Supreme Court Monthly Criminal Digest-October 2022

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 190(1), 204 - Taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the allegations made in the complaint are found to be too vague and general without giving any material particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own doubts whether even the verification of the original complainant on oath was recorded before taking cognizance and issuing process. N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 199 - A person falling under the category of persons mentioned in sub­section (2) of Section 199 can either take the route specified in sub­section (4) or take the route specified in sub­Section (6) of Section 199 - The right of an individual is saved, under sub­section (6), even if he falls under the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) - The special procedure is in addition to and not in derogation of the right that a public servant always had as an individual. He never lost his right merely because he became a public servant and merely because the allegations related to official discharge of his duties. (Para 50-51) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 199(6), 237, 250 - Whether the protection available under Section 237 of the Code to the accused, will be lost if the public servant avoids the special procedure and lodges a complaint individually? - Whenever a person is prosecuted by a public servant in his individual capacity before a Magistrate by virtue of Section 199(6), the accused can always fall back upon Section 250, for claiming compensation on the ground that the accusation was made without reasonable cause. (Para 52-55) Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. Manish Sisodia, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 853

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 204 - The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reason. (Para 28 -30) Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 309 - Examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be. Mukesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 826

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Transfer Petition filed by a woman-accused seeking transfer of cheque bounce complaint - A complaint under Section 138 cannot be transferred as per the convenience of the accused - Being a woman and senior citizen, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance - Directed Trial Judge to favourable consider application if made by the petitioner for grant of exemption - The Trial Judge shall compel the petitioner to appear only when her presence is absolutely mandatory for the conduct of the trial. S. Nalini Jayanthi v. M. Ramasubba Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. X v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Anticipatory bail granted to the accused only till framing of the charge - It is the impugned order which would reflect the mind of the judge as to what were the peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted limiting the anticipatory bail for a particular period. The perusal of the entire order would reveal that there is no discussion at all with regard to the same - Part of the order which restricts the anticipatory bail upto framing of charge is quashed and set aside. Tarun Aggarwal v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 885

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Petitions seeking relief of pre arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings - Supreme Court sets aside condition imposed by the Jharkhand High Court of depositing 7.5 Lakhs as "victim compensation" while granting pre-arrest bail. Udho Thakur v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Accused cannot be made to pay ad interim victim compensation by the High Court in the exercise of their inherent powers as a precondition to get anticipatory bail without reasonable justification – Held, there was no reasonable justification for the High Court to call upon the appellant to submit a demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs in availing the benefit of pre-arrest bail – Appeal allowed. Ravikant Srivastava @ Ravi Kant Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 877

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 138,139 - Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the accused under Section 482 of the CrPC. Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 482 and 173(8) - In an appropriate case, where the High Court feels that the investigation is not in the proper direction and to do complete justice where the facts of the case so demand, the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation - The provisions of Section 173(8) CrPC do not limit or affect such powers of the High Court to pass an order under Section 482 CrPC for further investigation or reinvestigation, if the High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure the ends of justice - The question of opportunity of hearing in such matters would always depend upon the given set of facts and circumstances of the case - While exercising such powers, the High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon the power and jurisdiction of other authorities. For example, the High Court cannot issue directions to the State to take advice of the State Public Prosecutor as to under what provision of law a person is to be charged and tried when ordering further investigation or reinvestigation; and it cannot issue directions to investigate the case only from a particular angle. In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, the High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted. (Para 13, 18) Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 835

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Circumstances under which an appeal would be entertained by Supreme Court from an order of acquittal passed by a High Court summarised. (Para 45 - 46) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 136 - Criminal Appeal - Though in cases of concurrent findings of fact, this Court will ordinarily not interfere with the said findings, this Court is empowered to do so if in case it finds inter alia, misreading of the evidence or where the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly perverse. (Para 55) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Criminal Cases - Disposal of criminal cases by resorting to the triple method of plea bargaining, compounding of offences and under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Guidelines issued. Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 889

Criminal Trial - Being a relative of the deceased is no reason to discredit their version. (Para 19) Gurmail Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 854

