Supreme Court Annual Digest 2023 -Indian Penal Code 1860

Indian Penal Code 1860

Penal Code, 1860 - Constitutional Courts can impose fixed term sentence even in cases where death penalty was not proposed - "Even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Explained. (Para 54) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860 - That the accused has no antecedents, is no consideration by itself for deciding whether the accused will fall in the category of the 'rarest of the rare' cases. It all depends on several factors. The Court, while considering the possibility of reformation of the accused, must note that showing undue leniency in such a brutal case will adversely affect the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system. The Court must consider the rights of the victim as well. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Penal Code, 1860 - Trial Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the accused to life imprisonment for the remainder of their life, or life imprisonment without entitlement to remission for a fixed term, in serious crimes which carry the death penalty apart from life sentence as a sentencing option - The court took note that the Apex Court in Union of India vs Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., [2015] 14 SCR 613, has approved a special category of sentence for serious crimes where death sentence is substituted with life imprisonment for a fixed number of years which may be longer than the minimum sentence specified in Section 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and may extend to considerably long periods, such as 30 years. However, Sriharan (2015) reserves the power to impose such special or fixed term sentences only with the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Section 34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Penal Code, 1860; Section 34 - for applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1036

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 34 and 149 - Distinction between 'common intention' and 'common object' – A clear distinction is made out between common intention and common object in that common intention denotes action in concert and necessarily postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds, while common object does not necessarily require proof of prior meeting of minds or preconcert. Though there is a substantial difference between the two sections, they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. Thus, if several persons numbering five or more, do an act and intend to do it, both Section 34 and Section 149 may apply. If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Penal Code,1860; Section 34 - In the absence of any incriminating material or other corroborative evidence pointing to the participation of appellants in the incident, the conviction of appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC cannot be sustained. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 546

Section 53 - Punishments

Penal Code, 1860; Section 53 - The majority view in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors., 2016 (7) SCC 1 cannot be construed to mean that power to impose fixed term sentence cannot be exercised by the Constitutional Courts unless the question is of commuting the death sentence - When a Constitutional Court finds that though a case is not falling in the category of 'rarest of the rare' case, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and all other relevant factors, it can always impose a fixed-term sentence so that the benefit of statutory remission, etc. is not available to the accused. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 252

Section 80 - Accident in doing a lawful act

Penal Code, 1860; Section 80 - Defence of Accident rejected - The Trial Court and the High Court held that the defense of accidental firing cannot be accepted and that the act of firing bullets by the appellant was intentional. The Court rejected the defence of the accident pleaded by the appellant by taking recourse to Section 80 of IPC. (Para 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539

Section 84 - Act of a person of unsound mind.

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 105, 8 - The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, it is the collective responsibility of the person concerned, the Court and the prosecution to decipher the proof qua insanity by not treating it as adversarial. Though a person is presumed to be sane, once there are adequate materials available before the Court, the presumption gets discharged - The behaviour and conduct before, during and after the occurrence has to be looked into. (Para 8-9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only 'reasonable doubt - A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19 - 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - The existence of an unsound mind is a sine qua non to the applicability of the provision. A mere unsound mind per se would not suffice, and it should be to the extent of not knowing the nature of the act - A mere medical insanity cannot be said to mean unsoundness of mind. There may be a case where a person suffering from medical insanity would have committed an act, however, the test is one of legal insanity to attract the mandate of Section 84 of the IPC. There must be an inability of a person in knowing the nature of the act or to understand it to be either wrong or contrary to the law. (Para 4-7) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 71

Section 86 - Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 86 - Once the killing was complete, the public had thrashed and beaten him mercilessly and, therefore, when the SI PW6 examined him, he could not speak. The inability to speak in such a situation would not be sufficient indication that the level of intoxication was so high that he was unable to understand and take a conscious decision. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 86, 302 and 304 Part II - It may be true that the deceased may have been killed accidently by the accused in the state of intoxication but there is no iota of evidence to establish that due to intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so dangerous so as to cause death of any person. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the accused that he was administered intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, the provision of Section 86 IPC would not be applicable and he would not be entitled to reduction of sentence from 302 IPC to one falling under Part-II of Section 304 IPC. (Para 25) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Section 107 - Abetment of a thing

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 107- To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide. (Para 9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1035

Section 120A - Definition of criminal conspiracy

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120A - One person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy because one cannot conspire with oneself - The offence of criminal conspiracy is committed only when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. (Para 38) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Section 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 468, and 471 – Previous Sanction – Contended that any act done by a public servant, which constitutes an offence of cheating, cannot be taken to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty – Distinguishing Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC 1, held, observations contained are too general in nature and cannot be regarded as the ratio flowing out of the said case or taken as judicially carving out an exception to a statutory prescription – Also held, no public servant is appointed with a mandate or authority to commit an offence and therefore, if the observations are applied, any act which constitutes an offence under any statute will go out of the purview of an act in the discharge of official duty – Appeal allowed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 485

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - An offence punishable under Section 120­B of IPC will become a scheduled offence only if the conspiracy alleged is of committing an offence which is otherwise a scheduled offence. (Para 25) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1021

