Supreme Court Criminal Digest September 2023

Bail - One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. (Para 8) PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2023 INSC 795

Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court. State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial. Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Cheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Circumstantial Evidence - In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other. (Para 14) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 100 (4) - Plea of unreliability of the testimony of the independent witness - It is a general provision relating to search and applies to a closed place, as for example, a residence, office, shop, a built-up premises etc, where a search is required to be conducted by the investigation. It is in this context that sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. provides that to maintain the purity of the process, before undertaking a search, a couple of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality where the place to be searched is located, be joined as witnesses to the search. (Para 24 – 25) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - There is nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose - The proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. (Para 45-48) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 - Witnesses to the panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did not disclose in their own words as to how these objects were discovered, i.e., at whose instance and how. Ergo, no lawful validity attaches to these proceedings recorded by the police in the context of collection of all this evidence. (Para 32) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 - To enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in the Apex Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused. (Para 44) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 323 - High Court directed the Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 IPC only after the conclusion of the entire evidence of prosecution witness - It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to wait for the completion of the entire evidence of the prosecution witness, which is inclusive of cross-examination - Section 323 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment - The power under Section 323 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment - The said power may be invoked even after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 366 - 368 - In a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions Court's appraisal and assessment of that evidence - The Court must examine the appeal record for itself, arrive at a view whether a further enquiry or taking of additional evidence is desirable or not, and then come to its own conclusion on the entire material on record whether conviction of the condemned prisoner is justified and the sentence of death should be confirmed - In this case, the court found serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses - remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the death reference. (Para 2, 57-60) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. When two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on. (Para 17-18) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378, 386 - The judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. (Para 24) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 389 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - When Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it can consider whether it is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount - If the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not. (Para 7-10) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 53A - Failure to subject the accused to medical examination by a medical practitioner - A serious flaw- Medical examination of an accused assumes great importance in cases where the victim of rape is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence. (Para 24-29) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 82 and 438 - Anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in an exceptional and rare case. (Para 16) State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784

Criminal Investigation - It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Jurisprudence - Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those produced by the prosecution and different yardsticks cannot be prescribed for prosecution witnesses as compared to defence witnesses. (Para 23) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Criminal Justice System - The manner in which police investigations are conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the Criminal Justice System. Not only serious miscarriage of justice will result if the collection of evidence is vitiated by error or malpractice, but successful prosecution of the guilty depends on a thorough and careful search for truth and collection of evidence which is both admissible and probative. (Referred: 2003, the Report of Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath’s ‘Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Para 37) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Criminal Trial - the death of the complainant or nonavailability of the complainant at the time of trial could be said to be fatal to the case of prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to acquit the accused. It is always open for the prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint and other facts in issue by leading other oral or documentary evidence, in case of death of or nonavailability of the complainant. (Para 9) P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

Cross-Examination - Huge pendency of suits in the Trial Courts - If the members of the Bar do not cooperate with the Trial Courts, it will be very difficult for our Courts to deal with the huge arrears. While a trial is being conducted, the members of the Bar are expected to act as officers of the Court. They are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The members of the Bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy. If the advocates start objecting to every question asked in the cross-examination, the trial cannot go on smoothly. The trial gets delayed. In the facts of the case, looking at the persistent objections raised by the learned advocate, the Court was required to record a substantial part of the cross-examination in question-and-answer form which consumed a lot of time of the Court. (Para 19) Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Detention order must be precise and simple, laying down grounds for detention. (Para 49) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Differentiation between maintenance of 'public order' and offences that create a "law and order" situation - For an act to qualify as a disturbance to ‘public order’, the activity must impact the general public and evoked feelings of fear, panic, or insecurity. “Stray acts affecting private individuals and the repetition of similar such acts would not tend to affect the even flow of public life. (Para 39) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Dowry death case - the Supreme Court surprised at HC using the same dying declaration to convict husband while disbelieving it for father-in-law. Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : 2023 INSC 863

