Supreme Court Criminal Law Digest: April 2023

Accused not entitled to default bail when first extension (passed in absence of accused) wasn't challenged & second extension was passed in his presence. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Alleged lack of jurisdiction of court no ground to transfer case: Supreme Court dismisses PFI student wing leader's plea. Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Any concession or admission of a fact by a defence counsel would definitely be binding on his client, except the concession on the point of law. (Para 39) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Appellate Court should separately hear convict on quantum of sentence when acquittal is reversed. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Asaram Bapu Case : Supreme Court sets aside Rajasthan HC order to summon IPS officer Ajay Lamba as witness. State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973; Section 406 - This Court has allowed transfers only in exceptional cases considering the fact that transfers may cast unnecessary aspersions on the State Judiciary and the prosecution agency. Thus, over the years, this Court has laid down certain guidelines and situations wherein such power can be justiciably invoked. Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - The Investigating Officer is the person tasked with determining a direction, the pace, manner and method of the investigation. (Para 38 - 43) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Chapter XII - Whether the Investigating Officer had complied with the duties and responsibilities cast upon him - Held, the Investigating Officer did not examine the owner of the house; (b) did not enter his movement in the case diary; (c) did not record that he took the accused for effecting the recovery; (d) was not able to describe clearly the area from where the recovery was effected; (e) admits both the independent witnesses, who do not belong to the area from where the recoveries were effected; (f) does not associate any of the residents of the area for conducting the search; (g) does not examine any of the residents for carrying out any further investigation and (h) Most importantly he admits that both the memo of arrest as also the recovery not to have been prepared by him or bearing his signature and the same too, have many corrections and over­writing, thus reducing the correctness and authenticity of this document. Furthermore, he is not clear about the description of the articles recovered. The Investigating Officer did not meet the obligations he was under. Numerous infirmities affected the conduct of the Investigation Officer calling into question, credibly, the investigation conducted by him or upon his directions. (Para 35) Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - No accused can be permitted to play with the investigation and/or the court’s process. No accused can be permitted to frustrate the judicial process by his conduct. It cannot be disputed that the right of custodial interrogation/ investigation is also a very important right in favour of the investigating agency to unearth the truth, which the accused has purposely and successfully tried to frustrate. Therefore, by not permitting the CBI to have the police custody interrogation for the remainder period of seven days, it will be giving a premium to an accused who has been successful in frustrating the judicial process. (Para 8) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal against an order of acquittal - General principles discussed. (Para 14) Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supreme Court directs Police to not file closure report in cases where proceedings/FIR have been quashed by the High Court - In case of quashing of the criminal proceedings/FIRs by the High Court, there is no question of preparing/filing a closure report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167 - Filing incomplete chargesheet without completing investigation would not extinguish the right of accused to get default bail. Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 352

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - Accused cannot claim the benefit of default bail, when he did not challenge the first extension of time granted for investigation and the second extension was granted in his presence and when the chargesheet was subsequently filed within the period of extension. Qamar Ghani Usmani v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 297

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 167(2) - It is true that in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 141, this Court observed that there cannot be any police custody beyond 15 days from the date of arrest. In our opinion, the view taken by this Court in the case of Anupam J. Kulkarni (supra) requires re-consideration. (Para 7, 7.1) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8) - Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. There is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted - Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed - Though the order passed by the Magistrate accepting a final report under Section 173 is a judicial order, there is no requirement for recalling, reviewing or quashing the said order for carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC - Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial and effective justice. (Para 50, 73, 76- 77) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 173(8), 173(2)(i) - Alternatives before a Magistrate when a “Final Report” is filed - The Magistrate may either: (1) accept the report and take cognizance of offence and issue process, (2) may disagree with the report and drop the proceeding or may take cognizance on the basis of report/material submitted by the investigation officer, (3) may direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require police to make a report as per Section 173(8) of the CrPC. (4) may treat the protest complaint as a complaint, and proceed under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 235(2) - Appellate court reverses acquittal of two accused in murder case - However imposes sentences on them without hearing them on sentence as per Section 235(2) - Supreme Court sets aside the sentence finding it to be ex-facie illegal as accused were not heard - In view of sub Section (2) of Section 235 of CrPC, the court is obliged to hear the accused persons after their conviction on the quantum of sentence before passing a sentence against them - The principle of according opportunity of hearing to the convict before sentencing him is equally applicable where the sentencing is done by the appellate court. Fedrick Cutinha v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 326

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily - The language of Section 385 shows that the Court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the case from the concerned Court below. The same is an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be decided. (Para 36) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 385 - Whether, in the absence of the records of the Court of Trial, the appellate Court could have upheld the conviction and enhanced the quantum of fine? Held, the Accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court and, therefore, upholding a conviction by merely having noted that the counsel for the accused not having the record at the time of filing the appeal is “doubtful” and that “no one can believe” the appeal would have been filed without perusing the record, as observed by the High Court is not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on the lower Court's judgment to uphold the conviction but, based on the record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon. (Para 33) Jitendra Kumar Rode v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 347

