Supreme Court Criminal Digest May 2023

Accused cannot be denied bail on the sole ground that the co-accused has not surrendered. Sebil Elanjimpally v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Accused were not traceable - Once the body was found and police entered the scene, after the first information report, even if the accused had been away and innocent, his instinct of self-preservation would have got the better of him to evade arrest till better counsel prevailed upon him to surrender. Such conduct by itself is not reflective of a guilty mind. (Para 70) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Admissibility of the FSL Report - Handwriting Expert Opinion - though it is not impermissible to base a finding with regard to authorship of a document solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert but, as a rule of prudence, because of imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting and its accepted fallibility, such opinion has to be relied with caution and may be accepted if, on its own assessment, the Court is satisfied that the internal and external evidence relating to the document in question supports the opinion of the expert and it is safe to accept his opinion. (Para 65) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

At the stage of hearing on the charges, the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed and if no offence is made out, then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court. (Para 11) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

Be vigilant before invoking stringent laws like SC-ST Act : Supreme Court 'reminds' police officers. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Chance Witness - Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Chargesheet not incomplete merely because it was filed without sanction; the accused can't seek default bail on that ground. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Circumstantial Evidence - Failure to render plausible explanation - In a case based on circumstantial evidence, false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to a definite conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused. (Para 83) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Circumstantial Evidence - In a case where there is no direct eye witness to the crime, the prosecution has to build its case on the circumstantial evidence. It is a very heavy burden cast on the prosecution. The chain of circumstances collected by the prosecution must complete the chain, which should point to only one conclusion which is that it is the accused who had committed the crime, and none else. Each evidence which completes the chain of evidences must stand on firm grounds. In our considered opinion, the evidence placed by the prosecution in this case does not pass muster the standard required in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Circumstantial Evidence - In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This heavy burden has to be discharged by the prosecution. It becomes even more difficult in a case of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the nature of circumstantial evidence is weak. In order to establish a charge of guilt on the accused, the chain of evidence must be completed and the chain must point out to one and only one conclusion, which is that it is only the accused who have committed the crime and none else. We are afraid the prosecution has not been able to discharge this burden. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Difference in the power of Police to register and investigate an FIR under Section 154(1) read with 157 of the Code, and the Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code. Power of the Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) in contrast with post-cognizance stage power under Section 202 of the Code – Explained. (Para 23 -38) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Inherent power of the High Court under the Code to quash the FIR – Explained. (Para 19-22) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Principles in respect of the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Explained. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(3) read with Section 158 does not permit the Secretary (Home) to order for further investigation or reinvestigation by another agency - The order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation / ordering further investigation by another agency and that too, on the basis of the application / complaint submitted by mother of the accused is unknown to law - In any case, as it is a case of reinvestigation, the same is not permissible and that too by another agency without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate even while exercising the powers under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. (Para 7.1, 7.3) Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The power under the Code to investigate generally consists of following steps: (a) proceeding to the spot; (b) ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case; (c) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (d) collection of evidence relating to commission of offence, which may consist of examination of various persons, including the person accused, and reduction of the statement into writing if the officer thinks fit; (e) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced for trial; and (f) formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps by filing a chargesheet under Section 173. (Para 12) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 102 - Company's bank account cannot be frozen for criminal investigation against an unrelated party. Jermyn Capital LLC Dubai v. CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 412

