 820 : (2022) 6 SCC 599
Section 498A - Incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in -laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. (Para 12) Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 : AIR 2022 SC 820 : (2022) 6 SCC 599
Section 498A - Appeal against the order of the High Court denying permission to Appellant to leave the country - Allowed - The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Section 498A - Concurrent conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld - Wife's submission that she would not like to contest the appeal and she wants to join her husband and revive their matrimonial life - In this proceeding, we cannot pass any order on that count. For that purpose, the wife may take such steps as may be advised. Considering the overall circumstances, the punishment of rigorous imprisonment reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in incarceration. Randeep Singh v. State of U T Chandigarh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 962
Section 498A - Expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes - The duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. (Para 8-9) Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 34
Section 498A - Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A. Deepak Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 52
Section 498A - When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. (Para 8) Meera v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 40 : AIR 2022 SC 355 : (2022) 3 SCC 93
Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 306 - Dying Declaration - In some circumstances, the evidence of a deceased wife with respect to cruelty could be admissible in a trial for a charge under Section 498A of the IPC under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act , subject to meeting certain necessary preconditions (1) That her cause of death must come into question in the matter - For instance, matters where along with the charge under Section 498A of the IPC, the prosecution has also charged the accused under Sections 302, 306 or 304B of the IPC - As long as the cause of her death has come into question, whether the charge relating to death is proved or not is immaterial with respect to admissibility. (2) Prosecution will have to show that the evidence that is sought to be admitted with respect to Section 498A of the IPC must also relate to the circumstances of the transaction of the death. How far back the evidence can be, and how connected the evidence is to the cause of death of the deceased would necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. No specific straitjacket formula or rule can be given with respect to this. Surendran v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 482 : AIR 2022 SC 2322
Section 498A - While granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the IPC, a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed. Kunal Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1045
Section 498A - One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty. Mahalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1041
Section 498A and 304B - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - When dying declaration would not suggest that there was any proximate nexus to the act of committing suicide on account of preceding demand for dowry or in other words the demand of dowry on any particular date having triggered the deceased to commit the suicide or forced her to selfimmolate, conviction of the accused under Section 304B cannot be sustained. (Para 17) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Section 498A and 304B - Irrespective of the fact that accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304B, Section 498A would cover the cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). (Para 21) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Section 498A and 306 - Mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention Section 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude the Supreme Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. (Para 27) (Para 21) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915
Section 498A - When marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498A IPC would not be sustainable. (Para 7) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116
Section 499 - Defamation
Section 499 - Defamation - Exceptions. (Para 18) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440
Section 499, 500 - First defamation complaint dismissed by Magistrate observing that there is no prima facie case as it falls under fourth exception - Revision petition before HC filed was withdrawn - Second complaint filed before Magistrate with same set of facts - High Court quashed the complaint - While dismissing appeal, the Supreme Court observed: Even if the order of Judicial Magistrate while dismissing the first complaint was erroneous in law, it does not amount to nonapplication of mind by the trial court. B.R.K Aathithan v. Sun Group, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1022
Section 499 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Defamation complaint against Mr. Aroon Purie (Editor in Chief of India Today) and author of an article and others - Nothing specific has been attributed to Editor-in-Chief and therefore, he cannot be held liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article - With regard to the role ascribed to author, his case stands on a different footing - Whether what he did was an act which was justified or not would be a question of fact to be gone into only at the stage of trial- In a given case, if the facts so justify, the benefit of an exception to Section 499 of the IPC has been extended and it is not taken to be a rigid principle that the benefit of exception can only be afforded at the stage of trial. (Para 21) Aroon Purie v. State of Nct of Delhi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 894
Section 499 - Defamation - The claim made by a person involved in politics that the answers provided by his rival in public office to the questions posed by him, will expose his scam, cannot be per se stated to be intended to harm the reputation of the person holding office. The statements such as "I will expose you", "I will expose your corrupt practices" and "I will expose the scam in which you are involved, etc." are not by themselves defamatory unless there is something more - Even if a person belonging to a political party had challenged a person holding public office by stating "I will expose your scam", the same may not amount to defamation. Defamatory statement should be specific and not very vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section 499 is that the imputation made by the accused should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. (Para 60-64) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853
Section 499 - Defamation - Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act which speaks of the rights of administrators and executors of the estate of the deceased, does not bar family members and near relatives covered by Section 499 IPC from seeking injunction - A right in tort may arise when any imputation concerning a deceased person harms the reputation of that person, if living or is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family members or other near relatives. (Para 19) Shri Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 213 : 2022 (4) SCALE 440