Supreme Court Criminal Digest -May 2024

Bail

In the matters relating to liberty of a citizen every single day counts. Keeping the matter for regular bail pending for a period of almost 11 months deprives the petitioner of his valuable right of liberty. Amandeep Singh Dhall v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 399

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Appeal against conviction – Held, Conviction is confirmed. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference. (Para 49 & 50) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Enhancement of sentence – Held, enhancement in sentence is not justified nearly 35 years after the incident. (Para 14) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989 – Retrospective application of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 – Held, CrPC, 1973 will apply to Jammu and Kashmir only with effect from 31.10.2019, the date when the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 came into effect. CrPC, 1973 would govern the field only from the appointed day and consequently the CrPC, 1989 stands repealed. (Para 30 & 31) National Investigation Agency v. Owais Amin @ Cherry, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Code of Criminal Procedure SVT., 1989; Section 196 & 196A – Under section 196, a jurisdictional court shall take cognizance only upon a complaint made by the order of, or under the authority from the Government, or a District Magistrate, or such other officer as empowered by the Government for the aforesaid purpose. The compliance under section 196 mandatory, failing which a Court cannot take cognizance. Section 196A only deals with specified classes of criminal conspiracy. Section 196-A(1) speaks of the object of the conspiracy qua an illegal act other than an offence, a legal act by illegal means, or an offence to which Section 196 applies. For taking cognizance of such an offence, a complaint can only be made either by an order of the Government, or under its authority, or by an officer empowered by it. In the case of Section 196-A, cognizance of a complaint can be taken by a Court only after satisfying itself of the due compliance of Section 196-A(1) with respect to competence of the authority. Though Sections 196 and 196-A seem to be similar insofar as the authority competent to convey a complaint is concerned, under Section 196 a District Magistrate can lodge it by himself, whereas, the same provision is not available under Section 196-A. Hence, Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 is pari materia to Section 196A. Held, the appellant may comply with the mandate of Section 196-A by seeking appropriate authorization or empowerment as the case may be. If such a compliance is duly made, then the Trial Court shall undertake the exercise of taking cognizance, and proceed further with the trial in accordance with law. (Para 15, 16 & 17) National Investigation Agency v. Owais Amin @ Cherry, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Section 156(3) – Magistrate empowered to order investigation – Held, the Trial Court after having been prima facie satisfied, had exercised its judicial discretion directing investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC Further held, such order being just, legal and proper, the High Court should not have interfered with the same, more particularly while exercising limited powers under Section 482 of CrPC. (Para 10) Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Section 156(3) & 190 – Magistrate power to take cognizance – When the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It is only when the Magistrate after applying his mind prefers to follow the procedure under Chapter XV of CrPC by resorting to Section 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. (Para 8) Sas Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Section 313 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872– Admissibility of statement of accused under Section 313(1) as evidence – Section 313(4) of the Cr.PC provides that the answers given by the accused in his examination under Section 313(1) of the Cr.PC may be taken into consideration in the trial. But the conviction cannot be based solely on the statements made by an accused under Section 313(1) but in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution. (Para 6) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Section 313 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Cross-examination of the prosecutrix – The case of accused made out in statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC was that they was in a physical relationship with the victim and were paying money to the victim for maintaining a sexual relationship was not put to the prosecutrix in cross-examination. Held, while appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, answers given by the accused in the examination under Section 313(1), that they maintained a physical relationship with the prosecutrix by paying her money can be considered. In the cross-examination, the case put to the prosecutrix was that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused and there was no suggestion given by the accused that the sexual intercourse with the consent of the prosecutrix. Further held, the evidence of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her has not been shaken. Conviction granted by the High Court is upheld. (Para 10 & 12) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raghubir Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 403

