Bail

Supreme Court disapproves Allahabad HC dismissing several bail applications on the same day for default. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Supreme Court overturned a bail condition imposed by the High Court that a person accused of illegally claiming Input Tax Credit must deposit Rs. 70 lakhs, the alleged amount of improperly claimed ITC - Centre conceded that such a condition is unsustainable when final assessment has not taken place. Subhash Chauhan v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 61

Process of criminal law not for money recovery; Bail can be granted irrespective of payment of money involved. Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail / suspension of sentence. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Cheque

Section 138 NI Act - Accused relies on income tax returns to show complainant did not have financial capacity; Supreme Court affirms acquittal. Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Criminal Law

Section 482 Cr.P.C. | Pendency of suit concealed, cloak of criminal offence given to civil dispute: Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Criminal Investigation - A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version -Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal - Though mere defects in the investigative process by itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence brought on record is at all reliable and whether such lapses affect the object of finding out the truth. (Para 28, 42) Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Criminal Trial - The circumstance that most of the witnesses were related to the deceased does not per se exclude their testimony. (Para 14) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Chargesheets not 'public documents', Can't direct investigating agencies to upload them on websites. Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Chargesheets - Supreme Court refuses to direct that chargesheets filed by investigating agencies should be uploaded on a public website for public access- Court says that the directions in Youth Bar Association of India vs Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 473 regarding uploading of FIR cannot be extended to chargesheets - Court directed the copies of the FIRs to be published within 24 hours on the police websites or on the websites of the State Government, looking to the interest of the accused and so that innocent accused are not harassed and they are able to get the relief from the competent court and they are not taken by surprise. Therefore, the directions issued by this Court are in favour of the accused, which cannot be stretch to the public at large so far as the chargesheets are concerned. (Para 4.1) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Default bail can be cancelled on merits after presentation of chargesheet. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

View that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will reward lethargic investigation. State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Grant of Remission - Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33

'Reasonable time should be given for investigation': SC sets aside madras HC order quashing FIR against youtuber Maridhas in 4 days. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Supreme Court takes exception to Madras High Court quashing an FIR in four days without giving adequate time for investigation. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

"Private civil dispute converted to criminal proceedings": Supreme Court quashes complaint alleging offence under SC-ST (prevention of Atrocities) Act. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 14

Magistrate Must Examine If Complaint Constitutes Only A Civil Wrong Before Summoning Accused. Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

"Burden to prove mental incapacity is on the defence": Supreme Court upholds conviction of man accused of killing his two sons. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Dowry

Criminal proceedings for dowry demand cannot be quashed merely because divorce petition is pending. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Evidence Law

Section 27 Evidence Act - Recovery cannot be relied upon when the statement of the accused is not recorded. Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Last Seen Theory - Last­ seen theory comes into play where the time­gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. If the gap between the time of last seen and the deceased found dead is long, then the possibility of other person coming in between cannot be ruled out - Solely on the basis of last seen theory, the conviction could not have been recorded. (Para 16, 17, 29) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Circumstantial Evidence - Golden principles with regard to conviction in a case which rests entirely on circumstantial evidence - It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - The accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ guilty before a court can convict the accused - There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved" - The facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved - There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. (Para 9-10) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Standard of proof - Standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs with that in civil proceedings - Adjudication in civil matters is based on preponderance of probabilities whereas adjudication in criminal cases is based on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent and the guilt of the accused should be proved to the hilt and the proof should be beyond all reasonable doubt. (Para 29-30) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

'Last seen' circumstance cannot be the sole basis for conviction: Supreme Court acquits murder accused. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Last Seen Doctrine - The “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstance. (Para 23) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Circumstantial Evidence- The prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence - These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest. (Para 21) Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Hate Speech

Hate speech strikes at foundational values of the Constitution; Political parties must control speeches of members: Justice B.V. Nagarathna. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 4

Murder Trial

'Entitled to benefit of doubt': Supreme Court acquits accused in a 1985 murder case. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Mere long standing pre-existing dispute will not attract exception of 'grave & sudden provocation'. Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Law

The Parole period can't be included in the period of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

Parole Period - For the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole is to be excluded-If the submission on behalf of the prisoners that the period of parole is to be included while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment is accepted, in that case, any prisoner who may be influential may get the parole for number of times as there is no restrictions and it can be granted number of times and if the submission on behalf of the prisoners is accepted, it may defeat the very object and purpose of actual imprisonment. Rohan Dhungat v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 10