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - False Explanation - Before a false explanation can be used as an additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied: (i) Various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved. (ii) Such circumstances points to the guilt of the accused as reasonable defence. (iii) The circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation - If the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled only then a Court use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend as assurance to the Court and not otherwise - Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. Where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. (Para 96-98) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the established facts as the circumstances lead to particular inferences. The Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether the chain of circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime in question. All the circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. (Para 47 - 49) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Motive - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance - Motive for commission of offence no doubt assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available - Failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself. - Absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused. (Para 87) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Non ­explanation of the injuries - Any non ­explanation of the injuries on the accused by the prosecution may affect the prosecution case. But such a non­ explanation may assume greater importance where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution. But where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy and where the court can distinguish the truth from falsehood, the mere fact that the injuries are not explained by the prosecution cannot itself be a sole basis to reject such evidence, and consequently the whole case. (Para 115) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles to be followed - 1. Circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; 2. Those circumstances must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused and must be conclusive in nature; 3. The circumstances, if 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; and 4. 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 but should be inconsistent with his innocence. In other words, the circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 46) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Early conclusion of the trial would enhance the faith of people in justice delivery system. The trial must come to its logical end at the earliest. Gali Janardhan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 829

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - A weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession. (Para 85) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - A weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance like the case in hand. The Courts generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra judicial confession - Admissibility and evidentiary value of extra judicial confession. (Para 54 - 58) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Criminal Trial - Factors responsible for witnesses turning hostile - Referred to Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529 - Witnesses who know the deceased victim may turn hostile because they wish to move on with their lives. Testifying as to the circumstances surrounding the rape and death of a loved one can be a deeply traumatizing event, which is only compounded by the slow pace of the criminal justice system. (Para 53-54) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Criminal Trial - The Courts have to label as to which category a discrepancy can be categorized. The material discrepancies corrode the credibility of the prosecution's case while insignificant discrepancies do not do so. (Para 52) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Criminal Trial - When the witnesses are related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. (Para 48) Md. Jabbar Ali v. State of Assam, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 856

Death Penalty - Asessment as regards conduct of the accused, if made before the final submissions are advanced, will go a long way in rendering assistance- Court passed directions so that psychological evaluation of the concerned convict can be ascertained. Prakash Vishwanath Darandale v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 876

DNA Test for paternity – Supreme Court sets aside HC direction for DNA test of children in a matrimonial disputes - SC cites Right to Privacy – Merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course, to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person – Important question is not only whether it would amount to testimonial compulsion – Also encompasses right to privacy – Test could be prejudicial to the privacy rights of persons subjected to it – May also be prejudicial to future of children subjected to the test. (Para 9) Inayath Ali & Anr. v. State of Telengana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 869

Evidence Act 1872; Section 112 - DNA test - SC sets aside direction for DNA test of children - notes that children were not parties to the proceedings - the test will have the potential of exposing them to inheritance related complication. Section 112 of the Evidence Act, gives a protective cover to children from allegations of this nature. (Para 7) Inayath Ali & Anr. v. State of Telengana, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 869

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. He could have derived knowledge of the existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also. He might have even seen somebody concealing the weapon, and, therefore, it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a person discovered the weapon, he was the person who had concealed it, least it can be presumed that he used it. (Para 64-68) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 - If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. (Para 53) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - How the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 - Conditions necessary for the applicability of Section 27 - Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the weapon. (Para 78-87) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 30 - Confession of a co­accused could only be considered but could not be relied on as substantive evidence - Fine distinction between an extra judicial confession being a corroborative piece of evidence and a confession recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act being treated as a substantive piece of evidence. (Para 66 -68) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - Dying Declaration - Although a dying declaration ought to ideally be recorded by a Magistrate if possible, it cannot be said that dying declarations recorded by police personnel are inadmissible for that reason alone. The issue of whether a dying declaration recorded by the police is admissible must be decided after considering the facts and circumstances of each case - The fact that the dying declaration is not in the form of questions and answers does not impact either its admissibility or its probative value - There is no rule mandating the corroboration of the dying declaration through medical or other evidence, when the dying declaration is not otherwise suspicious. (Para 41-44, 50-52) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. (Para 74) Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 8 - The conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. (Para 89) Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 887

Hate Speech - Supreme Court directs Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi Governments to take suo motu action against hate speech crimes without waiting for formal complaints irrespective of the religion of the offender - Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall ensure that immediately as and when any speech or any action takes place which attracts offences such as Sections 153A, 153B and 295A and 505 of the IPC etc., suo moto action will be taken to register cases even if no complaint is forthcoming and proceed against the offenders in accordance with law. Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 872

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 15 - Once a Chemical Examiner establishes that the seized 'poppy straw' indicates a positive test for the contents of 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', it is sufficient to establish that it is covered by subclause (a) of Clause (xvii) of Section 2 of the 1985 Act and no further test would be necessary for establishing that the seized material is a part of 'papaver somniferum L'. In other words, once it is established that the seized 'poppy straw' tests positive for the contents of 'morphine' and 'meconic acid', no other test would be necessary for bringing home the guilt of the accused under the provisions of Section 15 of the 1985 Act. (Para 91) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 15 - For bringing home the guilt of the accused, it will be necessary to establish that the seized material collected is any part of 'opium poppy' except the seeds. (Para 29) State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmal Kaur @ Nimmo, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 866