Section 102 (1) – Grounds to challenge seizure – The order of seizure can be challenged on the ground that the seizing officer lacked jurisdiction to act under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. or that the seized item does not satisfy the definition of 'property' or on the ground that the property which was seized could not have given rise to suspicion concerning the commission of a crime, in order for the authorities to justify the seizure. (Para 13) Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Section 102(1) & 102(3) – 'Seizure orders' – Substantive power on the police to seize property linked to a crime – Whether non-compliance with the procedural formality of reporting such seizure forthwith to the Magistrate would vitiate the seizure? – Held, the validity of the power exercised under Section 102(1) Cr.P.C. is not dependent on the compliance with the duty prescribed on the police officer under Section 102(3) Cr.P.C. The obligation to report the seizure to the Magistrate is neither a jurisdictional pre-requisite for exercising the power to seize nor is the exercise of such power made subject to compliance with the reporting obligation. Hence, the act of seizure (seizure order) would not get vitiated by virtue of such delay in reporting to the magistrate. (Para 13, 14 & 24) Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Section 102 (3) – Interpretation of the expression 'shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate' – The expression means 'as soon as may be', 'with reasonable speed and expedition', 'with a sense of urgency', and 'without any unnecessary delay'. In other words, it would mean as soon as possible, judged in the context of the object sought to be achieved or accomplished. Hence, the interpretation of the word 'forthwith' would depend upon the terrain in which it travels and would take its colour depending upon the prevailing circumstances which can be variable. (Para 22 & 23) Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 371

Section 161(1) & 162(1) – The statement made by a witness before the police under Section 161(1) Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose: (i) of contradicting such witness by an accused under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re-examination of the witness if necessary. (Para 63) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 299 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 33 – Record of evidence in absence of accused – Deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconvenience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unreasonable. Held, despite ample efforts made, the witness cannot be traced and produced in the witness box for deposition during trial after the accused had been arrested. Hence, the statement earlier recorded was fit to be read as a piece of substantive evidence against the accused. (Para 31, 38 & 39) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Section 319 – Legality of summon order – Power under Section 319 can only be excercised if evidence against the accused is strong and reliable i.e. much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. Held, deposition of PW-1, not being an eye-witness, is not sufficient enough to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 to summon the appellants. There are no other witnesses or documentary evidence against the appellants. The higher degree of satisfaction that is required for exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not met. Hence, the trial Court committed a serious error in allowing the application under Section 319 and issuing summons to the appellants. Summon order is set aside. (Para 16, 23, 24 & 25) Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Section 357 – Victimology – Impugned order to pay compensation in lieu of Punishment – Held, the High Court having once affirmed the conviction and awarded sentence of four years could not have further diluted the order of sentence by asking the accused persons to pay compensation. Further held, Payment of victim compensation cannot be a consideration or a ground for reducing the sentence imposed upon the accused as victim compensation is not a punitive measure and only restitutory in nature and thus, has no bearing with the sentence that has been passed which is punitive in nature. Hence, the High Court fell into error. Sentences such as imprisonment and / or fine are imposed independently of any victim compensation and thus, the two stand on a completely different footing, either of them cannot vary the other. If payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, itt will result in criminals with a purse full of money to buy their way out of justice, defeating the very purpose of criminal proceedings. (Para 21, 23, 25, 26) Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Section 357 – Victimology – Object – The idea of victim compensation – Theory of Victimology seeks to take into consideration the effect of the offence on the victim's family even though human life cannot be restored but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace. The object of victim compensation is to rehabilitate those who have suffered any loss or injury by the offence which has been committed. The sole factor for deciding the compensation to be paid is the victim's loss or injury as a result of the offence and the convict's capacity to pay, and has nothing to do with the sentence that has been passed. (Para 22, 24) Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya v. State of Gujarat, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 378

Section 439 – Considerations for setting aside Bail order – Considerations include any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any instance of threats being extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper with the evidence in any manner. This list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. (Para 28) Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Section 439 – Parameters for granting Bail – The parameters are: nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, if the accused are released on bail, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice and the overall desirability of releasing the accused on bail. Further, at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused. (Para 26 & 28) Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Section 439 (1) – Power of cancellation of Bail – It is equally well settled that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner. However, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is always open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order. Held, the respondents do not deserve the concession of bail. Hence, the bail orders are quashed and set aside. (Para 27 & 35) Ajwar v. Waseem, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392