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 - Registration of an FIR - Mandatory nature of Section 154(1) of the Code – Explained. (Para 14-18) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154 and 157 - there is a distinction between Section 154 and 157 as the latter provision postulates a higher requirement than under Section 154 of the Code. Under Section 157(1) of the Code, a Police officer can foreclose the investigation if it appears to him that there is no sufficient ground to investigate. The requirement of Section 157(1) for the Police officer to start investigation is that he has “reason to suspect the commission of an offence”. Therefore, the Police officer is not liable to launch investigation in every FIR which is mandatorily registered on receiving information relating to commission of a cognizable offence. When the Police officer forecloses investigation in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 157(1), he must submit a report to the Magistrate. Here, the Magistrate can direct the Police to investigate, or if he thinks fit, hold an inquiry. Where a Police officer, in a given case, proceeds to investigate the matter, then he files the final report under Section 173 of the Code. The noticeable feature of the scheme is that the Magistrate is kept in the picture at all stages of investigation, but he is not authorised to interfere with the actual investigation or to direct the Police how the investigation should be conducted. (Para 16) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 156(3) - Proposed accused has right to be heard in revision filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Default Bail - If NIA as well as the State investigating agency they want to seek extension of time for investigation, they must be careful that such extension is not prayed for at the last moment - The right to be released on default bail continues to remain enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail, notwithstanding pendency of the bail application or subsequent filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking extension of time by the prosecution before the court. However, where the accused fails to apply for default bail when the right accrues to him, and subsequently a chargesheet, or a report seeking extension of time is preferred before the Magistrate or any other competent court, the right to default bail would be extinguished. The court would be at liberty to take cognizance of the case or grant further time for completion of the investigation, as the case may be, though the accused may still be released on bail under other provisions of the CrPC.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Filing of a chargesheet is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the CrPC and that an accused cannot claim any indefeasible right of being released on statutory / default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC on the ground that cognizance has not been taken before the expiry of the statutory time period to file the chargesheet - Grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order. (Para 44, 63) Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), 193 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; Section 16 - Error on the part of the investigating agency in filing chargesheet first before the Court of Magistrate has nothing to do with the right of the accused to seek statutory / default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. The committal proceedings are not warranted, when it comes to prosecution under the UAPA by the NIA by virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act. This is because the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. By virtue of Section 16 of the NIA Act, the Court need not follow the requirements of Section 193 of the CrPC. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2), Section 173 - We find no merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that a chargesheet filed without sanction is an incomplete chargesheet which could be termed as not in consonance with sub section (5) of Section 173 of the CrPC - Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been completed - Once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173 (8) - District Police Chief cannot order further investigation without permission from magistrate or higher court - Power to order further investigation rests with either with the concerned magistrate or with a higher court and not with an investigating agency. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 311A – Evidence Act, 1872; Section 73 - Specimen Signatures and Handwriting Samples - “to be a witness against himself” - Since specimen signatures and handwriting samples are not incriminating by themselves as they are to be used for the purpose of identification of the handwriting on a material with which the investigators are already acquainted with, compulsorily obtaining such specimens would not infringe the rule against self-incrimination enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. (Para 53, 57) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - Power to examine the accused - (i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction; (ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence; (iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused; (iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused; (v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident; (vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and (vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC. (viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered. (Para 16) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 – Power to examine the accused - While recording the statement under Section 313 of CrPC in cases involving a large number of prosecution witnesses, the Judicial Officers should take benefit of Section 313 (5) of CrPC, which will ensure that the chances of committing errors and omissions are minimized. Section 313(5) CrPC says that the Court may take help of the Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section. (Para 21) Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - the Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach. (Para 33) Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - to suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., there ought to be something apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable - the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. (Para 33) Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 41, 154 - To strike a balance, distinction is drawn between power of arrest of an accused person under Section 41 and registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code. While registration of an FIR is mandatory, the arrest of the accused on registration of the FIR is not. FIR is registered on the basis of information without any qualification like credible, reasonable or true information. Reasonableness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for registration of the FIR. However, for making arrest in terms of Section 41(1)(b) or (g), the legal requirements and mandate is reflected in the expression ‘reasonable complaint’ or ‘credible information’. (Para 15) Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant / rejection of bail / anticipatory bail. We do not appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage - In the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly - An inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate. Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 - though usually the proper course of action of the High Court ought to have been to confine itself to the acceptance/rejection of the prayer for bail made by the accused under Section 439 of the Code; however, the High Court, being satisfied that there were, in its opinion, grave lapses on the part of the police/investigative machinery, which may have fatal consequences on the justice delivery system, could not have simply shut its eyes. (Para 13) Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. (Para 16) Chanchalapati Das v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 446

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - Where purely civil disputes, more often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. (Para 36) Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Court is not an institution to sermonise society on morality and ethics - the positive recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the accused, has been rejected by the State on the ground that the accused had administered poison to murder her two sons to continue her illicit relationship without any hinderance, which act was cruel and brutal in nature - the accused never tried to murder her sons with a view to continue her illicit relationship - there is no valid reason / justifiable ground for the State not accepting the recommendation of the State Level Committee for premature release of the accused - We are not oblivious to the crime but we are equally not oblivious to the fact that the mother has already suffered at the cruel hands of fate. (Para 16 - 19) Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Court not to sermonise on morality’: SC allows premature release of woman convicted for killing sons while attempting suicide. Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

