- Home
- /
- Supreme court
- /
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):...
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Important Judgments By Supreme Court In 2024
Yash Mittal
1 Jan 2025 3:56 PM IST
As 2025 begins, Live Law summarizes important decisions on the Code of Criminal Procedure of the past year. Here are the key highlights:1. Witness Statement Recorded In Absence Of Accused Can Be Used As Evidence If Conditions In S.299 CrPC Are Fulfilled : Supreme CourtCase Title: SUKHPAL SINGH VERSUS NCT OF DELHI, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359The Supreme Court held that the statements of...
As 2025 begins, Live Law summarizes important decisions on the Code of Criminal Procedure of the past year. Here are the key highlights:
Case Title: SUKHPAL SINGH VERSUS NCT OF DELHI, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 359
The Supreme Court held that the statements of the prosecution witness recorded in the absence of the accused can be read as a substantive piece of evidence when the prosecution witness could not be traced out and produced in the witness box for deposition during trial after the accused had been arrested.
The Court observed that the statements of the prosecution witness recorded in the absence of the accused under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. (i.e., when an accused person has absconded, and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him) could be used against the accused after his arrest in the event of non-availability of the prosecution witness.
Case Details: DEEPAK KUMAR SHRIVAS & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court observed that police should exercise "heightened caution" while registering a criminal case over a dispute involving unethical transactions between parties in which civil remedies are barred. The police should ensure that the parties are not resorting to criminal law remedies to achieve unscrupulous results in cases where civil remedies are barred.
Case Title: VIJAY KUMAR VS. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 403
The Supreme Court observed that the conviction can't be set aside if the accused statements recorded under Section 313 of CrPC (stating that there was a prosecutrix consent to perform sexual intercourse) are not put to use in evidence by the accused in the form of suggestion while cross-examining the prosecutrix.
The court noted that suggestion about the victim's consent to the sexual intercourse was not put to her during her cross-examination denying her an opportunity to rebut the accused claim regarding there being victim's consent while doing an act of sexual intercourse.
Case Title: NARESH KUMAR & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 228
The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court by exercising their inherent power must quash the prosecution based on the criminal complaint arising out of a civil transaction.
Case Details: MAMTA SHAILESH CHANDRA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 86
The Supreme Court observed that if the charge sheet is filed against the accused during the pendency of the petition for quashing of the FIR, the High Court is not restrained from exercising its inherent jurisdiction and could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., charge sheet and other documents.
Case Details: SACHIN GARG VERSUS STATE OF U.P & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 75
The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate, while issuing the summoning order, shall not act in a casual manner; rather they should be satisfied that there exists a sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. The recording of the satisfaction of the Magistrate while issuing the summons should not be in a cryptic manner but only when a prima facie case is made out from the allegations.
Case Title: KHENGARBHAI LAKHABHAI DAMBHALA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 289
The Supreme Court held that approaching the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for the release of the seized vehicle would not be a proper remedy without approaching the magistrate under Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”).
Case Title: AJWAR Versus WASEEM AND ANOTHER, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 392
The Supreme Court observed that the same Court that granted bail to an accused can cancel the bail if there are serious allegations against him although the accused has not misused the bail.
"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."
Case Title: KUSHA DURUKA v. THE STATE OF ODISHA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._303 OF 2024, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 47
The Supreme Court has listed the prerequisites to be mentioned in grant of bail applications. The Court also recorded that these suggestions are to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies.
Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND vs. SANDEEP KUMAR, Diary No.- 23716 - 2023, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 205
While reversing the High Court's decision to grant pre-arrest bail to the police officer/respondent, the Court observed that ordinarily, an accused facing the prospect of incarceration, if proven guilty of such offences, would be entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However, the same standard would not be applicable when the accused is the Investigating Officer, a police officer charged with the fiduciary duty of carrying forward the investigation to its rightful conclusion to punish the guilty.
11. Supreme Court Summarises Factors For Deciding Remission Applications
Case Title: Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 22
The judgment emphasised that remission applications under Section 432 of the CrPC must be directed to the government of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction the applicant was convicted, known as the 'appropriate government'. The court underlined the significance of obtaining the presiding judge's opinion from the court that convicted the applicant. The opinion, as outlined in Section 432(2) of the CrPC, must clearly state whether remission should be granted or refused, supported by well-founded reasons.
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337
Taking note of the importance of the submission of a charge sheet to take cognizance of an offence by a magistrate, the Supreme Court observed that the charge sheet must contain clear and complete entries of all columns to enable the court to understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.