Section 482 – Power to quash chargesheet – The power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the Section itself. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court but only saves the inherent power, which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. If the Court is convinced by the fact that the involvement by the complainant of her husband and his close relatives is with an oblique motive then even if the FIR and the chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence the Court with a view to doing substantial justice should read in between the lines the oblique motive of the complainant and take a pragmatic view of the matter. Held, if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the Appellant, the same will be nothing short of abuse of process of law & travesty of justice. The High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings. (Para 20, 21, 31 & 36) Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Section 482 – Quashing of chargesheet – Object – The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute. (Para 25) Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Section 482 – Quashing of chargesheet – Stages at which the power to quash can be used – There is nothing in the words of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which restricts the exercise of the power of the court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It would be a travesty of justice to hold that the proceedings initiated against a person can be interfered with at the stage of FIR but not if it has materialized into a chargesheet. (Para 22) Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Constitution of India

Article 22(1) and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA); Section 43B (1) – The proceedings of arrest and the police custody remand of appellant is questioned – On grounds that mandator requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested is not provided – The arrest memo nowhere conveys the grounds on which the accused was being arrested. Keeping the accused in police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested; deprives the accused of the opportunity to avail services of the legal practitioner of his choice to oppose the prayer for police custody remand and seek bail. Held, the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant or his counsel before passing of the order of remand which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant. Further held, the mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. The arrest of the appellant followed by remand order are hereby declared to be invalid in the eyes of law and are quashed and set aside. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody. (Para 48, 50 & 51) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Article 21 & 22(1) & 22 (5) – Mandatory to inform' grounds of arrest' – The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Noncompliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. (Para 30) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Article 142 and Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 354D & 506 – Power of court exercised to quash conviction of accused – Held, the offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused, and the fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of the appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed. Hence, on grounds that the accused and the complainant married each other and the affirmation of the conviction of accused would have the disastrous consequence on the matrimonial relationship of the accused with the complainant, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. (Para 7, 9 & 11) Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Remission – Appellant granted liberty to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the State Government praying for remission of sentence. Considering the fact that the appellant has undergone almost 11 years of imprisonment so far i.e. almost half of his life lived so far has been spent undergoing the ordeal of the criminal prosecution. Held, when a crime is committed, a variety of factors are responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations. (Para 85 & 86) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Corruption

The contention that the commitments by a political party in its manifesto, which eventually lead to direct or indirect financial help to the public at large, will also amount to corrupt practice by a candidate of that party, is too far-fetched and cannot be accepted. Shashanka J. Sreedhara v. B.Z. Zameer Ahmed Khan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 410

Criminal Law

Bail order is challenged – Held, respondent having been enlarged on bail conditionally and the conditions so stipulated having not been violated – There are no overwhelming material on record to set aside the order granting bail which outweighs the liberty granted by the High Court. Further held, the appellant-state having not sought for cancellation of the bail would be a prime reason for the court to not entertain the appeal. Hence, interference in impugned bail order is not warranted. (Para 16, 17) Union of India v. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 367

Entries in History Sheet challenged – Direction given to state governments and police authorities – Held, the police authorities may consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. All the State Governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment. Further held, a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinize the entries made, so as to ascertain that these are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices. (Para 14 & 16) Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Grant of interim bail/release – Interim bail is granted as per facts of each case – While examining the question of grant of interim bail/release, the courts always take into consideration the peculiarities associated with the person in question and the surrounding circumstances and to ignore the same would be iniquitous and wrong – Further held, once the matter is sub-judice and the questions relating to legality of arrest are under consideration, a more libertarian view is justified, in the background that the 18th Lok Sabha General Elections are being held – The 18th Lok Sabha General Elections is an intervening factor which has prompted the court to consider the interim bail application of the appellant – The appellant is directed to be released on interim bail. (Para 8, 14 & 15) Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 363