Courts below failed to properly evaluate evidence’: Supreme Court acquits two convicts in 22 year old murder case. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Criminal Investigation – Voice Sample - Magistrate has the power to order the collection of a voice sample for the purpose of investigation. Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 463

Delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition - the argument regarding pendency of the Mercy Petition and there being a delay of more than 10 years cannot be sustained. Firstly, the petitioner himself never submitted any Mercy Petition. The alleged Mercy Petition of year 2012 was filed by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC). Further, after the communication of the Ministry of Home Affairs dated 27.09.2019, the proposal for considering the commutation of the death sentence of the petitioner was started and a decision was taken to keep the same pending till disposal of the pending appeals before this Court, filed by the coaccused as well as by CBI, as according to the competent authority, it would have a bearing and it could be relevant for taking final decision on the said proposal of commutation. Further, it was after the directions issued by this Court on 04.12.2020 and 02.05.2022 that the matter was again considered by the competent authority and it was decided to defer the question of commutation in view of the reasons given in the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, it cannot be alleged that there has been an inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition. The decisions relied in support of submission regarding inordinate delay in disposal of the Mercy Petition and resultantly commutation in such cases having been granted by this Court, do not help the petitioner in view of the facts and situation being different in those three cases and in the present case. (Para 17, 18) Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391

Delayed Disclosure - a mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit. The courts below erred by placing reliance on his testimony. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Don't seek extension of time for investigation at the last moment, accused will get right to default bail: Supreme Court to NIA, Police. Judgebir Singh @ Jasbir Singh @ Jasbir v. National Investigation Agency, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 377

Ensure ICCs are constituted under POSH Act : Supreme Court to all Govts, Statutory Professional Bodies, Universities etc. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 101 and 106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Section 106 of the Act is an exception to the rule which is Section 101 of the Act, and it comes into play only in a limited sense where the evidence is of a nature which is especially within the knowledge of that person and then the burden of proving that fact shifts upon him that person. The burden of proof is always with the prosecution. It is the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 106 of the Act does not alter that position. It only places burden for disclosure of a fact on the establishment of certain circumstances. (Para 12) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 106 – Last Seen Theory - What has to be kept in mind is that Section 106 of the Act, only comes into play when the other facts have been established by the prosecution. In this case when the evidence of last seen itself is on a weak footing, considering the long gap of time between last seen by PW­10 and the time of death of the deceased. Section 106 of the Act would not be applicable under the peculiar facts and the circumstances of the case. In the present case the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of last seen, only leads upto a point and no further. It fails to link it further to make a complete chain. All we have here is the evidence of last seen, which as we have seen looses much of its weight under the circumstances of the case, due to the long duration of time between last seen and the possible time of death. (Para 13, 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - As far as the recovery is concerned, the recovery is again weak. The so­called alleged place of crime and the recovery of tractor or the place where the tractor was abandoned had already been disclosed by the co­accused by the time the present appellant was arrested. Therefore, making a disclosure about the place of occurrence or the place where the tractor was abandoned is of no consequence. As far as the recovery of watch, currency notes of Rs. 250/­, hair and ‘Parna’ from the residence of the accused are concerned, the currency notes and hair have not been identified with the deceased. What we can call as discovery here under Section 27 of the Act, is the discovery of ‘Parna’ and watch of the deceased. This evidence in itself is not sufficient to fix guilt on the accused. (Para 15) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - Disclosure statements, consequential discoveries and their connect with crime - Having doubted the recovery of clothes at the instance of the accused, the circumstance that the clothes carried blood of same group as of the deceased is rendered meaningless because there is no admissible evidence to connect the clothes with the two accused. The disclosure statement made to the police, even if not discarded, was not admissible for proving that the clothes recovered were the one which the accused were wearing at the time of murder. The reason being that only so much of the disclosure would be admissible under Section 27 of the IEA, 1872 as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered which, in the instant case, would be the place where the clothes were concealed. (Para 76) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Forensic / Ballistic Report has not even been put to the accused, from whom the country made pistol was seized, while recording his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., therefore, in any event, it would have to be eschewed from consideration. (Para 32) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

Handwriting Expert Opinion - Suicide Letter - Taking into account that the accused has denied the incriminating circumstance of writing the suicide letter and no internal or external evidence, save the expert report, supports the writing of suicide letter by the accused, though the expert evidence was admissible as an opinion on the writing in the suicide letter but, on overall assessment of the evidence led by the prosecution, solely on its basis, it would be extremely unsafe to hold that the suicide letter retrieved from the trouser of the deceased was written by the accused. (Para 69) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