STATUTE WISE INDEX

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 173, 207 - Direction to publicly upload chargesheets against the scheme of Cr.P.C. - If all the chargesheets and relevant documents produced along with the chargesheets are put on the public domain or on the websites of the State Governments it will be contrary to the Scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and it may as such violate the rights of the accused as well as the victim and/or even the investigating agency. Putting the FIR on the website cannot be equated with putting the chargesheets along with the relevant documents on the public domain and on the websites of the State Governments. (Para 4.5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - In order to cause registration of an F.I.R. and consequential investigation based on the same the petition filed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract the alleged offences. In other words, if such allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences it cannot lead to an order for registration of an F.I.R. and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged. (Para 10) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 156(3) - Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings after noting that the attempt was to give a cloak of criminal offence to a civil dispute. The Court noted that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were vague and did not attract the essential ingredients of the offences. Also, the pendency of a civil suit on the issue was suppressed in the application. Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Criminal proceedings quashed - the respondent had failed to make specific allegation against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of criminal offence in the issue-coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. (Para 10, 11) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 482 - Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly. To wit, exercise of the said power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of process of law. (Para 3) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Default bail can be cancelled on merits - there is no absolute bar that once a person is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., his bail cannot be cancelled on merits and his bail can be cancelled on other general grounds like tampering with the evidence/witnesses; not cooperating with the investigating agency and/or not cooperating with the concerned Trial Court etc. [Para 11] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the bail so granted is not on merits - when an accused is released on default bail they are released on furnishing the bail bond by them on the failure of the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file the chargesheet within the stipulated time mentioned therein - the object and purpose of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is to impress upon the need for expeditious investigation within the prescribed time limit and to prevent laxity - the object is to inculcate a sense of its urgency and on default the Magistrate shall release the accused if he is ready and does furnish bail - it cannot be said that order of release on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is an order on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - deemed to be released under provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Cr.P.C., which includes Section 437 and 439 also - deeming fiction under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be interpreted to the length of converting the order of default bail, which is not on merits as if passed on merits. [Para 8.1] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - the merits brought out in the chargesheet and attending circumstances are relevant, as the bail was granted due to default of the investigating officer without Court's adverting to the merits but strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail and mere filing of the chargesheet itself is not sufficient. [Para 9.2, 9.4, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - Grant of Default Bail - Order granting bail shall be deemed to be under Section 437(1) or (2) or Section 439(1) of the Cr.P.C. and that order can be cancelled when a case for cancellation is made out under Section 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 9.6, 9.7] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - In a case where an accused is released on default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., and thereafter on filing of the chargesheet, a strong case is made out and on special reasons being made out from the chargesheet that the accused has committed a non-bailable crime and considering the grounds set out in Sections 437(5) and Section 439(2), his bail can be cancelled on merits and the Courts are not precluded from considering the application for cancelation of the bail on merits. However, mere filing of the chargesheet is not enough, but as observed and held hereinabove, on the basis of the chargesheet, a strong case is to be made out that the accused has committed non-bailable crime and he deserves to be in custody. [Para 13] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Proviso to Section 167(2) - To hold that default bail cannot be cancelled on merits will be giving premium to lethargic investigation-In a given case, even if the accused has committed a very serious offence, may be under the NDPS or even committed murder(s), still however, he manages through a convenient investigating officer and he manages not to file the chargesheet within the prescribed time limit mentioned under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and got released on default bail, it may lead to giving a premium to illegality and/or dishonesty- Such an interpretation frustrates the course of justice. [Para 12] State through CBI v. T. Gangi Reddy @ Yerra Gnagi Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 37