History Sheet entries challenged – Applicability of amended standing order – Held, as per the amended Standing Order, in the column of “relations and connection” no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded, unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender. Further held, the amended provision mandates that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 shall be meticulously followed, whereunder there is a prohibition on disclosing the identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or a witness of a crime through a report etc. Held, the amended Standing Order be given effect in the present case. (Para 6, 7 & 10) Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Evidence Act, 1872

Circumstantial evidence – Held, the statement of witness by itself provides a complete chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused appellant. The prosecution has established the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the accused appellant and totally inconsistent with his innocence or the involvement of any other person in the crime. (Para 38 & 48) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Credibility of Evidence – Held, the surveyor's report is a credible evidence and the court may rely on it until a more reliable evidence is brought on record. (Para 23) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 409

Duty of public prosecutor to cross-examine hostile witness – It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine a hostile witness in detail and try to elucidate the truth & also establish that the witness is speaking lie and has deliberately resiled from his police statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. A good, seasoned and experienced Public Prosecutor will not only bring the contradictions on record, but will also cross-examine the hostile witness at length to establish that he or she had actually witnessed the incident as narrated in his/her police statement. Only bringing the contradictions on record and thereafter proving such contradictions through the evidence of the Investigating Officer is not sufficient. (Para 69) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Evidentiary value of a hostile witness – The evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Para 9) Selvamani v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Hostile witness – Appreciation of the evidence is challenged – The prosecutrix and her mother and aunt in their cross-examination, which was recorded three and a half months after the recording of the examination-in-chief, have turned around and not supported the prosecution case. Held, on account of a long gap between the examination-in-chief and cross examination, the witnesses were won over by the accused and they resiled from the version as deposed in the examination-in-chief which fully incriminates the accused. However, when the evidence of the victim as well as her mother and aunt is tested with the FIR, the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the evidence of the Medical Expert), there is sufficient corroboration to the version given by the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief. Hence, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court as well as the High Court on appreciation of the evidence. (Para 8, 13 & 15) Selvamani v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first view”, or “based on first impression” – “Evidence sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”. In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. In most legal proceedings, one party (typically, the plaintiff or the prosecutor) has a burden of proof, which requires them to present prima facie evidence for each element of the case or charges against the defendant. If they cannot present prima facie evidence, the initial claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties. (Para 49) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 8 & 27 – Conduct – The conduct of the appellant in leading the Investigating Officer and others to a drain nearby his house and the discovery of the knife from the drain is a relevant fact. It would be admissible as 'conduct' under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction is only one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. (Para 56 & 61) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 14 – State of mind – Held, the accused went absconding after the murder and could not be traced out for almost 10 years which is also a strong circumstance pointing towards his guilty state of mind. (Para 45) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Section 32(1) – Dying Declaration – Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule that hearsay evidence is not admissible. Once a dying declaration is found to be authentic inspiring confidence of the court, then the same can be relied upon and can be the sole basis for conviction without any corroboration. However, before accepting such a dying declaration, court must be satisfied that it was rendered voluntarily, it is consistent and credible and that it is devoid of any tutoring. Held, the contents of the dying declaration have been proved by prosecution witnesses. Certain inconsistencies in evidence of witness may take place due to the time gap of 5 years from the date of incident to the date of evidence given. Further held, though there are inconsistencies and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses, there is however convergence with the core of the narration of the deceased made in the dying declaration and the medical history recorded by the doctor. Hence, dying declaration is accepted as a valid piece of evidence and it clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 24, 25 & 35) Rajendra Ramdas Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 406