13. S.205 CrPC | Court Can Exempt Accused From Personal Appearance Before Grant Of Bail : Supreme Court
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337
The Supreme Court observed that even before the grant of bail, the accused can be exempted from showing his personal appearance before the court. The court observed that there's no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the accused to take bail before seeking exemption from personal appearance before the court.
Case Details: AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 64
A party who was not diligent in producing evidence at the trial stage of a criminal case cannot seek to produce the same in appeal, held the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage should not be exercised in a routine and casual manner. Such a power shall only be exercised when non-recording of the evidence may lead failure to justice.
Case Details: MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR. VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 141
The Supreme Court held that the delay that occurred in preferring an appeal against the acquittal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Case Title: Rajendra Bhagwanji Umraniya Versus State of Gujarat, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 378
The Supreme Court held that an order for the convict to pay compensation to the victim would not result in the reduction of the sentence imposed on the convict.
Reversing that part of the High Court's findings which had reduced the sentence imposed on the convicts after the convicts compensated the victim, the Court held that the High Court committed an error while doing so as “if payment of compensation becomes a consideration for reducing sentence, then the same will have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice administration.”
Case Title: SHANKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 345
The Supreme Court held that to summon a person as an additional accused invoking powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the degree of satisfaction is much stricter. The evidence should be such that it should lead to the conviction of the accused if it is unrebutted.
Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13
The Supreme Court, reiterated the well-established law that the statement recorded under Section 313 (Power to examine the accused) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court underscored that such a statement of an accused is not evidence. The reasons are twofold. Firstly, it is not on oath, and secondly, the other party, i.e., the prosecution, does not get an opportunity to cross-examine the accused.
Case Title: DARSHAN SINGH vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 13
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution could not seek to prove a fact that the witness has not stated in his/her statement under Section 161 (Examination of witnesses by police) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
If witnesses had failed to mention in their statements, under Section 161 of the CrPC, about the involvement of an accused, their subsequent statement before the court during the trial regarding the involvement of that particular accused could not be relied upon, the court added.
20. Accused Not Obligated To Lead Evidence Of His Innocence Unless Specified By Law: Supreme Court
Case Title: Pankaj Singh vs State Of Haryana., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 274
The Supreme Court, while acquitting a person accused of the offence of rape, observed that the accused does not have to lead evidence to prove his innocence unless the law specifically puts the burden of proof on him.
Case Title: Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh, VAKIL AHMAD & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 337
The Supreme Court cautioned against the routine issuance of non-bailable warrants. The Court said that non-bailalbe warrants not be issued unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence.
Case Details: Shiv Jatia versus Gian Chand Malick & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 169
The Supreme Court held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the magistrate couldn't issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police. Reversing the decision of the High Court which had refused to quash the summons issued by the Magistrate, the Court observed that the Magistrate cannot issue process to the accused without application of mind and ought to have waited to issue process against the accused until the report was received from the police.
Case Title: SHADAKSHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 42
The Supreme Court held that the prior sanction for prosecution as per Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required to prosecute a public servant for the act of creating fake documents as the alleged acts do not form a part of his official duty. "Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service. It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.", the court said.
Case Title: MUKHTAR ZAIDI VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CITATION : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 315
The Supreme Court held that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and issues summons to an accused by recording satisfaction based on the additional evidence produced by way of a protest petition filed by the informant, then such a protest petition ought to be treated as a private complaint case under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. Rejection Of Protest Petition Is No Bar To File Fresh Complaint U/s 200 of Cr.P.C.: Supreme Court
Case Title: MUKHTAR ZAIDI VS. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CITATION : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 315
The Court held that the Magistrate also had the liberty to reject the Protest Petition along with all other material that may have been filed in support of the same and clarified that the right of the Complainant to file a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is not taken away even if the Magistrate concerned does not direct that such a Protest Petition be treated as a complaint.
Case Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 53
The Supreme Court observed that it would be impermissible under the law for a Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of a supplementary charge-sheet submitted after further investigation if it doesn't contain any fresh oral or documentary evidence.
The Court noted that while submitting the supplementary charge-sheet as a result of an order of further investigation under Section 178 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer shall mention new evidence found to substantiate the conclusions drawn by him. Otherwise, such supplementary charge-sheet lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
27. Application Seeking Further Investigation Can Be Treated As Protest Petition : Supreme Court
Case Details: XXX VERSUS THE STATE REPRESENTED THR. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 110
The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking further investigation can be treated as a protest petition if it prima facie establishes the commission of the offences, and such an application can't be technically rejected because the procedural recourse of filing a protest petition is not followed.