High Courts can issue additional directions while considering bail pleas by virtue of powers under Article 226/227. Sanjay Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 435

In matters pertaining to citizens' liberty, courts should act promptly; avoid detailed deliberation of evidence in bail pleas. Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373

Mercy Petition - The Supreme Court refused to commute the death sentence of Babbar Khalsa terrorist Balwant Singh Rajoana to life imprisonment on the ground of the long pendency of the mercy petition before the President of India. The BKI operative was convicted for his role in the assassination of the former chief minister of Punjab, Beant Singh, in August 1995. There are directions by this Court vide orders dated 4.12.2020 and 2.5.2022 to dispose of the Mercy Petition of the petitioner. The Ministry of Home Affairs, upon material consideration of various reports from its different branches, has come to the conclusion that the consideration may be deferred as it could have an impact of compromising the security of the nation or creating law and order situation. It would not be within the domain of this Court to delve upon the decision of the competent authority to defer taking of any decision at present. It is within the domain of the executive to take a call on such sensitive issues. As such this Court does not deem it appropriate to issue any further directions. The stand of the Ministry of Home Affairs to defer the decision on the Mercy Petition of the petitioner is also a decision for the reasons given thereunder. It actually amounts to a decision declining to grant the same for the present. It is, however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision. (Para 19 - 23) Balwant Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 391

'Numerous lapses in investigation': Supreme Court frees man awarded death penalty in case for rape & murder of 6 year old girl. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

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) Nagarathinam v. State through the Inspector of Police, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 401

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) Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 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. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

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

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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 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. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Phoolchand Rathore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 408

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) Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

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. Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

PMLA | Accused not entitled to bail in money laundering case merely because chargesheet has been filed in predicate offence. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Jallikattu Law can't be termed arbitrary merely because bulls lack natural ability to run like horses. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The Supreme Court has expressed its disagreement with the 2014 division bench judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja And Ors insofar as it held that Jallikattu is not a cultural practice in Tamil Nadu. As per the materials placed before the Court, Jallikattu is going in Tamil Nadu for at least the last one century and whether or not it as an integral part of Tamil culture could not have been decided by the Court. When the legislature has declared that Jallikattu is part of the cultural heritage of TN state, the judiciary cannot take a different view. Legislature is best suited to decide that. The preamble to the state amendment had stated that Jallikettu is a part of cultural heritage of the State. We will not disrupt the view of the legislature that it is part of the cultural heritage of the state. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - there is no precedent to show that the Constitution of India recognises fundamental rights for animals. Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 447

Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Act 15 of 2003) – Section 3 – Registration of ECIR – Effect of delay – Information about all complaints, the nature of the complaints, and the amount of money allegedly collected towards illegal gratification had all come into the public domain – Once a piece of information relating to the acquisition of a huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter of public employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report – Held, registration of ECIR does not amount to fishing expedition – Further held, argument that there is no explanation for the delay in registering the ECIR self-serving – Writ petition challenging ED investigation dismissed. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Mere fact that chargesheet has been filed for the predicate offences is not a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the offences under the PML Act. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 433

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2003 – Sections 3 and 2(1)(u) – Offence of Money Laundering – Definition of proceeds of crime – In offences of corruption, criminal activity and generation of proceeds of crime go hand-in-hand – Wherever there are allegations of corruption, the acquisition of proceeds of crime itself tantamount to money laundering – Even if an intangible property is derived as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, it becomes proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) – Held, arguments that there are no foundational facts or jurisdictional facts unsustainable and as such, proceedings before Enforcement Directorate not illegal – Writ petition challenging ED investigation dismissed. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Proposed accused has the right to be heard in revision filed against dismissal of petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Santhakumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 465

'Receipt of bribe is an act of money laundering': Supreme Court says registration of FIR in corruption case sufficient to launch ED probe.Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused. The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position. Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 421

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Section 3(1)(x) - Before subjecting an accused to a trial for alleged commission of offence, it is desirable that the caste related utterances are outlined either in the FIR or, atleast, in the chargesheet. The same would enable it to ascertain if a case is made out for an offence under the SC/ST Act before taking cognisance of the matter. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 469

Section 389 Cr.P.C. - Sentence can be suspended in appeal only if the convict has fair chances of acquittal. Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 389

