The Complete Supreme Court Annual Digest- 2023 [Part-XV]

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. State of Punjab v. Dil Bahadur, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 267 : AIR 2023 SC 1767 : (2023) 3 SCR 766

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) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241

Section 300 - Murder

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 300 Exception 4, 302 and 498A - The exception clearly in unequivocal term states that it would be applicable where culpable homicide is committed not only without premeditated mind in a sudden fight or quarrel but also without the offender taking “undue advantage” of the situation. In the instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she can be burnt. The appellant having taken “undue advantage” of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC so as to bring the case within the ambit of Part II of 304 IPC. (Para 21) Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : : AIR 2023 SC 5512 : (2024) 1 SCC 327 : 2024 CriLJ 199

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 300 Exception 4, 302 and 498A - The First Information Report and the dying declarations on record clearly contain the statement of the deceased that when she had poured kerosene upon herself to deter the appellant from fighting and assaulting, he lighted a matchstick and with the intention to kill her, threw it upon her by saying “You Die”. The aforesaid evidence clinches the issue and establishes beyond doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder and is not entitled to benefit of the Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. (Para 23 & 24) Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 948 : : AIR 2023 SC 5512 : (2024) 1 SCC 327 : 2024 CriLJ 199

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) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736

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) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736

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) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - The requirement of Section 300 thirdly is fulfilled if the prosecution proves that the accused inflicted an injury which would been sufficient to have resulted in death of the victim. The determinative fact would be the intention to cause such injury and what was the degree of probability (gravest, medium, or the lowest degree) of death which determines whether the crime is culpable homicide or murder - When the nature of injury being so dangerous as to result in death (Section 300 fourthly), accused's disregard to the consequences of the injury, and an element of callousness to the result, denotes or signifies the intention. (Para 18-19) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - The standard of reasonableness for applying the “grave and sudden” provocation - mere long-standing preexisting dispute does not attract the exception. (Para 23-24) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300 - There can be no stereotypical assumption or formula that where death occurs after a lapse of some time, the injuries (which might have caused the death), the offence is one of culpable homicide. Every case has its unique fact situation. However, what is important is the nature of injury, and whether it is sufficient in the ordinary course to lead to death. The adequacy or otherwise of medical attention is not a relevant factor. (Para 25-26) Prasad Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 59 : AIR 2023 SC 643 : 2023 Cri LJ 1649 : (2023) 1 SCR 241

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 301 - The aforesaid provision is based up on the 'Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive' which provides that where there is 'mens rea' of committing an offence, it can be transferred to another. To illustrate the said doctrine, an example could be given of a person who had intention to kill a person but by mistake kills another person, then he would still be held guilty of committing murder even in the absence of intention to kill that particular person. In simpler words, if a person has an intention to commit an offence or cause a death of any person but kills one whose death he never intended to cause, he would still be guilty of causing death. (Para 12) Nanhe v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1005

Section 302 - Punishment for murder

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Circumstances to be proved in case of murder by poison- explained. (Para 20 & 26) Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 968 : (2024) 2 SCC 557

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. Mohd. Muslim v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 489 : AIR 2023 SC 3086 : (2023) 7 SCC 350

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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 : (2023) 5 SCR 601

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; 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 : AIR 2023 SC 2263

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 : AIR 2023 SC 2554

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 : AIR 2023 SC 2554

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) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279 : AIR 2023 SC 1736

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. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

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. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361 : AIR 2023 SC 2827

Penal Code, 1869; Section 302 - Appeal against concurrent conviction in a murder case - Allowed - Conviction set aside - The time gap between when the deceased was seen in the company of the accused on 09-10-1999 and the probable time of his death, based on the post mortem report, which was conducted two days later, but was silent about the probable time of death, though it stated that death occurred approximately two days before the post mortem, is not narrow. Given this fact, and the serious inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses, as well as the fact that the FIR was lodged almost 6 weeks after the incident, the sole reliance on the “last seen” circumstance (even if it were to be assumed to have been proved) to convict the accused-appellants is not justified. Jabir v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 41 : AIR 2023 SC 488 : (2023) 1 SCR 969

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. Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 239 : (2023) 2 SCR 682 : (2023) 5 SCC 350

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) Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 212 : (2023) 2 SCR 661

Penal Code, 1860; Section 300, 302 - Concurrent conviction of murder accused set aside - There is a fair degree of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into consideration the effect of the other attending circumstances, thereby warranting interference. Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 60 : AIR 2023 SC 634 : 2023 Cri LJ 1726