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 202, 204 - While summoning an accused who resides outside the jurisdiction of court, it is obligatory upon the Magistrate to inquire into the case himself or direct investigation be made by a police officer or such other officer for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (Para 22) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - Summoning order is to be passed when the complainant discloses the offence, and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course. When the violation of law alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning without appreciation of the legal provisions and their application to the facts may result in an innocent being summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It results in anxiety of uncertain times. (Para 21) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 277 - The evidence of the witness has to be recorded in the language of the court or in the language of the witness as may be practicable and then get it translated in the language of the court for forming part of the record. However, recording of evidence of the witness in the translated form in English language only, though the witness gives evidence in the language of the court, or in his/her own vernacular language, is not permissible - The text and tenor of the evidence and the demeanor of a witness in the court could be appreciated in the best manner only when the evidence is recorded in the language of the witness - When a question arises as to what exactly the witness had stated in his/her evidence, it is the original deposition of the witness which has to be taken into account and not the translated memorandum in English prepared by the Presiding Judge - All courts while recording the evidence of the witnesses, shall duly comply with the provisions of Section 277 of Cr.PC. (Para 25) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378 - Scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited - Unless the High Court found that the appreciation of the evidence is perverse, it could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. (Para 21) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 307,323 and 341 IPC - High Court suspended the sentence, but imposed strict conditions of deposit of fine amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with a surety of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each - Waiving these conditions, the Supreme Court observed: Excessive conditions imposed on the appellant, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail - Can the Appellant, for not being able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in custody endlessly? To keep the Appellant in jail, that too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but injustice itself. Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 433 (2) - Grant of Remission - Presiding Judge should give adequate reasons while giving opinion under Section 432 (2) Cr.P.C. Jaswant Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 33

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - 439 - The process of criminal law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail - The question as to whether pre-arrest bail, or for that matter regular bail, in a given case is to be granted or not is required to be examined and the discretion is required to be exercised by the Court with reference to the material on record and the parameters governing bail considerations. The concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment. (Para 10) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437-439, 389 - Excessive conditions cannot be imposed while granting bail/suspension of sentence - Conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail. (Para 9-16) Guddan @ Roop Narayan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 45

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment. (Para 11) Bimla Tiwari v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 47

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Appeal against High Court order that quashed criminal proceedings observing that that the complaint lodged against the husband demand of dowry is inherently improbable and that it falls in the category of a bogus prosecution - Allowed - Merely because the wife was suffering from the disease AIDS and/or divorce petition was pending, it cannot be said that the allegations of demand of dowry were highly/inherently improbable - Once the charge sheet was filed after the investigation having been found prima facie case, it cannot be said that the prosecution was bogus. X v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 26

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law. State represented by the Inspector of Police v. Maridass, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 25

Code of Criminal Procedure; Section 438 - Dismissal for default / non prosecution of bail application - Practice adopted by the High Court in passing orders for dismissal of bail application in default disapproved. Rahul Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 64

Criminal Trial - Motive - If motive is proved, that would supply another link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. (Para 15, 17.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 74, 76 - Copy of the chargesheet along with the necessary documents cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per Section 74 of the Evidence Act.-As per Section 75 of the Evidence Act all other documents other than the documents mentioned in Section 74 of the Evidence Act are all private documents. Therefore, the chargesheet / documents along with the chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, reliance placed upon Sections 74 & 76 of the Evidence Act is absolutely misplaced. (Para 5) Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101-102 - Declaration of Title - Onus of proof, no doubt shifts and the shifting is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence, but this happens when in a suit for title and possession, the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability to shift the onus on the defendant. In the absence of such evidence, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and can be discharged only when he is able to prove title. The weakness of the defence cannot be a justification to decree the suit. Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 19

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - It is, of course, the duty of prosecution to lead the primary evidence of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt but, when necessary evidence had indeed been led, the corresponding burden was heavy on the accused in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain as to what had happened at the time of incident and as to how the death of the deceased occurred. (Para 16.4.1) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 134 - Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity - Even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction - Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance - Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i) Wholly reliable; (ii) Wholly unreliable; (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. (Para 28) Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - The law expects the IO to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27. (Para 25-26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - There is no statement of accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - The prosecution has failed to prove the circumstance that the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of the accused - Section 27 of the Evidence Act requires that the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to the said fact. The information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery. (Para 20 -26) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Two essential requirements for the application of Section 27 - (1) the person giving information must be an accused of any offence and (2) he must also be in police custody - The provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in evidence. (Para 31-33) Boby v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 50

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 - The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - once the execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability - The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities - To rebut the presumption, it is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or the accused can also rely on the materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely. Referred to Baslingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Para 12-20) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 46

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1869; 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

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Sections 3(1)(v) and (va) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Private civil dispute between the parties is converted into criminal proceedings - Initiation of the criminal proceedings therefore, is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court - Complaint and summoning order quashed. B. Venkateswaran v. P. Bakthavatchalam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 14