'Serious lapses in POSH Act enforcement': Supreme Court issues directions to strengthen law protecting women from Sexual Harassment at workplace. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Directions - To fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country, it is deemed appropriate to issue the following directions : (I) The Union of India, all State Governments and Union Territories are directed to undertake a timebound exercise to verify as to whether all the concerned Ministries, Departments, Government organizations, authorities, Public Sector Undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc. have constituted ICCs/LCs/ICs, as the case may be and that the composition of the said Committees are strictly in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act. (ii) It shall be ensured that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of the ICCs/LCs/ICs, details of the email IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily available on the website of the concerned Authority/Functionary/Organisation/Institution/Body, as the case may be. The information furnished shall also be updated from time to time. (iii) A similar exercise shall be undertaken by all the Statutory bodies of professionals at the Apex level and the State level (including those regulating doctors, lawyers, architects, chartered accountants, cost accountants, engineers, bankers and other professionals), by Universities, colleges, Training Centres and educational institutions and by government and private hospitals/nursing homes. (iv) Immediate and effective steps shall be taken by the authorities/ managements/employers to familiarize members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs with their duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on receiving a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, from the point when the complaint is received, till the inquiry is finally concluded and the Report submitted. (v) The authorities/management/employers shall regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops, seminars and awareness programmes to upskill members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs and to educate women employees and women’s groups about the provisions of the Act, the Rules and relevant regulations. (vi) The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) shall develop modules to conduct workshops and organize awareness programmes to sensitize authorities / managements / employers, employees and adolescent groups with the provisions of the Act, which shall be included in their annual calendar. (vii) The National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies shall include in their annual calendars, orientation programmes, seminars and workshops for capacity building of members of the ICCs/LCs/ICs established in the High Courts and District Courts and for drafting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to conduct an inquiry under the Act and Rules. (viii) A copy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secretaries of all the Ministries, Government of India who shall ensure implementation of the directions by all the concerned Departments, Statutory Authorities, Institutions, Organisations etc. under the control of the respective Ministries. A copy of the judgment shall also be transmitted to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories who shall ensure strict compliance of these directions by all the concerned Departments. It 2 shall be the responsibility of the Secretaries of the Ministries, Government of India and the Chief Secretaries of every State/Union Territory to ensure implementation of the directions issued. (ix) The Registry of the Supreme Court of India shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Director, National Judicial Academy, Member Secretary, NALSA, Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. The Registry shall also transmit a copy of this judgment to the Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Chartered Accountants, Institute of Company Secretaries and the Engineering Council of India for implementing the directions issued. (x) Member-Secretary, NALSA is requested to transmit a copy of this judgment to the Member Secretaries of all the State Legal Services Authorities. Similarly, the Registrar Generals of the State High Courts shall transmit a copy of this judgment to the Directors of the State Judicial Academies and the Principal District Judges/District Judges of their respective States. (xi) The Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Apex Bodies mentioned in sub-para (ix) above, shall in turn, transmit a copy of this judgment to all the State Bar Councils and the State Level Councils, as the case may be. The Union of India and all States/UTs are directed to file their affidavits within eight weeks for reporting compliances. (Para 77) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Rule 14 - Non-framing of the articles of charge – Effect of - In the instant case, though the Committee appointed by the Disciplinary Authority did not hold an inquiry strictly in terms of the step-by-step procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, nonetheless, we have seen that it did furnish copies of all the complaints, the depositions of the complainants and the relevant material to the appellant, called upon him to give his reply in defence and directed him to furnish the list of witnesses that he proposed to rely on. Records also reveal that the appellant had furnished a detailed reply in defence. He had also submitted a list of witnesses and depositions. This goes to show that he was well-acquainted with the nature of allegations levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his defence. Given the above position, non-framing of the articles of charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the appellant. (Para 70) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Defects and the Procedural Lapses - In fact, the glaring defects and the procedural lapses in the inquiry proceedings took place only thereafter, in the month of May, 2009, when 12 hearings, most of them back-to-back, were conducted by the Committee at a lightning speed. On the one hand, the Committee kept on forwarding to the appellant, depositions of some more complainants received later on and those of other witnesses and called upon him to furnish his reply and on the other hand, it directed him to come prepared to cross-examine the said complainants and witnesses as also record his further deposition, all in a span of one week. Even if the medical grounds taken by the appellant seemed suspect, the Committee ought to have given him reasonable time to prepare his defence, more so when his request for being represented through a lawyer had already been declined. It was all this undue anxiety that had led to short circuiting the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Committee and damaging the very fairness of the process. (Para 71) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Fairness of the Process - the appellant 3 cannot be faulted for questioning the process and its outcome. There is no doubt that matters of this nature are sensitive and have to be handled with care. The respondents had received as many as seventeen complaints from students levelling serious allegations of sexual harassment against the appellant. But that would not be a ground to give a complete go by to the procedural fairness of the inquiry required to be conducted, more so when the inquiry could lead to imposition of major penalty proceedings. When the legitimacy of the decision taken is dependent on the fairness of the process and the process adopted itself became questionable, then the decision arrived at cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is wide open to interference. It is not without reason that it is said that a fair procedure alone can guarantee a fair outcome. In this case, the anxiety of the Committee of being fair to the victims of sexual harassment, has ended up causing them greater harm. (Para 72) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) - Inquiry Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - the proceedings conducted by the Committee with effect from the month of May, 2009, fell short of the “as far as practicable” norm prescribed in the relevant Rules. The discretion vested in the Committee for conducting the inquiry has been exercised improperly, defying the principles of natural justice. As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgment upholding the decision taken by the EC of terminating the services of the appellant, duly endorsed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside with the following directions: (i) The matter is remanded back to the Complaints Committee to take up the inquiry proceeding as they stood on 5th May 2009. (ii) The Committee shall afford adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. (iii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment of the proceedings. (iv) A Report shall be submitted by the Committee to the Disciplinary Authority for appropriate orders. (v) Having regard to the long passage of time, the respondents are directed to complete the entire process within three months from the first date of hearing fixed by the Committee. (vi) The procedure to be followed by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. (vii) The Rules applied will be as were applicable at the relevant point of time. (viii)The decision taken by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be purely on merits and in accordance with law. (ix) The appellant will not be entitled to claim immediate reinstatement or back wages till the inquiry is completed and a decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. (Para 73) Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424

