What is ‘Corpus delicti’ principle?
‘Corpus delicti’– ‘body of the crime’- Generally, this principle has reference to the requirement of the prosecution proving that the crime has been committed, so as to charge the delinquent and secure a conviction (Para 12 of Sanjay Kumar J Judgment)- It means that before seeking to prove that accused is the author of the crime concerned, it must be established that the crime charged has been committed. In fact, the said Latin expression is used with reference to the establishment of the fact that an offence has been committed, as opposed to the proof that a given person has committed it – (Para 30 of Ravikumar J Judgment) -Manik vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 734
What are the the essential ingredients required to be proved in the case of an offence under Section 307 IPC?
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted; (ii) that such death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of the act of the accused; and (iii) that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as : (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury- Shoyeb Raja vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 731
Is minor nature of injuries sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC.?
The nature or extent of injury suffered, are irrelevant factors for the conviction under this section, so long as the injury is inflicted with animus. -The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – The minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge under Section 307 IPC. (Para 11-16) Shoyeb Raja vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 731
Can criminal proceedings be quashed even after the charge sheet is filed?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 482-There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.- Referred to Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 11 SCC 706. (Para 16) Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 737
Is post mortem report a conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in the re-port regarding the cause of death, time of death etc.?
post mortem report is generally not considered as conclusive evidence of the facts mentioned in the re-port regarding the cause of death, time of death etc. It could always be corroborated with other direct evidence on record such as ocular evidence of the eye witnesses. However, when there is no other credible evidence on record to contradict the report, the facts stated in the post mortem report are generally taken as true (Para 30)-Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 735
Can Court discard the testimonies of the witnesses merely be-cause they were known to the victim or belonged to her family. ?
Ordinarily, there is no rule of law to discard the testimonies of the witnesses merely be-cause they were known to the victim or belonged to her family. For, an offence may be committed in circumstances that only the family members are present at the place of occurrence in natural course.(Para 24) Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 735
Can case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone?
Motive has a bearing only when the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the ingredients of the offences under consideration. Without the proof of foundational facts, the case of the prosecution cannot succeed on the presence of motive alone. (Para 35) Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 735
What is the scope of appellate court power to reverse an acquittal?
In order to reverse a finding of acquittal, a higher threshold is required. For, the presumption of innocence operating in favour of an accused through-out the trial gets concretized with a finding of acquittal by the Trial Court. Thus, such a finding could not be reversed merely because the possibility of an alternate view was alive. Rather, the view taken by the Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view. (Para 32) Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 735
Is it essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime to attract ‘common intention’ under Section 34 IPC or Section 3(5) BNS?
Indian Penal Code,1860; Section 34 [BNS 2023; Section 3(5)]– There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention. It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime. Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act. Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly. Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act. (Para 19) Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738
What are the factors to be considered in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned to invoke Section 464(2) CrPC?
Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973; Section 464(2) [BNSS 2023; Section 510]-In order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself- the burden to show that in fact a failure of justice has been occasioned is on the accused. (Para 25) Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738
What is the significance of sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses in criminal trial?
The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. (Para 12) – Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738
Is examination of independent witness an indispensable requisite in criminal cases?
Examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable. Non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution will not go to the root of the matter affecting the decision of the court, unless other witnesses’ testimonies and evidences are scant to establish the guilt of the accused. (Para 29) Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738
When can there be substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 IPC?
If the common object does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not, therefore, to be permitted. But if it does involve a common intention then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case. The non-applicability of Section 149 is, therefore, no bar in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, if the evidence discloses commission of an offence in furtherance of the common intention of them all (Para 21-22) – Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo vs State Of Punjab 2024 INSC 738
Is the age of accused at the time of commission of crime be a factor to consider if death penalty needs to be commuted?
The age of the accused at the time of commission of crime solely cannot be taken into consideration-However the age of the accused at the time of commission of crime along with other factors can certainly be taken into consideration as to whether the death penalty needs to be commuted or not. (Para 14) – Rabbu @ Sarvesh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 720
Can the Court convict one accused and acquit the other in a criminal case?
The Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other when there is similar or identical evidence pitted against two accused persons (Para 10) – Yogarani vs State 2024 INSC 721
Can the opinion of the handwriting experts be solely relied upon to base the conviction?
Without independent and reliable corroboration, the opinion of the handwriting experts cannot be solely relied upon to base the conviction. (Para 13)- Yogarani vs State 2024 INSC 721
Can High Courts go into the truthfulness of the allegations while dealing with a quashing petition.?
In Just Rights For Children Alliance vs S Harish 2024 INSC 716, the Supreme Court reiterated that High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section(s) 482 of the Cr.P.C. or 530 of the BNSS as the case must not conduct a mini trial or go into the truthfulness of the allegations while dealing with a quashing petition. The High Court may be justified in quashing the chargesheet if it appears to it that continuance of criminal proceedings would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law. (Para 197) When dealing with a quashing petition, there lies a duty on the High Court to properly apply its mind to all the material on record. The least which is expected of High Court in such situation is to carefully go through the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge-sheet, and to ascertain (i) whether, the offences alleged therein could be said to have been prima facie established from the material on record? or (ii) whether, apart from the offences alleged in the FIR or the charge-sheet, there is possibility of any other offence prima facie being made out? The High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, may be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings only where, neither any offence as alleged in the FIR or charge-sheet is disclosed nor any other offence is prima facie made out, and the continuance of the proceedings may be found to amount to abuse of process of law. (Para 202)
Can a plea of ignorance of law be a valid defence?
In Just Rights For Children Alliance vs S Harish 2024 INSC 716, the Supreme Court noted that a plea of ignorance of law can be a valid defence if it consequently gives rise to a legitimate and bona-fide mistake of fact as to the existence (or non-existence) of a particular right or claim. The court has laid down a four-prong test that there must exist: ▶ an ignorance or unawareness of any law. ▶such ignorance or unawareness must give rise to a corresponding reasonable and legitimate right or claim. ▶the existence of such right or claim must be believed bonafid. ▶the purported act sought to be punished must take place on the strength of such right or claim. It is only when all the four of the above conditions are fulfilled, that the person would be entitled to take a plea of ignorance of law as a defence from incurring any liability, the court said. The Court also clarified that such a plea is not a statutory defence with any legal backing, but rather a by-product of the doctrine of equity. “Thus, where something is specifically made punishable under the law, then in such cases the law would prevail over equity, and no plea of ignorance of law can be taken as a defence to absolve or dilute any liability arising out of such punishable offences. Thus, even if all four preconditions are satisfied, the courts are not bound to accept such a plea, if it is in negation or derogation of any law or the idea of justice.”, it added.
To constitute a ‘dowry death’, punishable under Section 304B IPC, what are the ingredients that must be satisfied?
i. death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and iv. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry.-(Para 12) Shoor Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 712
Does ‘dowry death’ under Section 304B IPC or Section 80 BNS include a case of suicidal death?
The phrase ‘otherwise than under normal circumstances’ is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death. (Para 12)-Shoor Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 712
When can the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act or Section 118 BSA be invoked?
When all the ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved, the presumption under Section 113-B8 of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that he has committed the offence of ‘dowry death’. What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of ‘dowry death’. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of ‘dowry death’ by the accused when all the essential ingredients of ‘dowry death’ are proved beyond reasonable doubt by ordinary rule of evidence, which means that to prove the essential ingredients of an offence of ‘dowry death’ the burden is on the prosecution (Para 13) Shoor Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand 2024 INSC 712
What is the scope of power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 378,386 [BNSS, 2013; Sections 419,427]- The power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal -(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court – It would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused- It would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony- Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 701
What is the relevance of the Maxim ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ in the Indian context?
Legal Maxim – ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ – Though this is only a rule of caution and has not assumed the status of a rule of law in the Indian context, an attempt must be made to separate truth from falsehood and where such separation is impossible, there cannot be a conviction, (Para 12) [In this case, SC acquitted murder accused noticing the lacunae in the prosecution’s case and the shaky evidence adduced in support thereof.] – Saheb Maroti Bhumre vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 700
Can a summoning order be passed after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction?
if such a summoning order is passed, either after the order of acquittal or imposing of sentence in the conviction, the same may not be sustainable- Followed Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab [2022] 10 S.C.R. 156:: 2022 INSC 1252 – Devendra Kumar Pal vs State Of UP 2024 INSC 679
Can a cheque bounce case be compounded without complainant’s consent?