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - In case of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. (Para 34) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : AIR 2023 SC 1599 : [2023] 2 SCR 276

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) Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 186 : AIR 2023 SC 1599 : [2023] 2 SCR 276

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 - Murder Trial - Supreme Court affirms sentence and conviction of accused for murder based on solitary eyewitness testimony. Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 110 : AIR 2023 SC 996

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. Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 227 : (2023) 2 SCR 746

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. Vahitha v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 132 : AIR 2023 SC 1165

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302, 211 - Accused allegedly took his two sons, aged about 9 years and 6 years, to Haiderpur Canal, and strangulated them. Thereafter, he threw the dead bodies into the canal; and attempted to project as if it were a case of accidental drowning - Concurrent conviction under Sections 302, 211 IPC upheld by the Apex Court. Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 2 : AIR 2023 SC 193 : (2023) 3 SCC 372

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) Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341 : AIR 2023 SC 2095

Section 306 - Abetment of suicide

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) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

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) Kashibai v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149

Section 307 - Attempt to murder

Penal Code, 1860; Section 307 - To sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily injury capable of resulting in death should have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not follow as a matter of course. The court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.' The position that because a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction. While grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, 'The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the10 weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent. (Para 9) Sivamani v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1024

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. Ravi Dhingra v. State Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167 : AIR 2023 SC 1243 : 2023 Cri LJ 1913 : (2023) 6 SCC 76 : (2023) 2 SCR 164

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. Siddaruda @ Karna v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 170

Section 376 - Punishment for rape

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) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 376 - 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. (Para 9) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600

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. (Para 9) Manak Chand v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 937 : AIR 2023 SC 5600

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 : AIR 2023 SC 2938

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 - Accused concurrently convicted under Section 376 IPC for rape - Allowing his appeal and acquitting him, the Supreme Court observed: The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused, is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC. Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66 : (2023) 1 SCR 1061

Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 - It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC - Difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused - In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise. (Para 20) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 66 : (2023) 1 SCR 1061

Section 384 - Punishment for Extortion

Penal Code, 1860; Section 384 - To attract the offence the following twin ingredients are to be satisfied: (i) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another; (ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put to deliver to any person any property or valuable security. In the absence of such ingredients / accusations in the chargesheet to constitute the said offence it cannot be said a prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 384 is made out. (Para 11) Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

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) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423

Section 406 - Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust

Penal Code, 1860; Section 406 - Essential ingredients - In the absence of basic ingredient of entrustment of property and dishonest usage or disposal of any such property to satisfy the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, the charge of commission of the offence thereunder cannot be attracted. (Para 11) Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1072

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) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423

Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

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 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) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053

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) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053

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. Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 157 : (2023) 5 SCC 360

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) Sukhbir Singh Badal v. Balwant Singh Khera, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 359 : AIR 2023 SC 3053

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) Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 3 : AIR 2023 SC 228 : (2023) 3 SCC 423

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - While granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the IPC, a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed. Kunal Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1045

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A - One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty. Mahalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1041

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A and 304B - Evidence Act, 1872; Section 32 - 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 selfimmolate, conviction of the accused under Section 304B cannot be sustained. (Para 17) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Section 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) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915

Penal Code, 1860; Section 498A and 306 - Mere omission on the part of the trial judge to mention Section 306 IPC with 498A would not preclude the Supreme Court from convicting the accused for the said offence when found proved. (Para 27) (Para 21) Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915

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) P. Sivakumar v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 116

Section 499 - Defamation

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) Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik Gmbh v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 860 : (2024) 2 SCC 86

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961

Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961; Rule 185 - Disability Pension - The appellant, after serving the Indian Army for 15 years until 1987 and having an exemplary service record, was diagnosed with a "complete heart block." He was placed in the permanent low medical category, qualifying for a hundred percent disability treatment. Despite being granted a disability pension, the Armed Forces Appellate Tribunal (AFT) limited its duration to one year. The key contention was the appellant's refusal to undergo a potentially life-threatening surgery, which the Medical Board considered while assessing his disability. The Court emphasized Rule 185 of the Pension Regulations for the Army-1961, which prescribes that, if a disability is deemed incapable of improvement, the disability pension should be granted for 10 years initially, subject to reassessment. The AFT had either overlooked or not justified its deviation from this rule. The Court set aside the Tribunal's one-year confinement, directing that the appellant receive his disability pension for 10 years, after which a re-assessment would be in order, in line with Rule 185. The arrears and payments for the pension are restricted to three years prior to his appeal to the Tribunal and the relevant future duration. The appeal was thus allowed. Ex L/NK Rajput Ajit Singh v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 831