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - For the charge of criminal conspiracy to be established, an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act must exist. In some cases, direct evidence to establish conspiracy may be absent, but when the lack of evidence is apparent, it is not safe to hold a person guilty under this section. To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is imperative to show a meeting of the minds between the conspirators for the intended common object. (Para 31) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - the accused cannot be convicted of criminal conspiracy solely for having concealed the location of the incriminating materials / articles and, in the absence of any evidence establishing meeting of the minds. Given that all the other co­accused have been acquitted by the courts below, meaning they were innocent of the crime, the fundamental requirement of a criminal conspiracy is not met. Needless to say, the charge of criminal conspiracy also fails on the ground that a single person cannot hatch a conspiracy. (Para 32, 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - The charge of criminal conspiracy requires meeting of the minds prior to commission of offence, and with four of the five appeals being allowed and only the present appellant being convicted, the basic requirement of the section, that is of two or more persons agreeing to or causing to be done an illegal act or an act which is not per se illegal but it is done by illegal means, is not met. (Para 34) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Penal Code, 1860; Section 120B - To establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement between the parties. Further, the offence of criminal conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of the conspiracy. (Para 35 & 36) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 974

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 120B, 201, 302, 364 and 403 - Arms Act, 1959; Section 25 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004; Sections 16, 18 and 20 – Bail Application - Appellant was arrested as far back as 17.06.2021 and has been in custody throughout, except for the brief period when this Court had released him on interim bail so as to attend to the medical treatment of his wife. He has been interrogated and a charge sheet has been filed. Since all witnesses out of more than 300 witnesses named are to be examined and, in that regard, further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending, and a supplementary charge sheet would be filed, the process will not conclude in the near future. In so far as the role alleged against the appellant, as already noted by the High Court the charge sheet does not disclose that the appellant was involved in the conspiracy of planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. As per the charge, the appellant is stated to have conspired with Sachin Waze and others to eliminate Mansukh Hiren which is a matter of circumstantial evidence to be proved by the prosecution. Though the High Court has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant being a retired police officer, there is the likelihood of interference in the course of trial, in our opinion the fact that he was a police officer and has retired after rendering 37 years of service is a factor which should weigh in favour of the appellant as he has strong root in Mumbai and would be available to stand trial. The case is being prosecuted by a different agency-the NIA. That apart, there is no adverse report about the conduct of the appellant while he was out on interim bail. Further, he would also be aware that violating any of the conditions of bail would be detrimental to his own interest. In addition, it has also been urged before us that he has his mother aged about 93 years to care for, his wife who is also not enjoying good health has to undergo a reversal of bariatric surgery. Therefore, if all the above aspects are kept in view, taking note of the role assigned to the appellant as also the circumstances stated to connect the appellant to the crime and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed, there would be no purpose in continuing the appellant in custody. Held, that the appellant is to be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the appellant diligently adhering to the said conditions and participating in the process of trial. (Para 10 - 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 699

Section 124A - Sedition

Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - Constitutional validity of Sedition Law - Held, the provisions of Section 124A of the IPC continue to remain on the statute book. Even if the new law which is proposed to be placed by the Government before the legislature results in a modification of the existing provision of Section 124A, there is a presumption that a penal statute would have prospective and not retrospective effect. Existing prosecutions under Section 124A will likely be governed by that provision. Consequently, the validity of the prosecutions which have been launched or would be launched so long as Section 124A continues to remain on the statute would have to be assessed under it. The issue of the validity of the provision for the period that it continues to operate would, therefore, need to be determined. (Para 7 & 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Penal Code 1860; Section 124A - In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769 the Constitution Bench upheld the provisions of Section 124A. The provisions of Section 124A have only been tested on the anvil of Article 19(1)(a). In view of the development of law that has taken place in the six decades since the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh, it would be necessary to re-evaluate the validity of Section 124A on the basis of the doctrines which have evolved in those years particularly having a bearing on the ambit of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners would warrant consideration by a Bench of at least five Judges of this Court. Held, the appropriate course of action for a three Judge Bench of this Court would be to direct that the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that, if so considered appropriate, the batch of cases can be heard by a Bench of five or more Judges, since the decision in Kedar Nath Singh's case (supra) was rendered by a Constitution Bench. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Section 142 – Being member of unlawful assembly

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 142 - Since the accused were members of the unlawful assembly, it is not necessary that such a person, for being convicted, must have actually assaulted the deceased. (Para 15) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953

Section 143 – Punishment for Unlawful assembly

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307, 506 r/w. 149 - Stay of Conviction - High Court has considered only one aspect of the matter, namely, that the first respondent being a Member of the Parliament and a representative of his constituency, any order of suspension of membership which is consequential upon conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted in so far as the Union Territory of Lakshadweep is concerned which would result in enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only aspect which should have weighed with the High Court. The High Court ought to have considered the application seeking the suspension of conviction in its proper perspective covering all aspects bearing in mind the relevant judgments rendered by this Court and in accordance with law. On this short ground alone, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of the application filed by the first respondent seeking suspension of conviction. In order to avoid a situation where there would be vacuum created till the said application is considered by the High Court, the benefit of the order impugned shall be extended to the first respondent herein for the said period by way of an interim arrangement. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 690

Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.