Supreme Court allows ED probe against TN Minister V Senthil Balaji in cash-for-jobs scam, quashes HC Order for fresh investigation. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Supreme Court directs all States/UTs to register suo motu FIRs in offences such as Section 153A, 153B, 295A and 506 of IPC etc, without any complaint being filed - Action be taken irrespective of the religion of the maker of the speech, so that the secular character of Bharat as envisaged by the Preamble is preserved. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 405

Supreme Court laments trial judges not using section 313(5) Cr.P.C.; asks judicial academies to take notice. Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434

Supreme Court sets aside Bombay HC Order acquitting G.N. Saibaba, Remands appeals to HC for consideration by another Bench. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 438

Supreme Court sets aside conviction in 23 year old murder case; says prosecution failed to prove chain of circumstances. Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 418

Supreme Court sets aside Magistrate's order directing police investigation into allegation of rape against BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya. Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 396

Testimony of witnesses who made a delayed disclosure of the incriminating circumstances of which he was aware much earlier - If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 470

The District Police Chief can't order further investigation without permission from the Magistrate or Higher Court. Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 402

The duty of the presiding judge of a criminal trial is not to watch the proceedings as a spectator or a recording machine but he has to participate in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth. (Para 11, 12) Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 395

The High Court has not even referred to the evidence collected by Investigating Agency produced alongwith chargesheet in its entirety. Rather there is selective reference to the statements of some of the persons recorded during investigation. It shows that there was total non-application of mind. The High Court had exercised the jurisdiction in a manner which is not vested in it to scuttle the trial of a heinous crime. (Para 20) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi v. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 462

The Home Secretary cannot order further investigation or reinvestigation of case by another agency. Bohatie Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 376

The Supreme Court directs to send Sessions Judge for training as he was not following judgments on bail. Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 410

The Supreme Court has expressed concern over the practice prevailing in Orissa High Court whereby different bail applications arising out of same FIR are listed before different Benches of the High Court. Such practice leads to ‘anomalous situation’ as some accused may be granted bail by a Bench while some other accused persons (in the same crime) may be denied bail by a different Bench, notwithstanding that all of them are similarly placed in many cases. Pradhani Jani v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 455

The Supreme Court refuses to refer 'Vijay Madanlal Choudhary' judgment, which upheld PMLA provisions, to a larger bench. Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 440

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - The Supreme Court set aside an order of the Bombay High Court acquitting former Delhi University professor and activist G.N. Saibaba as well as others over their alleged Maoist links and remanded the matter back to the high court to be considered afresh by a different bench. State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 438