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Reservation in Promotions - the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct RBI to extend the benefit of reservation in promotion to an employee with disability, who was denied the same for a long time. Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Issue of the RBI not condoning the shortfall of marks - It was rather harsh on the part of the RBI to apply the same standards for general candidates and those with disabilities. RBI, as a model employer, ought to have taken an informed decision in this regard commensurate with the aspirations of persons with disabilities. (Para 48, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – the Act, 1995 did not contain any express provision for reservation to persons with disabilities serving in the feeder cadre, though there were provisions indicating that merely because an employee is one living with a disability, they ought not to be denied promotion. However, mere absence of an express mandate for reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities did not absolve the Government from keeping reserved vacancies on promotional posts. (Para 13 & 16, Dipankar Datta; J.) Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - In 2003, the employee had appeared in the All India Merit Test to secure promotion to a Class-I post. But he fell short of the qualifying marks by 3 marks. He made representations seeking condonation of the shortfall marks, which were not considered. The Supreme granted notional promotion to him to the post of Assistant Manager Grade A from the date of presentation of his writ petition before the Bombay High Court (27th Sept, 2006) and actual promotion from the last date for compliance of the order of the High Court (15th Sept, 2014). The Bench granted two months' time to complete the process and four months' time to compute and release the monetary benefits accruing to him. It also clarified that in two years when he retires, in computing his retiral benefits his promotion from 27th Sept, 2006 should be taken into consideration. Reserve Bank of India v. A.K. Nair, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 521

Political Party

Supreme Court affirms Madras HC order allowing EPS to continue as AIADMK interim general secretary, dismisses OPS's challenge. Thiru K. Palaniswamy v. M Shanmugham, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 133 : AIR 2023 SC 1253

Possession

Second suit seeking damages for illegal occupation maintainable after filing suit for possession. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. ATM Constructions Pvt Ltd., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1031

In suit for possession, prior possession becomes relevant when both parties fail to establish title. Shivashankara v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 261 : AIR 2023 SC 1780 : (2023) 6 SCR 359

Power of Attorney

General power of attorney holder can sub-delegate his powers if there is a specific clause permitting sub-delegation. Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahendra Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 121

Is non-production of power of attorney fatal to title suit? The Supreme Court split verdict. Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar Saha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 29 : AIR 2023 SC 506 : (2023) 8 SCC 410

Practice and Procedure

Every Court has high pendency, constitutional courts should avoid fixing time-schedule for cases unless exceptional. Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 978

Judges taking up cases not assigned by Chief Justice is an act of 'gross impropriety'. Ambalal Parihar v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 922

Cannot ignore ratio laid in an earlier Judgment merely because it stands referred to a larger bench. Rajnish Kumar Rai v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 842

No litigant should be permitted to misuse the process of law through vexatious applications. Vasant Nature Cure Hospital & Pratibha Maternity Hospital Trust v. Ukaji Ramaji, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 783 : AIR 2023 SC 4314

SLP cannot be filed to challenge an order passed by the High Court on the Administrative side. Nimmanapally Surya Reddy v. Honorable Chief Justice High Court of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 755

'Only CJI can assign cases' : Supreme Court bench unhappy with another bench assigning a case to it. Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Aggarwal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 182

Precedent

SC Order dismissing an appeal without any reasons cannot be treated as precedent. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Himanshu Dewan and Sonali Dewan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 674 : AIR 2023 SC 4503

When does an order become a binding precedent? the Supreme Court explains. Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 660

'Not everything said in a judgment constitutes a precedent': Supreme Court explains distinction between obiter dicta & ratio decidendi. Career Institute Educational Society v. Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 380

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan)

Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (Rajasthan); Section 14 (3) - the objective of section 14(3) of the Act was to safeguard the interest of tenants. As per the provision, Eviction suit cannot be filed by landlord within 5 years of tenancy. However, the court opined that even though in this case, the eviction suit was filed within 5 years, 38 years have gone by since then. This itself would cure the defect in the eviction suit. (Para 16, 18) Ravi Khandelwal v. Taluka Stores, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 525