Penal Code 1860; Section 149 - if an offence is committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence. (Para 10.2) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Cases involving several accused Persons - Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is declaratory of the vicarious liability of the members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or for such offences as the members of the unlawful assembly knew would be committed in prosecution of that object. If an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing an offence, and if that offence is committed in prosecution of the object by any member of the unlawful assembly, all the members of the assembly will be vicariously liable for that offence even if one or more, but not all committed the offence. Again, if an offence is committed by a member of an unlawful assembly and that offence is one which the members of the unlawful assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, every member who had that knowledge will be guilty of the offence so committed. While overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149. When a case involves large number of assailants it is not possible for the witness to describe the part played therein by each of such persons. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of the members' involvement especially regarding which or what act. (Para 17.8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 225

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - For attracting the offence under Section 149 IPC, one simply has to be a part of an unlawful assembly -Any specific individual role or act is not material. No overt act needs to be assigned to a member of an unlawful assembly. (Para 4) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 573

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - In a case involving 149 of the IPC one cannot expect a witness to speak with graphic detail about the specific overt act that can be attributed to each of the accused. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 669

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - To convict a person under Section 149 IPC prosecution has to establish with the help of evidence that firstly, accused shared a common object and were part of unlawful assembly and secondly, it had to prove that they were aware of the offences likely to be committed is to achieve the said common object. (Para 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 880

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 - When five persons were specifically named in the FIR and five persons are facing the trial may be separately, Section 149 IPC would be attracted. (Para 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 and 302 - Non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether, the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 953

Section 153A - Promoting enmity between different groups

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153A, 505(2) and 504 - Quashing of FIR - Abusive and derogatory comments about holder of a high office - The law enforcement agency is still investigating the alleged commission of offences and they ought to decide on future course of action after completion of investigation. At this stage it is not a fit case for interference. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Section 180 - Refusing to sign statement

Penal Code, 1860; Section 180 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C., which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement - Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 494

Section 195A - Threatening any person to give false evidence

Penal Code, 1860; Section 195A - To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A - False evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Section 279 - Rash driving or riding on a public way

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 279, 304A – Motor Accident Case – Reduction of sentence of convict – Object of Indian Penal Code is to punish offenders for offences under the act – Indian Penal Code punitive and deterrent – Corrective measures ought to be recognised while sentencing convict but deterrence became imperative necessity under certain circumstances – Expressing undue sympathy by imposing inadequate sentence harms justice system by causing the erosion of public confidence in efficacy of law – Held, undue sympathy expressed by the high court unsustainable and order liable to be quashed and set aside thereby restoring the original sentence imposed by lower courts – Appeal allowed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267

Section 299 - Culpable homicide

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 300, 302, 304 - A duty is enjoined upon the Court of Sessions to undertake an exercise and to satisfy itself whether a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is made out or not, before proceeding with the trial of an accused for murder. (Para 6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 625

Penal Code, 1860; Section 299, 302 - Assuming that when the appellant approached the deceased to stop him from using the telephone, he was aware that the change lever was not in a safety position, it is not possible to attribute knowledge to him that by his failure to keep SAF in the safety position, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, it is a case of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of IPC as the existence of none of the three ingredients incorporated therein was proved by the prosecution. (Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 299, 300, 304 - Difference between the two parts of Section 304 - Under the first part, the crime of murder is first established and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of murder is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC - If the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is 'guilty intention ', whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is 'guilty knowledge'. (Para 60) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 550

Section 300 - Murder

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - Essential requirement - Four conditions must be satisfied to bring the matter within Exception 4 - (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in the heat of passion; and; that (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner - On a plain reading of Exception 4, it appears that the help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. (Para 58 & 59) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - It is very difficult to accept the submission that the case would fall within the Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC and such benefit be extended to the accused. Assuming for the moment that the incident had occurred in the heat of the moment and fight was also sudden, we should not overlook the fact that the appellants herein inflicted as many as nine blows with a dangerous weapon on the deceased who was unarmed and was helpless. For cases to fall within clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC, it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 61) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300 - The term 'cruel manner' is a relative term. Exception 4 applies when a man kills another. By ordinary standards, this itself is a cruel act - If we assign a meaning to the word 'cruel' used in exception which is used in common parlance, in no case exception 4 can be applied. (Para 11) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 4 to Section 300, 302 and 498A- An offender who takes undue advantage of a situation is not entitled to the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - the sine qua non for the application of an Exception to Section 300 always is that it is a case of murder but the accused claims the benefit of the Exception to bring it out of that Section and to make it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 57) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

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) 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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59

Section 301 - Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended

Penal Code, 1860; Section 301 - the accused is guilty of committing an offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 302 IPC and that the intention to kill some other person is not material in as much as he had the intention of committing the aforesaid offence though accidently he might have killed another person. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Section 302 - Punishment for murder

Penal Code 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court reverses concurrent findings of guilt entered by the trial court and High Court - Says exceptional case where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 r/w. 34 - In a case rested on circumstantial evidence and 'last seen' theory is relied on as a link in the chain of circumstances, the evidence relating the time at which the deceased was lastly seen with the accused has to be proved conclusively as when it is proximate with the time of finding the dead body the burden to establish the innocence would be that of the accused. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 411, 436 and 120B - Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 5 - In view of the severity of the offence resulting in deaths of innocent persons and the role played by each accused person, all these accused persons are sentenced to imprisonment for life, without remission, extending to natural life. (Para 212- 213) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 508