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 391 - Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken - The power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - That most of the accused and witnesses are from A state is not a ground to transfer case from B state to A state. (Para 12) Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 406 - The lack of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint can be no ground to order its transfer. A congenital defect of lack of jurisdiction, assuming that it exists, inures to the benefit of the accused and hence it need not be cured at the instance of the accused to his detriment. (Para 11) Ka Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 284

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 437 - Seeking pre-deposit of bank guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable. Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482 - High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings at section 482 Cr.P.C. stage by saying charges aren't proved - High Court cannot conduct a "mini trial" while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not.” - Whether the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial - What is required to be considered is a prima facie case and the material collected during the course of the investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 211-224, 464 - Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under sub-section (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge. (Para 16) Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 311 and 391 - Power of the court to take additional evidence - Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. consists of two parts; the first gives power to the court to summon any witness at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, whether the person is listed as a witness, or is in attendance though not summoned as a witness. Secondly, the trial court has the power to recall and re-examine any person already examined if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. On the other hand, the discretion under Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. should be read as somewhat more restricted in comparison to Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., as the appellate court is dealing with an appeal, after the trial court has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the person being prosecuted. The appellate court can examine the evidence in depth and in detail, yet it does not possess all the powers of the trial court as it deals with cases wherein the decision has already been pronounced. (Para 16) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Criminal Investigation - Criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and the Society even though it has been committed against an individual. Normally, in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the State and a Court of law has no power to throw away prosecution solely on the ground of delay. Mere delay in approaching a Court of law would not by itself afford a ground for dismissing the case. Though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict. (Para 84) State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

Criminal Trial - Right to speedy trial, including speedy disposal of an appeal, is not the exclusive right of an accused, but an obligation of the court towards the society in general, and the victim in particular. (Para 17) State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 316

Cross-examination - During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same. (Para 44) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Cross-examination - The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth on record and to help the Court in knowing the truth of the case. It is a matter of common experience that many a times the defence lawyers themselves get the discrepancies clarified arising during the cross-examination in one paragraph and getting themselves contradicted in the other paragraph. The line of cross-examination is always on the basis of the defence which the counsel would keep in mind to defend the accused. (Para 43) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Even if the death penalty is to be commuted in view of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petition, an order to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment for natural life without any remission ought to be passed. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305

Every procedural rigidity, must be followed in entirety by the Government in cases of preventive detention, and every lapse in procedure must give rise to a benefit to the case of the detenue. The Courts, in circumstances of preventive detention, are conferred with the duty that has been given the utmost importance by the Constitution, which is the protection of individual and civil liberties. (Para 44) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events. There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. A fact discovered is an information supplied by the accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered at the instance of the accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. The statement of an accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions. Such of those components or portions which were the immediate cause of the discovery would be the legal evidence and the rest can be rejected. (Para 18) Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 27 – Confessional statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Evidence Act, 1872; Section 6 - Principle of res gestae - Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - The rule embodied in Section 6 is usually known as the rule of res gestae. What it means is that a fact which, though not in issue, is so connected with the fact in issue “as to form part of the same transaction” becomes relevant by itself. To form particular statement as part of the same transaction utterances must be simultaneous with the incident or substantial contemporaneous that is made either during or immediately before or after its occurrence. (Para 49) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Ganja seeds not banned contraband under NDPS Act. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354

IB Reports not wholly immune from disclosure - The reports of the intelligence agencies are not merely fact-finding reports. Reports of investigative agencies make observations and provide inferences on the conduct of individuals which are then relied upon by the decision making authority. To argue that reports of the intelligence agencies may contain confidential information is one thing but to argue that the all such reports are confidential is another. Such an argument is misplaced and cannot be accepted on the touchstone of constitutional values. The reports by investigative agencies impact decisions on the life, liberty, and profession of individuals and entities, and to give such reports absolute immunity from disclosure is antithetical to a transparent and accountable system - A blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative reports cannot be granted. (Para 81) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

If the prosecution proposes death sentence, it must produce before the Trial Court information about the background of the accused. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Injured Witness - The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (Para 26) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Investigating officer did not meet the obligations’: Supreme Court reverses murder conviction imposed by Trial Court, affirmed by High Court. Maghavendra Pratap Singh @ Pankaj Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 358

Mitigating Circumstances - Wherever the prosecution is of the opinion that the crime an accused is convicted for, is so grave that death sentence is warranted, it should carry out the exercise of placing the materials, in terms of Manoj vs State of MP, for evaluation. Vikas Chaudhary v. State of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 336

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Definition of "ganja" under the Act does not include ganja seeds - Ganja seeds not a banned contraband. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 354

National Security Act, 1980 - Supreme Court terms as "shocking and unsustainable" the invocation of NSA in a revenue recovery case - Says NSA is to control the anti-social and anti national elements including secessionist, communal and pro-caste elements, that affect the services essential to the community, thereby posing a grave challenge - Holds that there was no application of mind in ordering the detention of the petitioner under NSA. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301