Section 105 – Presumption – Burden to prove case within exception – It is for the accused to show the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 302. (Para 78) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 106 – Burden of proof – The burden is upon the accused to prove. Held, the bald plea of denial offered by the accused is not sufficient to absolve him of the burden cast upon him. Failure of the accused to offer explanation for the homicidal death of his wife in the night time when only the accused and deceased were present in the house lead to the interference of guilt of accused. (Para 46 & 47) Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Section 106 – Burden of proof – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish the facts which are, “especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience”. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused. (Para 35, 36 & 50) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 145 – To contradict the witness – While recording the deposition of a witness, it becomes the duty of the trial court to ensure that the part of the police statement with which it is intended to contradict the witness is brought to the notice of the witness in his cross-examination by reproducing it. If the witness admits the part intended to contradict him, it stands proved and there is no need of further proof of contradiction and it will be read while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that part of the statement, the contradiction is merely brought on record, but it is yet to be proved. (Para 66) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 165 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 311 – The courts have to take a participatory role in the trial and not act as mere tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses. The judge has uninhibited power to put questions to the witness either during the chief examination or cross-examination or even during re-examination for this purpose. The trial judge must exercise the vast powers conferred under Section 165 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. respectively to elicit all the necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process. (Para 69, 73 & 74) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015

Section 7 – Procedure in relation to the Board – The Principal Magistrate passed the order, that the child in conflict with Law (CCL) is to be tried by the Children's Court as an adult. Held, at the time of final disposal of the case or making an order under Section 18(3) of the Act, there shall be at least two members including the Principal Magistrate. When the arguments in the matter were heard with reference to the order under Section 18(3) of the Act, the Board consisted of a Principal Magistrate and a Member. Further held, even if the other member of the Board had not signed the order and had merely mentioned that he had a dissenting view, without any reasons being recorded, the order of the Principal Magistrate will prevail. Order passed by the Board as signed by the Principal Magistrate was final. However, the same is subject to right of appeal of the aggrieved party. (Para 15.2, 15.3, 15.5 & 18) Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Section 14(3) & 15 – Time limit for preliminary assessment is directory in nature – Section 15 of the Act enables the Board to make preliminary assessment into heinous offences alleged to have been committed by a child between 16 and 18 years of age, with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed. Section 14(3) of the Act provides that the preliminary assessment in terms of Section 15 is to be completed by the Board within a period of three months from the date of first production of the child before the Board. Held, the time so provided in Section 14(3) cannot be held to be mandatory, as no consequences of failure have been provided. Where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a Statute are not mentioned, the same cannot be held to be mandatory. (Para 9, 9.2, 9.14, 9.15 & 18) Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Section 101(1), 101(2) & 15 – Time for filing appeal against order of the Board under Section 15 – Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the Act against an order of the Board passed under Section 15 of the Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days. The appellate court can entertain the appeal after the expiry of the aforesaid period, provided sufficient cause is shown. (Para 13.1 & 18) Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Section 101(2) and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2016 – 'Children's Court' or the 'Sessions Court' – Section 101(2) of the JJ Act provides that against an order passed by the Board the appeal is maintainable before the Court of Sessions – Held, the words 'Children's Court' and 'Court of Sessions' in Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the 2016 Rules shall be read interchangeably – Where Children's Court is available, even if the appeal is said to be maintainable before the Sessions Court, it has to be considered by the Children's Court. Whereas where no Children's Court is available, the power is to be exercised by the Sessions Court. (Para 12.2 & 18) Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Section 102 – Maintainability of revision petition – Section 102 of the Act enables the High Court to exercise its revisional powers with reference to any order or proceeding by the Board or the Children's Court. The High Court can exercise its revisional powers for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit. (Para 10.2, 10.4 & 18) Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother v. State of Karnataka, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

The plea of juvenility of the accused may be raised before any court at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, such a plea of juvenility couldn't be rejected without conducting a proper inquiry. Delay in raising the plea of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such a claim. For making a claim with regard to juvenility after conviction, the claimant must produce some material which prima facie may satisfy the court that an inquiry into the claim of juvenility is necessary. Initial burden has to be discharged by the person who claims juvenility. (Para 10 - 13) Rahul Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 341