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. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Ante-timing of the FIR - Benefit of Doubt - In the absence of any credible eye witness to the incident and the fact that the presence of the accused at the place of incident is also not well established, we are constrained to accord benefit of doubt to both the accused. Even if we ignore certain other minor discrepancies in the oral evidence, the delay in conducting the post-mortem, the difference in the name of the weapons of crime, i.e., “tabal” or “palkati” which are more or less similar types of instruments for cutting crops, etc., it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused appellants have committed the offence beyond any reasonable doubt. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Awarding the punishment of life imprisonment requires due appreciation of evidence and cannot be awarded mechanically and in a perfunctory manner. The law requires that the High Court, must, only after re-appreciation of evidence confirm or overturn the findings of fact returned by the Trial Court. (Para 7) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC. (Para 60) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - In the case of murder by poison, the prosecution must prove following four circumstances: - (1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased. (Para 20 & 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 968

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - In case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. (Para 34) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused would assume greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one. (Para 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court sets aside conviction in a murder case - Notes that the Trial Court and the High Court grossly erred in their appreciation of evidence. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - When there is concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Apex Court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence to examine the correctness of such findings of fact, unless there is manifest illegality or grave and serious miscarriage of justice on account of misreading or ignoring material evidence - Conviction and sentence of mother for killing her 5-year old child upheld. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Prosecution has failed to prove the real genesis of the incident. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the accused had any motive to commit the murder of her own father. On the contrary, her father had brought her to the house of PW.1 for treating her mental ailment. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the act was done by the accused, with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. The case would fall under Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC and as such, conviction under Section 302 of the IPC would not be tenable. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the IPC. Since the accused has been incarcerated for a period of more than 12 years, the said sentence would subserve the ends of justice for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part-I of the IPC. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - the circumstances in which the accused is said to have administered poison to her two sons is clearly reflective of her being under a state of tremendous mental stress. However, it is difficult to grant the benefit of bringing the case under the ambit of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Be that as it may, the Court is not pursuaded to convert the conviction from Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. (Para 10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 – the Supreme Court commutes death sentence of accused who murdered his sister & her lover from another caste; takes note of 'social pressure' - Accused, who has been sentenced to capital punishment, was a young boy of about 25 years at the time of the incident. The medical evidence would further reveal that the accused have not acted in a brutal manner, inasmuch as there is only single injury inflicted on both the deceased. As such, the present case cannot be considered to be 'rarest of rare' case. Thus, the Court after taking into consideration, the young age of the accused at the time of incidence, the manner in which the crime was committed, no criminal antecedent of the accused and the report of the Probation Officer as well as the Superintendent of the Correctional Home in which the accused is serving his sentence, commuted the death sentence imposed on the accused to the life imprisonment. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 and 304 Part 1 - Appellant's conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part 1 IPC. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Neither PW-3 nor PW-6 could identify any of the three accused and they did not depose that the three policemen involved in the crime were those who were facing trial. PW15's presence was not confirmed by PW3 and PW6 and his conduct of remaining silent for over a week creates a lingering doubt as to whether he was a witness set up on advise, particularly, when in his first statement was not to the investigating agency but made on an affidavit prepared by a lawyer, who simultaneously prepared three affidavits identically worded. (Para 29) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case as they need to prove the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence with regard to last seen theory is totally unreliable. The evidence regarding the Call Detail Records (CDRs) also is one which does not inspire any confidence. As such, the appeals deserve to be allowed. (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - The circumstance that the accused persons were required to patrol that area and had left the police station for that end on that fateful night is a circumstance which is not conclusive as to turn the tables on the accused, inasmuch as the patrolling area covered two villages. It may be possible that the accused arrived at the spot late, when the incident had already taken place, and to chase away the miscreants, fired shots from their service rifles. The circumstances ought to have formed a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the persons facing trial and none else who committed the crime. (Para 32) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 - The deceased did not die of a rifle bullet injury. Rather, he died from a .12 bore gunshot which could not be ascribed to rifles issued to the accused persons. The continued presence of the accused at the spot is a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused, being a conduct that belies a guilty mind. According to the prosecution's own case, the accused persons, three in number, had a rifle each with 50 rounds. Admittedly, some of the empty cartridges found at the spot, as per the ballistic expert report, were not fired from the rifle issued to the accused. This is indicative of presence of some other rifle also. Whose rifle it was, the prosecution evidence is silent. Here the circumstances found proved do not constitute a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability it were the accused persons and no one else who committed the crime. In such a situation, there was no option for the trial court but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 30, 31) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 542

