Criminal Law : 10 Important Judgments of Supreme Court on Criminal Law
There are many important judgments.
10 important Judgments on criminal law of Hon'ble Supreme Court are as follows : -
1. Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC) - Scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the
veracity or otherwise of the information received
but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.
2. Shabnam v State of UP [2015] GCtR 905 (SC) - The act of slaughtering a ten month old child by strangulation in no chance reflects immature action but evidence for the lack of remorse, kindness and humanity.
3. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI [2013] GCtR 751 (SC) - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
4. Ram Singh v Sonia [2007] GCtR 3205 (SC) - Extra-judicial
confession made even to a stranger cannot be eschewed from consideration if it is found to have
been truthful and voluntarily made before a person who has no reason to state falsely.
5. State of Punjab v DPS Bhullar [2011] GCtR 4293 (SC) - There is no power of review with the Criminal Court after
judgment has been rendered. The High Court can alter or review its
judgment before it is signed.
6. Kailash Gour v State of Assam [2011] GCtR 4294 (SC) - The prosecution it is axiomatic, must
establish its case against the accused by leading evidence
that is accepted by the standards that are known to
criminal jurisprudence regardless whether the crime is
committed in the course of communal disturbances or
otherwise.
7. Shivlal v State of Chhattisgarh [2011] GCtR 4295 (SC) - The
Magistrate must be immediately informed of every serious offence so
that he may be in a position to act under Section 159 of Code of Criminal Procedure , if so
required.
8. Prithipal Singh v State of Punjab [2011] GCtR 2340 (SC) - In view of the provisions of Article 21 of the
Constitution, any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment is inhibited. Torture is not permissible whether it occurs
during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.
9. Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathy v Pyla Suri Demudu [2011] GCtR 4296 (SC) - The High Court under its
revisional jurisdiction is not required to enter into reappreciation of evidence recorded in the order granting
maintenance; at the most it could correct a patent error of
jurisdiction.
10. W. Kalyani v State [2011] GCtR 4297 (SC) - From a plain reading of the Section 497 of IPC, 1860 it is seen that
only a man can be proceeded against and punished for
the offence of adultery. Indeed, the Section provides
expressly that the wife cannot be punished even as an
abettor.
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.