Enforcement officer competent to file complaint under repealed provisions of FERA during sunset period of 2 years after enforcement of FEMA. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Evidence Act 1872; Sections 65, 74, 77 and 79 - Registration Act, 1908; Section 57 (5) - Certified copy of an original sale deed is admissible in evidence in a trial. (Para 29) Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 - For a confession made to the police to be admissible, two essential conditions must be met: the individual must be 'accused of any offence,' and they must be in 'police custody' at the time the confession is made. (Para 22) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Eyewitness account can't be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence. Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973; Sections 56, 57, 61 - Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999; Sections 49 (1), (3), (4) - Enforcement Officer appointed and authorised under the repealed provisions of the FERA, will continue to have the authority and competence to file a complaint for the offences punishable under the Act before the expiry of the sunset period of 2 years provided under Section 49(3) of the FEMA. (Para 11) First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 820 : 2023 INSC 845

Free and fair trial is sine-qua-non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the criminal trial is not free and fair, then the confidence of the public in the judicial fairness of a judge and the justice delivery system would be shaken. Denial to fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as to the victim and the society. No trial can be treated as a fair trial unless there is an impartial judge conducting the trial, an honest, able and fair defence counsel and equally honest, able and fair public prosecutor. A fair trial necessarily includes fair and proper opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused and opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence. (Para 64-72) Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

It is the duty of police to produce imprisoned accused before court, accused can't be blamed for police's negligence. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

Judge is not a mere recording machine; must actively search for truth in trial : Supreme Court sends back death penalty matter to HC. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; Section 16 r/w 15(1)(g) - If the date of birth of the petitioner is 02.05.1989, he was 16 years 7 months old as on the date of the crime, i.e., 21.12.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was a juvenile in conflict with the law on the date of commission of the offence. The maximum period for which the petitioner could have been in custody is three years. However, as the plea of juvenility was raised for the first time in the present writ petition before us, the process of criminal law, which commenced in 2005, led to the petitioner being convicted and sentence for life imprisonment concurrently by the Trial Court, the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has undergone more than 12 years of imprisonment. Having accepted the report of the II Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner can no longer be incarcerated. (Para 6 – 8) Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 75 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Muzaffarnagar school student slapping case, in which a primary school teacher punished a Muslim boy by asking other students to slap him. Held, the victim must have undergone trauma. The State Government to ensure that proper counselling is extended to the victim of the offence through an expert child counsellor. Even the other students, who were involved in the incident, in the sense that they allegedly followed the mandate issued by the teacher and assaulted the victim, need counselling by an expert child counsellor. The State Government will take immediate steps to do the needful by providing services of an expert child counsellor. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 75 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 and 504 - Student slapping case - Physical punishment inflicted upon a student who belongs to a minority community. Considering the manner in which the Police have delayed action and especially the fact that though a case of cognizable offence was made out, only a non-cognizable case was reported, we direct that the investigation shall be conducted under the supervision of a senior IPS Officer, nominated by the State Government. The IPS Officer so nominated will go into the question of whether the second proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act is attracted and whether Section 153A of the IPC needs to be applied. Tushar Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 843

Lack of positive viscera report not conclusive proof that victim didn’t die of poisoning: supreme court upholds conviction in dowry death case. Buddhadeb Saha v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 794

'Last seen’ theory can be invoked only when the same stands proved beyond reasonable doubt - The burden on the accused would kick in, only when the last seen theory is established. (Para 15-17) R. Sreenivasa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 751 : 2023 INSC 803

Minor Discrepancies - An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate blow by blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay. Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution version. Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. (Para 7 & 9) Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 804

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 53 - Any confessional statement made by an accused to an officer invested with the powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is barred for the reason that such officers are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an accused and recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. (Para 10) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Section 54 - For attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must first establish possession of contraband by the accused, only then will the burden shift to the accused to prove his innocence. The possession of the contraband must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. (Para 16) Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