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - the case in hand is a quintessential case where to solve out a blind murder, occurring in a forest in the darkness of night, bits and pieces of evidence were collected which warranted a strict scrutiny before basing a conviction thereupon. On putting the prosecution evidence to strict scrutiny and testing the same on the anvil of settled legal principles, the evidence is not confidence inspiring as to uphold the conviction of the accused. The courts below have failed to properly evaluate and test the evidence by applying the correct legal principles. In such circumstances, the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside. (Para 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 r/w. 34 and 201 - Arms Act, 1959; Sections 4, 25 - there was no disclosure in the FIR as to how the dead body was found in the forest - who had seen the deceased in the company of the two persons was not disclosed in the FIR - the prosecution made later improvements in the story and made deliberate attempt to multiply the witnesses - all these circumstances taken cumulatively create a doubt in our mind as to whether it is a quintessential case of a blind murder (i.e. taking place at a secluded place in the darkness of night where no one could witness the crime), therefore, to solve the case, while groping for witnesses, the prosecution story kept evolving, either on the basis of information received from time to time, or on guess work emanating from strong suspicion, or police suggestions. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

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. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 304 Part 1 - Conviction altered from S 302 to S 304 Part 1 - the possibility of the appellant causing the death of the deceased while being deprived of the power of self-control, due to the provocation on account of the deceased cannot be ruled out - The weapon used in the crime is a stick which was lying in the house, and which, by no means, can be called a deadly weapon - it will also be necessary to take into consideration the background in which the offence took place. There used to be persistent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. (Para 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 585

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302/34 or 307/34 - To fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 IPC what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of the common intention of all. Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted. (Para 29) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Accused taking the deceased from home on a bicycle - Even if we accept PW4 daughter's testimony that the accused, on that fateful day, took the deceased on a bicycle to the fields that by itself is not conclusive to indicate that he took her to kill her; because, admittedly, the accused held agricultural holding and it is quite possible that he may have taken his wife to assist him in the agricultural operations. It is common practice in villages for ladies to help their menfolk in agricultural operations. The allegation that while taking her a declaration was made that she would be killed does not inspire our confidence for the reason that the motive set out by the prosecution for such a quarrel has not been proved. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - there is no direct eye witness account of the murder. The body of the deceased was found in the open on a railway track. In such circumstances to sustain a conviction the court would have to consider — (i) whether the circumstances relied by the prosecution have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) whether those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) whether those circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so far complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused; (iv) whether they are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused being guilty; and (v) whether they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. (Para 23) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Disclosure Statement and Recovery - The prosecution placed heavy reliance on recovery of blood-stained clothes and stones from the hut of the accused on the basis of disclosure made by him - All papers were prepared at one go rendering the entire exercise of disclosure and consequential discovery/recovery doubtful - the High Court was justified in doubting the recovery of blood-stained clothes etc. at the instance of the accused from the hut and on the basis of a disclosure statement made by him. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Extra Judicial Confession - The alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused to PW4 daughter was neither disclosed in the FIR nor in the previous statement of PW4 made during investigation. PW4 was confronted with that omission during her deposition in court. That apart, the testimony of PW4 with regard to the accused returning home, making extra judicial confession, changing clothes, washing blood-stained clothes and spreading them to dry has been found unreliable and shaky by the High Court for cogent reasons, which do not appear perverse as to warrant an interference. Thus, the circumstance of extra judicial confession is also not proved beyond doubt. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Motive - the original motive for the crime was a dispute arising from keeping of jewellery by the deceased with her sister, whereas the statement of prosecution witnesses established that the jewellery had been returned much before the incident, therefore, there existed no cogent motive for the crime - the prosecution failed to prove the motive set out by it. No doubt absence of motive by itself may not be sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case if the other proven circumstances could form a chain so complete as to indicate that in all human probability it is the accused and no one else who committed the crime but, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important part. Because, not only it makes the story believable but also helps the court in fortifying an inference which may be drawn against the accused from other attending circumstances. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – Quarrels and disputes between husband and wife are everyday phenomena and not such an event which may create a strong suspicion of an impending crime much less murder. (Para 24) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 – Murder – The Supreme Court upheld the decision of High Court which acquitted an accused who was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his wife on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery, and extra judicial confession) beyond reasonable doubt. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 201 - There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the accused. Most importantly, it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the accused. In any case, the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 and 307 - Accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder. The tainted investigation shows the highhandedness of the accused, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party. Adverse inference against the accused is drawn in view of their subsequent conduct. (Para 114 (b), (j)) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 664

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 302 read with 34 and 120B – Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 - Apartment from where the dead body was found stood in the tenancy and possession of accused - the prosecution has failed to prove a chain of incriminating circumstances as to conclusively point out that in all human probability it was the two accused or any one of them, and no one else, who had committed the murder. In such circumstances, even if the accused failed to explain as to how the dead body of the deceased was found in his apartment, an inference of his guilt cannot be drawn. In a nutshell, it is a case where the prosecution failed to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to the plane of "must be true" as is indispensably required for conviction on a criminal charge. (Para 86) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

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. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41

Section 304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304 Part II and 149 - Different sentence for the convicts for the same offence - The impugned judgment fell into error in not considering the gravity of the offence. Having held all the accused criminally liable, under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and also not having found any distinguishing feature in the form of separate roles played by each of them, the imposition of the “sentence undergone” criteria, amounted to an aberration, and the sentencing is for that reason, flawed. This court is, therefore, of the view that given the totality of circumstances (which includes the fact that the accused have been at large for the past four years), the appropriate sentence would be five years rigorous imprisonment. (Para 16) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 492