The Supreme Court prescribes 30 days time limit to prefer appeal against the juvenile justice board preliminary assessment order. Rahul Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985

Section 63 – Order of confiscation and auction of article is challenged – The court cannot order confiscation of an article until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto. Held, the appellant is the registered owner of the article and has a right to be heard by the court before the final order of confiscation is passed and the seized vehicle is put to auction. Hence, the order passed by the trial court to the extent it orders confiscation and auction of the dumper is set aside. (Para 13, 14 & 15) Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Section 138 – Maintainability of suit – Criminal law can be set in motion by anyone, even by a stranger or legal heir. A complaint under Section 138, preferred by the Power of Attorney Holder is held maintainable and also that such Power of Attorney Holder can depose as complainant. (Para 11) Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 407

Penal Code, 1860

Section 34 & 494 – Charged with common intention to commit offence of Bigamy – Held, in order to bring home the said charge, the complainant would be required to prima facie prove not only the presence of the accused persons, but the overt act or omission of the accused persons in the second marriage ceremony and also establish that such accused were aware about the subsisting first marriage. Held, mere presence in the marriage is not enough to establish common intention to commit offence of Bigamy. Further, there is no allegation that the accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage having knowledge of the first marriage. Hence, the charge is not established. (Para 17 & 18) S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Section 302 Exception 4 – Sudden provocation/ heat of the moment – 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 – Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or an unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is disproportionate, that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. Held, cannot overlook the fact that the appellant inflicted as many as twelve blows with a knife on the deceased who was unarmed and helpless. Hence, case is not one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but the same is a case of murder. The High Court committed no error in affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court. (Para 79, 82, 83, 84) Anees v. State Govt of NCT, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 344

Section 494 and Criminal procedure Code, 9173; Section 216 – Bigamy – Charges framed against accused for offence of Bigamy – Held, order framing charge is erroneous on the face of the record because no person other than the spouse to the second marriage could have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC simplicitor. Defect in framing of charge is curable and can be altered at any stage as per the provisions of Section 216 CrPC. Further held, allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants with defect in charges framed, would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court. Hence, all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the appellants are quashed and set aside. (Para 16, 21) S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 385

Section 498A – Cruelty – In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other or mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may not amount to cruelty. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. (Para 32) Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

Once a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA is filed, it will be governed by Sections 200 to 205 of the CrPC as none of the said provisions are inconsistent with any of the provisions of the PMLA. (Para 23 (a)) Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

If the accused was not arrested by the ED till filing of the complaint, while taking cognizance on a complaint under Section 44(1)(b), as a normal rule, the Court should issue a summons to the accused and not a warrant. Even in a case where the accused is on bail, a summons must be issued. (Para 23 (b)) Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

In the facts of this case, the appellant will complete 3½ years of incarceration on 26th May, 2024. Thus, he will complete half of the prescribed sentence. In this case, obviously the trial has not started, as the charge has not been framed. This Court has held that Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CRPC") will apply even to a case under the PMLA. But the Court can still deny the relief owing to the ground such as where the trial was delayed at the instance of the accused. As stated earlier, here there is no occasion for the appellant to cause the delay in trial, as even charge has not been framed. Moreover, there is no other circumstance brought on record which will compel us to deny the benefit of Section 436A of the CRPC to the appellant. Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 400

After a summons is issued under Section 204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA on a complaint, if the accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to the summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to apply for bail. However, the Special Court can direct the accused to furnish bond in terms of Section 88 of the CrPC. (Para 23 (c)) Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

In a case where the accused appears pursuant to a summons before the Special Court, on a sufficient cause being shown, the Special Court can grant exemption from personal appearance to the accused by exercising power under Section 205 of the CrPC. (Para 23 (d)) Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