The Court said that although the proper course for the appellant would have been to file a protest petition instead of filing it under Sectio 173(8) for further investigation, it added that a petition should not be rejected merely because it is filed under the wrong caption.
Case Title: DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 227
"The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.", the Supreme Court said.
Case Title: DABLU KUJUR VERSUS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 227
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (March 12) observed that police officers submitting the police report/chargesheet to the magistrate as per the State Police Manual shall abide by the particulars of Section 173 (2) and directed the officers in charge of every police station across the country to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C. failing which it shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts i.e., where the chargesheet/police report is filed.
Case Details: Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand), Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
The Supreme Court held that the information disclosing the commission of the cognizable offence needs to be recorded as a First Information Report ("FIR") in the form of a book and not in the General Diary maintained by the Police under the Police Act, 1861. "Therefore, it is amply clear that a General Diary entry cannot precede the registration of FIR, except in cases where preliminary inquiry is needed", the court said.
Case Details: Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand), Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer regarding the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses the diary to refresh his memory. Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary to contradict a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the relevant statement recorded and cross-examine the police officer on that count.
Case Title: M/S SAS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 412
The Supreme Court held that a Judicial Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cogniznance of an offence by directing an investigation by the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court stated that when the Magistrate in exercise of his judicial discretion directs investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., 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 Cr.P.C. by resorting to Sections 200, he can be said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
Case Title: SHENTO VARGHESE VERSUS JULFIKAR HUSEN & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 371
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 13) observed that the delay in reporting the seizure report by the police to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by police under Section 102(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Reversing that part of the High Court's findings which had declared the seizure report to be vitiated because the report wasn't sent forthwith to the magistrate, the Court observed that although the law requires the police to send the seizure report to the magistrate 'forthwith' (came to be interpreted as 'as soon as possible') but the delay in sending the report to the magistrate wouldn't vitiate the act of seizure by the police altogether.
Case Details: STATE OF RAJASTHAN VERSUS SWARN SINGH @ BABA, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 136
The Supreme Court observed that the courts cannot issue processes under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to compel the production of things/documents based on the application made by the accused at the stage of framing of charges.
The Court observed that the accused's entitlement to seek an order for the production of things or documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence.
Case Title: SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232
The Supreme Court held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. is pending against him.
"Thus, it is obvious that the position of law, which was being followed with alacrity, is that in cases where an accused against whom non-bailable warrant is pending and the process of proclamation under Sections 82/83, Cr.PC is issued, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail", the Court said.
Case Title: SOUVIK BHATTACHARYA vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE KOLKATA ZONAL OFFICE II., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 122
The Supreme Court has observed that an accused cannot be taken into custody when he voluntarily surrenders before the Court even though the Court which has taken cognizance of the chargesheet has not issued a summoning order against him.
"In absence of any order for issuance of summons or warrant under Section 204 or under any other provision of Cr.P.C., the summons could not have been issued or served upon the appellant nor he could have been arrested or taken into custody.", the court said.
Case Title: MADHUSUDAN & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 418
The Supreme Court held that in the event of an alteration of charges, an opportunity must be provided to the parties to recall or re-examine witnesses in reference to such altered charges, and the reasons for the alteration of charges must be recorded in the judgment.
Case Title: OM PRAKASH YADAV VERSUS NIRANJAN KUMAR UPADHYAY & ORS, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 989
The Supreme Court held that a police official who is accused of lodging a false case cannot claim that he cannot be prosecuted without the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The protection of Section 197 CrPC is available only for acts discharged in the course of official duties.
The court explained that since fabricating evidence and filing bogus cases are not part of a police official's official duties, the protection under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to such acts.
Case Title: K. Vadivel Versus K. Shanthi & Ors., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 757
The Supreme Court observed that the courts should refrain from ordering further investigation when the party requesting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has not whispered about anything new in its evidence and has based its application for further investigation without averring fresh materials.
Case Title: Mohd Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 452
The Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to file a petition for maintenance against her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that this right of a Muslim woman is in addition to the right under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986.
Case Details: K. RAVI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 624
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court deplored the practice of accused persons filing applications under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking alteration of charge after their applications seeking discharge.