Section 304A - Causing death by negligence

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304A - There is a failure on the part of the appellant who was holding a sophisticated automatic weapon to ensure that the change lever was always kept in a safety position. This was the minimum care that he was expected to take while he approached the deceased. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the appellant which led to a loss of human life. (Para 20) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 539

Section 304B - Dowry Death

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304B and 498A - Mere death of a wife under unnatural circumstances, in a matrimonial home, within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to convict the husband for dowry death. (Para 23) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B - Dowry Death - Validity and credibility of dying declaration - The High Court had partly upheld the conviction of the appellant / husband under Section 304B IPC for dowry death. The primary evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased-wife, which alleged that the appellant had set her on fire after a disagreement over dowry. Held, doubts regarding the voluntary nature of the dying declaration and its recording, including discrepancies in testimony concerning the deceased's fitness to provide such a statement. The High Court's selective belief in the dying declaration (disbelieving parts of it concerning father-in-law but relying on it for the husband) raised further questions about its credibility. Evidence from the Investigating Officer suggested a different conclusion concerning the circumstances of the incident. The testimonies provided by the relatives of the deceased regarding harassment due to dowry were vague, and no concrete evidence was presented to substantiate the claims. Given these findings, the dying declaration was not free from doubt and that the charge under Section 304B IPC (harassment due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand) was not conclusively proven. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. (Para 10 – 18) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833

Section 306 - Abetment of suicide

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306 - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 113A - Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for the court to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and to hold the accused guilty of Section 306 IPC. (Para 14) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Penal Code, 1860; Section 306, 107 - To attract the ingredients of Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence to substantiate the existence of suicide. It should be followed by abetment, as required under Section 107 of the IPC. (Para 9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 641

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 306, 107 - In order to convict a person for the offences under Section 306 IPC, the basic constituents of the offence namely where the death was suicidal and whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated in Section 107 IPC have to be established - In order to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused. For the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. (Para 6-10) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Section 307 - Attempt to murder

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - Merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused. (Para 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Section 308 - Attempt to commit culpable homicide

Penal Code, 1860; Section 308 - Attempt to Culpable Homicide - Conviction under section 308 IPC not sustainable if accused had no intention or knowledge to cause death. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Section 323 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

Penal Code, 1860 - Section 323, 504 and 506 - Office Altercation - Nature of allegations are of very trivial nature - there is no progress made in the proceedings since the chargesheet was filed in the year 2015 – Held, that continuing the proceedings would be a persecution and harassment - As such a petty incident which took place in their office should have been resolved by the parties on that day itself, instead of stretching it so far. (Para 6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 606

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Muzaffarnagar school student slapping case, in which a primary school teacher punished a Muslim boy by asking other students to slap him. Held, the victim must have undergone trauma. The State Government to ensure that proper counselling is extended to the victim of the offence through an expert child counsellor. Even the other students, who were involved in the incident, in the sense that they allegedly followed the mandate issued by the teacher and assaulted the victim, need counselling by an expert child counsellor. The State Government will take immediate steps to do the needful by providing services of an expert child counsellor. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Student slapping case - Physical punishment inflicted upon a student who belongs to a minority community. Considering the manner in which the Police have delayed action and especially the fact that though a case of cognizable offence was made out, only a non-cognizable case was reported, we direct that the investigation shall be conducted under the supervision of a senior IPS Officer, nominated by the State Government. The IPS Officer so nominated will go into the question of whether the second proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act is attracted and whether Section 153A of the IPC needs to be applied. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Section 333 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 333, 353 and 451 – granted the benefit of probation to a social worker who was convicted of assaulting a public servant and reduced her sentence to 1 month. The incident related to 1992 when she had barged into the office of the Directorate (Women and Child Development) and abused and pushed a public official who got injured in her right finger. The matter was over 30 years old where appellant was out on bail all these years. Now, she's an old lady of 62 years. The court acknowledged that there was no scuffle as such and the appellant was only raising the concerns of laborers. The court was cognizant that hurting a public servant is a serious offense where a 10-year jail term can be granted. But the court while considering all the factors in totality was of the view that leniency can be shown to the appellant. The Court allowed the appeal partly by upholding the conviction but at the same time reduced the jail term to 1-month simple imprisonment for offenses under sections 333 and 451 IPC. It also imposed a fine of 25,000 to be given to the injured public servant. (Para 3 - 13) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 605

Section 338 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others

Penal Code, 1860; Section 338 - Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others - At that relevant time, the bus was overcrowded. There were a number of passengers waiting at the bus stop. Therefore, it was the duty of the conductor to take care of the passengers. Hence, before he rang the bell and gave a signal to the driver to start the bus, he ought to have verified whether all passengers had safely boarded the bus. He could have ascertained this from accused no.3 – cleaner who was standing near the door of the bus. However, he did not take that precaution and care which he was under an obligation to take. Therefore, the accused acted rashly and negligently as he did not perform his duty of being careful. The accused knew that at the relevant bus stop, a large number of students were waiting to take the bus to reach their school and therefore, the accused ought to have verified whether all the passengers had properly boarded the bus before giving the signal to the driver. However, he did not verify whether the passengers had properly boarded the bus. Therefore, he is guilty of negligence as he failed to perform his duty. In fact, this was an act of recklessness on his part. The fact is that due to the negligence on the part of the accused, human life was endangered. (Para 14) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 510