Press Freedom

Press has a duty to speak truth to power, critical views on govt policies can't be termed anti-establishment. Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) - In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts below have recorded the findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused and also the recovery of tainted currency from the accused. Therefore, the burden had shifted on the accused to dispel the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, and prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward for the performance of his public duty, which the accused had failed to dispel. The explanation offered by the accused did not tally with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had also recorded that the defence taken by the accused that the acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards the Audit fees of the Society was not proved by him in as much as there was nothing on record to show that the amount paid by the complainant to the accused was out of the funds of the Society. Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on record threadbare in the right perspective and have found the accused guilty for the offence. (Para 12 - 14) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 and 20 - Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage - Once the undue advantage i.e., any gratification whatever, other than the legal remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the accused, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under Section 20 that he accepted the undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly. No doubt, such presumption is rebuttable. (Para 11) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19 - The question with regard to the validity of such sanction should be raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, however could be raised at the subsequent stage of the trial also - The stages of proceedings at which an accused could raise the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction would be the stage when the Court takes cognizance of the offence, the stage when the charge is to be framed by the Court or at the stage when the trial is complete i.e., at the stage of final arguments in the trial - Competence of the court trying the accused also would be dependent upon the existence of the validity of sanction, and therefore it is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time - In case the sanction is found to be invalid, the trial court can discharge the accused and relegate the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for the prosecution in accordance with the law. (Para 10) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 19(3), 19(4) - Findings recorded by the Special Judge could not have been and should not have been reversed or altered by the High Court in the petition filed by the accused challenging the said order of the Special Judge, in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of Section 19, and that too without recording any opinion as to how a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned to the respondent-accused as contemplated in the said subsection (3). (Para 12-14) State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 595

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(e) - Second proviso is in the nature of additional safeguard for the public servant who are accused of the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the 1988 Act against an investigation by a police officer without the knowledge and consent of superior police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. A superior police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police or any officer higher in rank is required to pass an order before an investigation, if any, for such offence is commenced. It is needless to point-out that, before directing such investigation, the Superintendent of Police or an officer superior to him is required to apply his mind to the information and come to an opinion that the investigation on such allegations is necessary. (Para 88) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused. (Para 11) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314 : AIR 2023 SC 2136

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the Act - Conviction set aside as demand was not proved. Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232 : AIR 2023 SC 1567

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - In the present case, there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted. Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - the complainant did not produce a copy of the application made by him for providing electricity meter - the complainant did not clearly tell that he had given such application. In absence of proof of making such application, the prosecution's case regarding demand of bribe for installing new electricity meter becomes doubtful. (Para 18) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 7 - Demand of Gratification - When we consider the issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7, it cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration - Every demand made for payment of money is not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than mere demand for money. (Para 16, 17) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 20 and 7 - The presumption under Section 20 can be invoked only when the two basic facts required to be proved under Section 7, are proved. The said two basic facts are 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification. The presumption under Section 20 is that unless the contrary is proved, the acceptance of gratification shall be presumed to be for a motive or reward, as contemplated by Section 7. It means that once the basic facts of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof are proved, unless the contrary are proved, the Court will have to presume that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated by Section 7. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the presumption. (Para 11) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 – In absence of direct evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence – Also, allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt - the Constitution Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary for a conviction under the Act does not dilute the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Sections 7 and 13 - The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved and laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. (Para 14) Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211 : 2023 Cri. LJ 1856 : (2023) 2 SCR 997

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - It is desirable that High Courts maintain a "hands-off" approach and not quash FIRs relating to corruption cases at investigation stage-This is because, it is difficult to form an opini088on conclusively at the stage of reading a first information report that the public servant is either in or not in possession of property disproportionate to the known sources of his/her income. It would all depend on what is ultimately unearthed after the investigation is complete -The considerations that could apply to quashing of first information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act offence. (Para 74) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158 : AIR 2023 SC 1441

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Zero Tolerance to Corruption - Though it is the preambular promise of the Constitution to secure social justice to the people of India by striving to achieve equal distribution of wealth, it is yet a distant dream. If not the main, one of the more prominent hurdles for achieving progress in this field is undoubtedly 'corruption'. Corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is all pervading in every walk of life. (Para 49) State of Chattisgarh v. Aman Kumar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 158 : AIR 2023 SC 1441

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

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 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

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 : AIR 2023 SC 2612

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 : AIR 2023