The Court said that Section 216 does not give any right to the accused to file a fresh application seeking his discharge after the framing of charges. Especially, when a discharge application filed by accused has already been dismissed under Section 227 of CrPC.
42. Principles Relating To Section 195 CrPC : Supreme Court Summarises
Case Title: MR AJAYAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 905
The Supreme Court summarised the principles relating to Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This provision lays down the conditions for taking cognizance for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
43. In Quashing Petition, Wider Challenge Is Available Than Discharge Petition : Supreme Court
Case Title: MUKESH & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 960
The Supreme Court reiterated that an accused can still file a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) even after filing a charge sheet. It rejected the argument that the accused must wait for charges to be framed and then challenge an order framing charges through a revision application. The Court explained that in a quashing petition, wider grounds of challenge would be available than in a discharge petition.
Case Title: RABBU @ SARVESH VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 730
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that the age of the convict at the time of the commission of an offence would be of relevance along with other mitigating circumstances while commuting the sentence of the death penalty.
Case Title: YOGARANI VERSUS STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 731
The Supreme Court held that the court cannot convict one accused and acquit another when similar or identical evidence is pitted against two accused persons.
While holding so, the Court acquitted the accused/appellant after finding that other co-accused who were charged for similar offences had been acquitted of all the charges and no appeal had been filed challenging their acquittal.
Case Title: Arockiasamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717
Dealing with a case involving allegations of forgery, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC to examine an allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production.
As per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Court can take cognizance of an offence of forgery in relation to a document submitted in evidence in a Court proceeding only on a written complaint of an officer authorized by that Court (where the forged document was produced).
Case Details: ASHOK DAGA Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 480
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that an accused cannot be said to be a witness against himself if he was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Case Details: GAURAV MAINI Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 471
Recently, the Supreme Court held that the non-examination of the lead witness who gave information about the crime would be fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court said that the trial courts must be vigilant to call upon such witnesses for examination whose deposition is essential to arrive at a right conclusion.
The Court observed that the trial court should not be a mute spectator but shall play an active role in the trial to elicit relevant materials necessary for deciding a case.
Case Title: Naresh Kumar Versus State of Delhi, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 443
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 8) held that the non-questioning of an accused on 'incriminating circumstances' and depriving him of an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC") would vitiate the trial if such omission result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court said that non-adherence to the provision of Section 313 of CrPC would result in an acquittal of the accused if it prejudices the accused.
Case Title – Devendra Kumar Pal v. State of UP and Anr., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 687
The Supreme Court recently quashed an order under Section 319 of the CrPC summoning a man for a murder trial after the trial of the original accused persons had already concluded.
Section 319 of the CrPC grants the trial court the power to summon any person, not being an accused, to face trial if it appears from the evidence collected during the trial that such a person is also involved in the offence.
Case Details: SHAILENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR., Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 476
The Supreme Court has held that the prosecution of a gruesome crime of double murder cannot be withdrawn by the State on the mere ground that the accused has a good public image being an elected representative. The Court added that being an elected representative does not per se mean that the accused enjoys a good public image.
Case Title : Nikhil v State of Maharashtra, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 478
The Supreme Court has held that a condition cannot be imposed that the convict must deposit 50% of the compensation directed under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to suspend the sentence.
Case Title: BHUPATJI SARTAJJI JABRAJI THAKOR VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 438
The Supreme Court observed that a life convict can be granted the benefit of suspension of sentence only if prima facie it appears that the conviction is unsustainable and the convict has a high chance of succeeding in appeal against the conviction. The Court said that the benefit of suspension of sentence cannot be granted to the convict if there is nothing palpable to conclude that the conviction was unsustainable in law.
Case Title: C.N. SHANTHA KUMAR VERSUS M.S. SRINIVAS, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 660
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court while exercising a Criminal Revision jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. (now Section 442 of BNSS) cannot order a decision of acquittal to conviction. The Court said that if the High Court believes that the acquittal was wrong, then instead of reversing the acquittal it could have remanded back the matter for re-appreciation by the appellate court.
Case Title: BALJINDER SINGH @ LADOO AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB, Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 748
The Supreme Court observed that to challenge the conviction based on the alteration of charges, the accused must demonstrate that substantial 'failure of justice' is caused to them by such conversion of charges. The Court held so while upholding the conviction of the appellants in a murder case where they were initially charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (Common Object) but convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC (Common Intention).
Other Supreme Court Annual Round-up reports can be read here.