Section 341 - Making or possessing counterfeit seal

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 341, 302 r/w. 34 - All the five accused persons called the deceased a witch who is the cause of trouble to the villagers as she used to indulge in witchcraft. The nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft. In the light of the clinching evidence and in the absence of any specific lacuna in the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, held, that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons with imprisonment of life. The conviction and sentence have rightly been affirmed by the High Court. (Para 19) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779

Section 342 - Punishment for wrongful confinement

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 342 and 376(2)(g) - Criminal Appeal against concurrent conviction in rape case - There was no evidence brought on record to connect the present appellants with the offence - Accused Acquitted. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Section 363 - Punishment for kidnapping

Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 363, 364A – Kidnapping for ransom vis-à-vis kidnapping simpliciter – Proof of kidnapping for ransom – Punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as such has a higher evidentiary threshold – Three stages or components, namely, first, kidnapping or abduction of a person and keeping them in detention; second, threat to cause death or hurt, and the use of kidnapping, abduction, or detention with a demand to pay the ransom; and third, when the demand is not met, then causing death – Fulfilment of second ingredient, namely, threat to cause death or hurt – Intimidation of child victim, for the purpose of making them silent not adequate – Held, prosecution's case did not prove second ingredient beyond reasonable doubt as a result of the victim's statement being subsequently modified to reflect crucial differences that would enable the prosecution to drive home the kidnapping for ransom charge – Further held, conviction under Section 364A ought to be altered in exercise of power under Section 216 of Code of Criminal Procedure into the lesser offence under Section 363 – Appeal partly allowed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167

Section 364A - Kidnapping for ransom

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - A young boy in the first flush of youth was cruelly done to death and the wrongdoers necessarily had to be brought to book for the injustice done to him and his family. However, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 38) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution's case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the 'rarest of rare cases', warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, held, that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. (Para 39) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

Section 375 - Rape

Penal Code 1860; Section 375 Exception 2 - Sex with minor wife aged 16 years - Supreme Court acquits husband relying on exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Section 376 - Punishment for rape

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. 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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376 - Since age was such a crucial factor in the present case, the prosecution should have done a bone ossification test for determination of the age of the prosecutrix. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376 - The evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness. It is again true that conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. All the same, when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony. (Para 5) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376 - the proof submitted by the prosecution with regard to the age of the prosecutrix in the form of the school register was not sufficient to arrive at a finding that 13 the prosecutrix was less than sixteen years of age, especially when there were contradictory evidences before the Trial Court as to the age of the prosecutrix. It was neither safe nor fair to convict the accused, particularly when the age of the prosecutrix was such a crucial factor in the case. (Para 9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376, 377, 302 and 201 - Rape & Murder of 6-year-old girl - Numerous lapses in investigation - the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A of CrPC. There is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis. A premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record. Lock panchnama is not prepared. No samples of blood and semen of the accused can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff, allegedly an additional sample is taken from the accused more than a month after the arrest. Alleged disclosure statement of the accused was never read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language. The accused was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence. What was the basis of the accused being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery. Persons who may have shed light on essential aspects went unexamined. Such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment imposed on the accused and set him at liberty. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Section 376 (D) - Gang Rape

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376(D), 228A, 506 and 120B – Cancellation of Bail - Special leave to appeal has been filed by the victim assailing the correctness of the order passed by the High Court granting bail to respondent no. 2 (Jitendra Narain), Ex-Chief Secretary of Andaman and Nicobar Islands - The High Court noted that as the accused Jitendra Narain, an IAS officer has already been transferred to Delhi, if some stringent conditions are put, the Respondent No.2 would not be in a position to influence any of the witnesses in the Islands. The Division Bench also noticed that Jitendra Narain being in service, there would be no chance of him absconding. The Court further noticed that there was no material to impress that in case he was released, he would influence the witnesses or there would be any danger of justice being thwarted. On such considerations, the Division Bench proceeded to grant bail, subject to conditions. Held, not find reason to interfere with the Impugned Judgments. (Para 4, 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 718

Section 386 - Extortion by putting a person in fear of death on grievous hurt

Penal Code, 1860; Section 386 - The victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. (Para 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Section 390 - Robbery

Penal Code, 1860; Section 390 - Theft amounts to 'robbery' if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Before theft can amount to 'robbery', the offender must have voluntarily caused or attempted to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. The second necessary ingredient is that this must be in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. The third necessary ingredient is that the offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person hurt etc., for that end, that is, in order to the committing of the theft or for the purpose of committing theft or for carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft. It is not sufficient that in the transaction of committing theft, hurt, etc., had been caused. If hurt, etc., is caused at the time of the commission of the theft but for an object other than the one referred to in Section 390, IPC, theft would not amount to robbery. It is also not sufficient that hurt had been caused in the course of the same transaction as commission of the theft. (Para 14) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Section 405 - Criminal breach of trust

