Interesting Judgments on Criminal Law : A Collection
During the course of education in law, Indian students even in India are encouraged to read things which have "international" flavour. "International criminal law (ICL) constitutes the fusion of two legal disciplines:
international law and domestic criminal law. While it is true that one may discern
certain criminal law elements in the science of international law, it is certainly not
the totality of these elements that make up the discipline of ICL." [International Criminal Law, Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, 2nd Edition, Cavendish Publishing Ltd]
The article is about nothing international. Utility of domestic criminal law will always triumph over international criminal law. The present article is a collection of domestic rulings on some interesting aspects of criminal law.
In Md. Hasmat Ali v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4339 (Gauhati) it has been held that "It is highly an improbable proposition that a father of a
married daughter in an Indian society would allow her to carry illicit
relationship with her paramour in the absence of her husband and would
react indifferently when reported by his son-in-law."
It has been reiterated in Shyamal Das v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4340 (Gauhati) that "mere abscondance of an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion
of his guilty mind, as even an innocent man may abscond in order to
evade arrest and such an action may be part of the natural conduct of
the accused."
In Dandeswar Barman v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4343 (Gauhati) it has been held that it is the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that ocular
evidence must always be given preference to the expert opinion even if the
expert opinion does not support the ocular evidence.
In Raju Satwal @ Chowtal v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4344 (Gauhati) it was noted that the recovery of the knife at the instance of
the accused also operates as strong evidence against the accused.
In Satish Kumar Kalra v CBI [2017] GCtR 1138 (Gauhati) it has been held that "the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC envisages three circumstances
under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely (i) to give effect under
the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of process of court and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. The rule of inherent power has its source in the maxim “quando alique,
concebit conceditur id sine quo resipsa esse non protest”, which means that when the
law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which thing itself cannot exist.
While exercising the power under the Section the court does not function as a court of
appeal or revision."
It has been held in Mst. Maherun Nessa v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4341 (Gauhati) that "it is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the
prosecution must establish all the circumstances by independent
evidence and the circumstances so established must form a complete
chain in proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The
circumstances so proved must also be consistent only with the guilt of
accused."
In Ripon Mollah v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4307 (Gauhati) it was held that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court when there is concurrent finding of
facts to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, unless it is shown that the evidence
on record was misread or misinterpreted by the courts below.
In Rocky Kalandi v State of Assam [2017] GCtR 4342 (Gauhati), doctor has also not
opined that the head injury was possibly caused by some weapon ; the conviction under S.302, IPC was converted to the one under S.304 Part II of IPC, 1860.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.