NDPS Act - Confession to NCB officials not admissible in evidence; possession must be established to draw presumption under S. 54. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138 and 142(2)(a) - Territorial Jurisdiction - When the case was fixed for final arguments, the Magistrate, on examining the records, came to the conclusion that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction. No opportunity was granted to the complainant to take remedial steps. The Magistrate passed the order without realizing the legal consequences as well as the fact that the trial had remained pending for more than four years and had proceeded without any objection to territorial jurisdiction, till the stage of final arguments. There was a lapse and proper legal guidance, which was not provided to the complainant. Held, that the complainant should not suffer on account of lack of proper legal assistance. Procedural defect / lapse, had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Code is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 138, 139 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - If the question as to whether the debt or liability being barred by limitation was an issue to be considered in such proceedings, the same is to be decided based on the evidence to be adduced by the parties since the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. It is only in cases wherein an amount which is out and out non-recoverable, towards which a cheque is issued, dishonoured and for recovery of which a criminal action is initiated, the question of threshold jurisdiction will arise. In such cases, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC will be justified in interfering but not otherwise. K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 148 - Normally, Appellate Court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded. (Para 5 - 6) Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to bail, there was no reason to restrict the bail to the period of three months. Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 772

Panchnama inadmissible in court where witnesses merely acted as attestors and did not disclose how objects were discovered. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

PC Act - Once it is proved that a public servant received gratification beyond legal remuneration, statutory presumption operates. P. Sarangapani v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 819 : 2023 INSC 844

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

Penal Code, 1860; Section 302/34 or 307/34 - To fasten liability with the aid of Section 34 IPC what must necessarily be proved is a common intention to commit the crime actually committed and each accused person can be convicted of that crime, only if it is in furtherance of the common intention of all. Common intention pre-supposes a prior concert, though pre-concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is not necessary as common intention to bring about a particular result may develop on the spot. The question whether there was any common intention or not depends upon the inference to be drawn from the proven facts and circumstances of each case. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which they could be convicted. (Para 29) Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B - Dowry Death - Validity and credibility of dying declaration - The High Court had partly upheld the conviction of the appellant / husband under Section 304B IPC for dowry death. The primary evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased-wife, which alleged that the appellant had set her on fire after a disagreement over dowry. Held, doubts regarding the voluntary nature of the dying declaration and its recording, including discrepancies in testimony concerning the deceased's fitness to provide such a statement. The High Court's selective belief in the dying declaration (disbelieving parts of it concerning father-in-law but relying on it for the husband) raised further questions about its credibility. Evidence from the Investigating Officer suggested a different conclusion concerning the circumstances of the incident. The testimonies provided by the relatives of the deceased regarding harassment due to dowry were vague, and no concrete evidence was presented to substantiate the claims. Given these findings, the dying declaration was not free from doubt and that the charge under Section 304B IPC (harassment due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand) was not conclusively proven. The Court acquitted the appellant of all charges and set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. (Para 10 – 18) Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 833 : 2023 INSC 863

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - A young boy in the first flush of youth was cruelly done to death and the wrongdoers necessarily had to be brought to book for the injustice done to him and his family. However, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Para 38) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Penal Code, 1860; Section 364A r/w. 120B, 302 and 201 - It is indeed perplexing that, despite the innumerable weak links and loopholes in the prosecution’s case, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not only inclined to accept the same at face value but went to the extent of imposing and sustaining capital punishment. No valid and acceptable reasons were put forth as to why this case qualified as the ‘rarest of rare cases’, warranting such drastic punishment. Per contra, held, that the yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case warrant acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. The degree of proof required to hold them guilty beyond reasonable doubt, on the strength of circumstantial evidence, is clearly not established. (Para 39) Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Penal Code, 1860; Section 84 - Standard of proof to prove the lunacy or insanity is only ‘reasonable doubt - A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. The court is concerned with legal insanity and not with medical insanity. (Para 19 - 22) Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

Penal Code, 1860; Sections 341, 302 r/w. 34 - All the five accused persons called the deceased a witch who is the cause of trouble to the villagers as she used to indulge in witchcraft. The nature of injuries which have been caused on the head of the deceased with the deadly weapons proves that they had assembled with the common intention and not merely to threaten her or to deter her from practicing witchcraft. In the light of the clinching evidence and in the absence of any specific lacuna in the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced, held, that the trial court had not committed any error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons with imprisonment of life. The conviction and sentence have rightly been affirmed by the High Court. (Para 19) Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