National Security and Judicial Review - the Courts do not resort to a hands-off approach when it is claimed that national security implications are involved. (Para 83) The Court must assess the validity of the claim of purpose by determining (i) whether there is material to conclude that the nondisclosure of the information is in the interest of national security; and (ii) whether a reasonable prudent person would arrive at the same conclusion based on the materials. National Security - The State is using national security as a tool to deny citizens remedies that are provided under the law. This is not compatible with the rule of law. (Para 97) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

National Security and Natural Justice - Mere involvement of issues concerning national security would not preclude the state’s duty to act fairly. If the State discards its duty to act fairly, then it must be justified before the court on the facts of the case. Firstly, the State must satisfy the Court that national security concerns are involved. Secondly, the State must satisfy the court that an abrogation of the principle(s) of natural justice is justified - concerns of national 2 security do not permit an absolute abrogation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 75 and 76) Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 269

No reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true: Supreme Court grants bail to two alleged maoists after 4.5 years' custody. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Not necessary to review / recall / quash order accepting closure report before carrying out further investigation. State v. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365

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

Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction between murder and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Explained. (Para 54) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power to transfer cases to be used sparingly; may cast unnecessary aspersions on state judiciary & prosecution agency. Afjal Ali Sha @ Abjal Shaukat v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 268

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

Preventive detention laws in India are a colonial legacy, and as such, are extremely powerful laws that have the ability to confer arbitrary power to the state. In such a circumstance, where there is a possibility of an unfettered discretion of power by the Government, this Court must analyze cases arising from such laws with extreme caution and excruciating detail, to ensure that there are checks and balances on the power of the Government. (Para 44) Pramod Singla v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 293

Right of Private Defence - If a specific question is put to a witness by way of a suggestion indicative of exercise of right of private defence then the Court would well be justified in taking into consideration such suggestion and if the presence of the accused is established the same would definitely be admissible in evidence. (Para 45) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Section 149 IPC will be attracted if five or more persons specifically named in fir are facing trial separately. Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 318

Section 27 Evidence Act statement not liable to be rejected merely because it was recorded in a language not known to the accused through translator. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 338

Seeking pre-deposit of bank guarantee for grant of bail is unsustainable.Makhijani Pushpak Harish v. State of Gujarat, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 345

'Shocking': Supreme Court on UP Govt invoking National Security Act in Revenue Recovery Case; Quashes detention of SP Leader. Yusuf Malik v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 301

Suggestions made to the witness by the defence counsel and the reply to such suggestions would definitely form part of the evidence and can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence on record to determine the guilt of the accused. (Para 42) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Supreme Court commutes death sentence of man who murdered his sister & her lover from another caste; takes note of 'social pressure'. Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 361

Supreme Court expresses anguish at trial court dismissing bail application ignoring its judgment in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 577 - Directs District Judge to transfer case to another Magistrate - Reminds that Prosecutors have duty to inform the court of the correct legal position. Deepak Kumar Azad @ Pappu v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 278

Supreme Court orders release of daughter suffering from mental illness after 12 year sentence for homicide of father. Sumitra Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Supreme Court sets aside Telangana HC Order directing CBI to provide printed questions to YSRCP MP Avinash Reddy; says such orders gravely prejudice investigation. Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Supreme Court shocked to see police filing closure report in case where FIR was quashed; directs to discontinue such practice. State of Uttarakhand v. Umesh Kumar Sharma, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 335

The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings at Section 482 Cr.P.C. stage by saying charges aren't proved. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 292

The order of the High Court directing that the appellant be arrested immediately and seeking an explanation from the Second Additional Sessions Judge was wholly disproportionate and was not warranted. Such orders of the High Court produce a chilling effect on the District judiciary. The members of the district judiciary cannot be placed in a sense of fear if they were to exercise the jurisdiction lawfully entrusted to them for granting bail in appropriate cases. Totaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 289

The suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the cross-examination if found to be incriminating in nature in any manner would definitely bind the accused and the accused cannot get away on the plea that his counsel had no implied authority to make suggestions in the nature of admissions against his client. (Para 38) Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

The Supreme Court directs all the States/appropriate authorities to decide mercy petitions against death sentences at the earliest so that the benefit of delay is not accrued to the accused. State of Maharashtra v. Renuka Shinde, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 305

There is absolutely no warrant for the High Court to direct that the investigation of a person who has been interrogated as a suspect in the conspiracy should be in the printed or written form. Similarly, it is wholly inappropriate for the High Court to observe that the questionnaire may also be handed over to the respondent. Such orders of the High Court are liable to gravely prejudice the course of investigation. Suneetha Narreddy v. Y.S. Avinash Reddy, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 355

Trial Courts, Public Prosecutors should be vigilant while framing of charges against accused. Soundarajan v. State, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 43D(5) - Materials placed on record do not state reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the appellants of commission of offence under the UAPA are prime facie true - bail granted to two alleged Maoists. Yedala Subba Rao & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 317

Unnatural death of wife in matrimonial home within seven years of marriage in itself not sufficient to convict husband for dowry death. Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 341

View that there cannot be police custody beyond 15 days from date of arrest should be reconsidered. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikas Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 283