Criminal Law : Landmark Decisions

 Criminal Law : Landmark Decisions 

Introduction

Criminal law has immense importance for legal practitioners and even for anyone who is governed by law, including citizens.  "Writers on English legal history have often mentioned that in early law there was no clear distinction between criminal and civil offences. The two have been called ‘a viscous intermixture’, and it has been explained that the affinity between tort and crime is not in the least surprising when we remember how late in the history of law there emerged any clear conception of a difference between them". [Refer "Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law" by J.W. Cecil Turner, 2013, Cambridge University Press]

Here are some important decisions useful for those interested in reading about criminal law.

In the case of Salma v. State [2016] GCtR 5966 (Delhi) it was held that victim also has right to move the Court concerned for cancellation of bail in case of imminent – real threat. 

In case of Surender v. State of NCTD [2016] GCtR 5967 (Delhi), the case was related to allegations of robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under S.397 of IPC, 1860. In this case, about the accused, his presence at the spot along with other accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt; he was not arrested at the spot. Witness also did not state if said accused was armed with a knife or had attempted to stab the victim. Accused was acquitted of offence under S.397 of IPC, 1860.

The phrase used in Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is "summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined". In the case of JBA Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. State [2016] GCtR 5968 (Delhi), it was held that under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a witness can be examined, re-examined or further examined by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. It was seen that no explanation was given by the petitioners as to why the so called “so many important questions” were not asked from witness when he was under cross-examination about three years ago. It was held that a witness cannot be asked to step into the witness box again and again with every change of the counsel for the opposite party.

In the important decision of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC), it has been held that mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also held that the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the case of Naveen Ahuja v. State [2016] GCtR 5969 (Delhi), the order passed by Competent Authority denying grant of parole was set aside. Even if a person has obtained parole and furlough earlier, he can be granted parole again on certain grounds. It has been held that a person in long incarceration is entitled to be released on parole for a month in a year to re-establish social ties and for physical and mental well being.