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sections 37, 67 - Appeal against Bail granted to NDPS accused - Allowed - Validity and scope of statements under Section 67- Referred to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 - The rigour of law lay down in Tofan Singh was held to be applicable even at the stage of grant of bail - Referred to State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 69 - However, going by the circumstances on record, at this stage, the matter stands on a different footing - In the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the Act, the High Court could not and ought not to have released the accused on bail. Union of India (NCB) v. Khalil Uddin, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 878

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation - If the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque - When a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. The cheque endorsed with the payment made may be used to negotiate the balance, if any. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted. (Para 30) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Supreme Court imposes Rs 5 lakhs cost on convict who agreed to settle the dispute only after 10 years of litigation - Court cites wastage of precious judicial time and tyranny of justice caused to complainant. Santhosh J. v. V. Narasimha Murthy, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 874

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 - Though a post- dated cheque might be drawn to represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of its drawing, for the offence to be attracted, the cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. If there has been a material change in the circumstance such that the sum in the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of maturity or encashment, then the offence under Section 138 is not made out. (Para 16) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 56 - When a part- payment of the debt is made after the cheque was drawn but before the cheque is encashed, such payment must be endorsed on the cheque under Section 56 of the Act. The cheque cannot be presented for encashment without recording the part payment. If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence under Section 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment. (Para 29) Dashratbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 830

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 118, 138, 139 - Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for the accused to dislodge the legal presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 resply of the N.I. Act. Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh Chadha, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Penal Code, 1860; 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

Pleadings - Fraud must be specifically pleaded - Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word "fraud", the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. (Para 7.8) C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 822

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act - Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court and seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. (Para 37-38) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory. It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind - There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. (Para 18) Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 832

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Section 16(1)(a)(i) – Section 2(ia)(m) – Definition of Adulteration – Proviso – Public Analyst report must examine whether primary foods did not meet prescribed standards or had constituents in quantities outside the permissible threshold as a result of inescapable natural causes – Whether proviso is attracted, has to be seen – Held, – There was no whisper in the complaint or in the evidence as to whether the case would fall under the proviso – Questions such as whether increase in moisture content due to natural causes, unsatisfactory milk fat content due to quality of milk, not examined by Public Analyst – Therefore, appeal allowed and conviction of sweetmeat shop under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(m) for allegedly selling "adulterated" paneer set aside. Bhattacharjee Mahasya v. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 873

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 - Supply of the illegible copy of documents which has been relied upon by the detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making an effective representation and denial thereof will hold the order of detention illegal and not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under law. (Para 21) State of Manipur v. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan @ Anand, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 862

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Money laundering is an independent offence. (Para 7) Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - Protective order passed against one investigating agency cannot operate against another investigating agency even if there are factual similarities in allegations- Interim protection granted against coercive action by the CBI cannot operate against ED. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - While testing the legality of an arrest made by an agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie evidence of money laundering, we do not think a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding stated by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities vis-à-vis the allegations. (Para 7) Dr. Manik Bhattacharya v. Ramesh Malik, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 867

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Appeal against Kerala HC order which granted conditional anticipatory bail to POCSO Accused who allegedly sexually assaulted his minor neice - Allowed - The fact that the victim – girl is traumatized to such a high degree that her academic pursuits have been adversely impacted alone, coupled with the legislative intent especially reflected through Section 29 of the POCSO Act, are sufficient to dissuade a Court from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction in granting pre­arrest bail. X v. Arun Kumar C.K., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Two Finger Test - The "two-finger test" or pre vaginum test must not be conducted - It has no scientific basis and neither proves nor disproves allegations of rape. It instead re-victimizes and re-traumatizes women who may have been sexually assaulted, and is an affront to their dignity - It is patriarchal and sexist to suggest that a woman cannot be believed when she states that she was raped, merely for the reason that she is sexually active - Referred to Lillu v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643 - Directions issued to the Union Government as well as the State Governments - Ensure that the guidelines formulated by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare are circulated to all government and private hospitals - Conduct workshops for health providers to communicate the appropriate procedure to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape - Review the curriculum in medical schools with a view to ensuring that the "two-finger test" or per vaginum examination is not prescribed as one of the procedures to be adopted while examining survivors of sexual assault and rape. (Para 61-66) State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 890