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Section 415 - Cheating

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - It is considered appropriate to remind the high courts and the sessions courts not to be unduly swayed by submissions advanced by counsel on behalf of the accused in the nature of undertakings to keep in deposit/repay any amount while seeking bail under section 438 of the Cr. PC. and incorporating a condition in that behalf for deposit/payment as a pre-requisite for grant of bail. (Para 2) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - In the context of grant of bail, all such conditions that would facilitate the appearance of the accused before the investigating officer/court, unhindered completion of investigation/trial and safety of the community assume relevance. However, inclusion of a condition for payment of money by the applicant for bail tends to create an impression that bail could be secured by depositing money alleged to have been cheated. That is really not the purpose and intent of the provisions for grant of bail. (Para 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 496

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings - The criminal Courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating - Explained. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Penal Code, 1860; Section 420 - Looking to the averments and allegations in the complaint, it is not appreciable at all, how the appellants are alleged to have committed the offence of cheating. The ingredients for the offence of cheating are not at all satisfied. There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. Therefore, even on bare reading of the averments and allegations in the complaint, no case even remotely for the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. (Para 5.6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 - Representation of People Act, 1951; Section 29A – Allegation that the Memorandum annexed with the application for registration was false – Held, Even the application under Section 29A of the Act, 1951 was made as far as back in the year 1989 and thereafter even the respondent No. 1 filed the complaint before the ECI, which came to be dismissed by the ECI and thereafter the present complaint has been filed in the year 2009, i.e., after a period of 20 years from the date of filing of the application for registration under Section 29-A of the Act, 1951, which was made in the year 1989. Even assuming the complaint's averments to be true, do not make out the ingredients of the offences, for which the learned Trial Court has passed the summoning order. (Para 5.12, 6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Section 463 - Forgery

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 463, 464 and 471 - For the offence of forgery, there must be making of a false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person. Therefore, making the false documents is sine qua non - Making a false claim and creating and producing the false document both are different and distinct. (Para 5.9) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359

Section 464 - Making a false document

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) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3

Section 489C - Possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank-notes

Penal Code, 1860; Section 489C - Accused-appellant found to be in possession of 43 counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.10. He was a vegetable vendor - Sentence of 5 years imprisonment modified to the one already undergone while retaining the conviction. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 643

Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, 323 / 504 / 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; Section 3 & 4 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Matrimonial Offences - Denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail – Held, there are no startling features or elements that stand out or any exceptional fact disentitling the appellant to the grant of anticipatory bail. Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the Trial Court. Therefore, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach. The impugned order of rejecting the bail and directing the appellant, to surrender and later seek bail, therefore, cannot stand, and is hereby set aside. (Para 12) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 583

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - Allegations are mostly general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details regarding how and when her brothers-in-law and mother-in-law, who lived in different cities altogether, allegedly subjected her to dowry harassment. After leaving her matrimonial home in February 2009, the wife took no action until 2013 when she filed a complaint alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings. The allegations seem so far-fetched and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the in-laws. Permitting the criminal process to continue in such a situation would undoubtedly result in a clear and patent injustice. This was a fit case for the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and the consequential proceedings. (Para 20 - 22) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - When marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498A IPC would not be sustainable. (Para 7) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A and 304B - Irrespective of the fact that accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 304B, Section 498A would cover the cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). (Para 21) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A and 304B - When dying declaration would not suggest that there was any proximate nexus to the act of committing suicide on account of preceding demand for dowry or in other words the demand of dowry on any particular date having triggered the deceased to commit the suicide or forced her to self-immolate, conviction of the accused under Section 304B cannot be sustained. (Para 17) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 498A, 304B r/w. 34 – Dowry Death - Poisoning - Absence of detection of poison in the viscera report alone need not be treated as a conclusive proof of the fact that the victim has not died of poison. In certain circumstances, traces of poison may not be found in the body due to evaporation, vomiting, purging, and detoxification processes. Where the deceased dies as a result of poisoning, it is difficult to successfully isolate the poison and recognize it. Lack of positive evidence in this respect would not result in throwing out the entire prosecution case, if the other circumstances clearly point out the guilt of the accused. (Para 29, 30 & 33) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

Section 499 - Defamation

Penal Code, 1860; Exception 8 to Section 499 - It is not a defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with regard to the subject-matter of accusation - In this case, the accused lodged a complaint in writing addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating that a person had put up a shop by encroaching upon some land - Defamation complaint quashed. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark - Trial Judge has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by the Apex Court no other reason has been assigned while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the RP Act have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Act would not have been attracted. Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. (Para 5, 6) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 – Defamation - Stay of Conviction - Though the Appellate Court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, the reasons for maximum sentence have not even been touched in their orders. No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge. (Para 7, 8) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598

Penal Code, 1860; Section 499 - Magistrate can dismiss defamation complaint by applying the exceptions under section 499 IPC even before issuing summons to the accused. (Para 44) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 860

Section 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. (Para 25- 26) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Penal Code, 1860; Section 504 - One of the essential elements for constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Para 28) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624

Section 506 - Punishment for criminal intimidation

Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 - Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. (Para 27) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624