If the accused does not appear after a summons is served or does not appear on a subsequent date, the Special Court will be well within its powers to issue a warrant in terms of Section 70 of the CrPC. Initially, the Special Court should issue a bailable warrant. If it is not possible to effect service of the bailable warrant, then the recourse can be taken to issue a nonbailable warrant. (Para 23 (e)) Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

A bond furnished according to Section 88 is only an undertaking by an accused who is not in custody to appear before the Court on the date fixed. Thus, an order accepting bonds under Section 88 from the accused does not amount to a grant of bail;. (Para 23 (f), Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

In a case where the accused has furnished bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC, if he fails to appear on subsequent dates, the Special Court has the powers under Section 89 read with Sections 70 of the CrPC to issue a warrant directing that the accused shall be arrested and produced before the Special Court; If such a warrant is issued, it will always be open for the accused to apply for cancellation of the warrant by giving an undertaking to the Special Court to appear before the said Court on all the dates fixed by it. While cancelling the warrant, the Court can always take an undertaking from the accused to appear before the Court on every date unless appearance is specifically exempted. When the ED has not taken the custody of the accused during the investigation, usually, the Special Court will exercise the power of cancellation of the warrant without insisting on taking the accused in custody provided an undertaking is furnished by the accused to appear regularly before the Court. When the Special Court deals with an application for cancellation of a warrant, the Special Court is not dealing with an application for bail. Hence, Section 45(1) will have no application to such an application. (Para 23 (g). Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

When an accused appears pursuant to a summons, the Special Court is empowered to take bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC in a given case. However, it is not mandatory in every case to direct furnishing of bonds. However, if a warrant of arrest has been issued on account of nonappearance or proceedings under Section 82 and/or Section 83 of the CrPC have been issued against an accused, he cannot be let off by taking a bond under Section 88 of the CrPC, and the accused will have to apply for cancellation of the warrant. (Para 23 (h), Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

After cognizance is taken of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA based on a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b), the ED and its officers are powerless to exercise power under Section 19 to arrest a person shown as an accused in the complaint. (Para 23 (i), Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

If the ED wants custody of the accused who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation in the same offence, the ED will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to the Special Court. After hearing the accused, the Special Court must pass an order on the application by recording brief reasons. While hearing such an application, the Court may permit custody only if it is satisfied that custodial interrogation at that stage is required, even though the accused was never arrested under Section 19. However, when the ED wants to conduct a further investigation concerning the same offence, it may arrest a person not shown as an accused in the complaint already filed under Section 44(1)(b), provided the requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled. (Para 23 (j), Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 383

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

To punish a person for casteist insults under SC / ST Act, comments have to be made within public view. Priti Agarwalla v. State of GNCT of Delhi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 394

Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967

Section 43B(1) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002; Section 19(1) – Interpretation of the phrase 'inform him of the grounds for such arrest' – Held, the provision regarding the communication of the grounds of arrest to a person arrested contained in Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is verbatim the same as that in Section 19(1) of the PMLA – It is a statutory mandate requiring the arresting officer to inform the grounds of arrest to the person arrested under Section 43B(1) of the UAPA at the earliest. Both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is the same in both the statutes. Hence, applying the golden rules of interpretation, the provisions which lay down a very important constitutional safeguard to a person arrested on charges of committing an offence either under the PMLA or under the UAPA, have to be uniformly construed and applied. (Para 17, 18, 22 & 34) Prabir Purkayastha v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Section 43D(5) – Bail order challenged – Rejection of bail on grounds that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true – The Court at the stage of considering the bail applications of the respondents-accused is merely required to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the alleged offences. Held, there is sufficient material to believe that the accusations against the respondents-accused are prima facie true and that the mandate contained in the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would be applicable for not releasing the respondents on bail. The Supreme Court should be slow in interfering with the order when the bail has been granted by the High Court, however if such order of granting bail is found to be illegal and perverse, it must be set aside. The High Court has committed gross error in not considering the material/evidence in its right and proper perspective that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the respondents are prima facie true. Hence, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. (Para 16, 17, 18, 22 & 24) Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 404