Criminal Law - Important Decisions of 2024 - Part 2

 Criminal Law - Important Decisions of 2024 - Part 2

Part 1 of Important Decisions of 2024 on criminal law has been shared recently. [Link for part 1 is this - https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2024/05/criminal-law-important-decisions-of.html ]

Here is the 2nd Part of Important Decisions of the year 2024 on criminal law. 

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not lay down the principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to the object produced or found. - Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State [2024] GCtR 21 (SC)

A victim of a crime cannot be treated merely as a prosecution witness. Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the court to order that the fine amount recovered be given to any person as compensation who has suffered any loss or injury caused due to that offence. - Neeraj Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh [2024] GCtR 28 (SC)

It was reiterated that The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. - Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2024] GCtR 188 (SC)

Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. -  Jay Shri v. State of Rajasthan [2024] GCtR 223 (SC)

The term ‘property’ employed in Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 has a well­ defined connotation. Every species of valuable right or interest that is subject to ownership and has an exchangeable value – is ordinarily understood as ‘property’. - Mariam Fasihuddin v. State of Adugodi PS [2024] GCtR 232 (SC)

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. 

Interesting Judgments on Criminal Law : A Collection

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.

Criminal Law : 10 Important Judgments of Supreme Court on Criminal Law

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.