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

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 : 2023 INSC 844

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 : 2023 INSC 844

Preventive Detention - Factors to be considered by courts to decide legality – Explained. (Para 25) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Preventive detention laws are an 'exceptional measure reserved for tackling emergent situations' and must not be used as a tool for enforcing 'law and order'. (Para 40) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Principle of Parity - When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination. (Para 15) Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782 : 2023 INSC 829

Propriety and procedure of media briefings by police personnel - The Supreme Court directed the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare a comprehensive manual on media briefings by police personnel within a period of three months. Also directed Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all states to submit their suggestions for the manual. The input of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) will be considered in this matter. (Para 18 – 20) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

Public servants lose immunity in pre-2014 corruption cases; Supreme Court clarifies that striking down of Sec 6A DSPE Act has retrospective effect. Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 770 : 2023 INSC 817

Rape and Murder – Delay in Trial – The appellant, convicted of raping and murdering his niece in 1983, remained on bail during the 40-year trial. The High Court declined to suspend his sentence. Held, bail granted considering the delay in trial and the appellant's age (75 years) urging stringent bail conditions. The Court emphasized prioritizing the appellant's appeal and cautioned the appellant, a Bar member, against unnecessary adjournments. Non-compliance could lead to bail cancellation. Appeal allowed on these terms. Banamali Choudhury v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 836

S. 27 Evidence Act - Discovery can't be proved against a person if he wasn't accused of any offence & wasn't in custody of police at the time of confession. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Section 148 NI Act - Deposit of minimum 20% amount is not an absolute rule; can be relaxed if an exceptional case is made out. Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 776 : 2023 INSC 822

Section 162 CrPC does not prevent a trial court from putting questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them. Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793

Section 313 CrPC - Failure to put incrimination circumstances to the accused will not vitiate trial if no prejudice is caused. Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840

Section 323 Cr.P.C. - Power can be invoked even after deposition / chief examination of witness. Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742

Standard of proof to prove insanity is only 'reasonable doubt' : Supreme Court acquits man accused of killing his grandfather. Rupesh Manger (Thapa) v. State of Sikkim, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 781 : 2023 INSC 826

'State assisted accused, failed to prosecute fairly': Supreme Court directs Bihar Govt to compensate victims in 1995 double murder case. Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 760 : 2023 INSC 738

Supreme Court acquits two death row convicts, perplexed at trial court & hc awarding capital punishment despite loopholes in evidence. Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839

Supreme Court deprecates advocates raising unnecessary objections to questions in cross-examinations, urges bar to co-operate with trial courts. Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 784 : 2023 INSC 831

Supreme Court refers sedition law challenge to larger bench, says new bill to replace IPC can't affect past cases. S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 780

Supreme Court refuses to quash FIR against UP Congress leader over alleged 'Modi-Adani love affair’ remark. Sachin Chaudhary v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 797

Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Land Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act 1986; Section 3(2) - Drastic provisions of the Act are not to be invoked at the drop of a hat. (Para 41) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

The Supreme Court comes to the rescue of a party who filed a cheque bounce case in wrong court after noting he got incorrect legal advice. Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 798

The Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna to take a look into certain irregularities in uploading an order of the High Court. The issue raised 'serious concerns' and directed the High Court Chief Justice to take necessary steps in this regard. Manish Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 738

The Supreme Court releases a man incarcerated for 12 years after finding that he was a juvenile at the time of offence. Makkella Nagaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 757 : 2023 INSC 800

The Supreme Court upholds life sentence for men who murdered woman alleging witchcraft. Bhaktu Gorain v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 779 : 2023 INSC 821

Treating 12 months as the standard duration of detention was indicative of a mechanical approach by the authorities. The purpose to be served by imposing maximum period of detention must be specified or the authorities could be accused of unreasonableness and unfairness. (Para 60 & 70) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788

Unfair reporting by the media has the potential to affect public opinion and impinge upon the presumption of innocence which is one of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence. (Para 7) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 792 : 2023 INSC 833

When accused persons are in prison, it is the duty of the police to produce them before the trial court. If the police fail to produce them before the court, then the accused cannot be made to suffer due to such negligence of the police. Satendra Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 766

When ordinary provisions of criminal law would have sufficed to deal with the detenu, there was no reason for the state to invoke the provisions of the preventive detention act, being an extraordinary statute. (Para 51) Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 743 : 2023 INSC 788