Negotiable Instruments Act,1881- Section 138,147 –An offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 147 thereof, only with the consent of the complainant concerned’ . (Para 17) Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482 – Merely because, in Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. 2024 INSC 347, SC ‘quashed’ the proceedings by invocation of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot be a reason for ‘compounding’ an offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, in the absence of consent of the complainant concerned. (Para 18) –A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 690
Does the proviso to Section 132 grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)?
The qualified privilege under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act does not grant complete immunity from prosecution to a person who has deposed as a witness (and made statements incriminating himself)- The only protection available is, a witness cannot be subjected to prosecution on the basis of his own statement. It nowhere provides that there is complete and unfettered immunity to a person even if there is other substantial evidence or material against him proving his prima facie involvement. If this complete immunity is read under the proviso to Section 132 of the Act, an influential person with the help of a dishonest Investigating Officer will provide a legal shield to him by examining him as a witness even though his complicity in the offence is writ large on the basis of the material available in the case. (Para 20-25) –Raghuveer Sharan vs District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank 2024 INSC 681.
Is a statement tendered by witness incriminating himself enough for the trial court to pass order under section 319 CrPC?
There cannot be an absolute embargo on the Trial Court to initiate process under Section 319 Cr.P.C., merely because a person, who though appears to be complicit has deposed as a witness. The finding to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C., must be based on the evidence that has come up during the course of Trial. There must be additional, cogent material before the Trial Court apart from the statement of the witness- (Para 21-22) Raghuveer Sharan vs District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank 2024 INSC 681 [Question Framed by Law Student Kunal Raizada]
Is the fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution available to a person who is a witness and not an accused ?
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which confers a fundamental right that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”. Under the constitutional scheme, the right is available only to a person who is accused of an offence, the proviso to Section 132 of the Act, in extension, creates a statutory immunity in favour of a witness who in the process of giving evidence in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding makes a statement which criminates himself- Section 132 of the Act is a necessary corollary to the principle enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India which confers a fundamental right that “no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”-The purpose for granting such a statutory immunity was to enable the court to reach a just conclusion (and thus assisting the process of law). (Para 14-15)- Raghuveer Sharan vs District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank 2024 INSC 681
Is an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable at the instance of an accused while he is already in judicial custody in connection with his involvement in a different case?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 438 – [BNSS,2023; Section 482]– An accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail in connection with an offence so long as he is not arrested in relation to that offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available to him is to apply for regular bail either under Section 437 or Section 439 of the CrPC, as the case may be- There is no express or implied restriction in the CrPC or in any other statute that prohibits the Court of Session or the High Court from entertaining and deciding an anticipatory bail application in relation to an offence, while the applicant is in custody in relation to a different offence. No restriction can be read into Section 438 of the CrPC to preclude an accused from applying for anticipatory bail in relation to an offence while he is in custody in a different offence, as that would be against the purport of the provision and the intent of the legislature. (Para 60) [Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani 2024 INSC 669 – Anticipatory Bail ]
When can an arrest be effected without actual touch ?
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 46– Arrest involves actual touch or confinement of the body of the person sought to be arrested. However, arrest can also be effected without actual touch if the person sought to be arrested submits to the custody by words or action-The actual seizing or touching of the body of the person to be arrested is not necessary in a case where the arrester by word brings to the notice of the accused that he is under compulsion and thereafter the accused submits to that compulsion. This is in conformity with the modality of the arrest contemplated under Section 46 of the CrPC wherein also it is provided that the submission of a person to be arrested to the custody of the arrester by word or action can amount to an arrest. The essence is: There must be an actual seizing or touching, and in the absence of that, it must be brought to the notice of the person to be arrested that he is under compulsion, and as a result of such notice, the said person should submit to that compulsion, and then only the arrest is consummated. (Para 46-51) –Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani 2024 INSC 669 – Anticipatory Bail
Can the investigating agency seek remand of an accused already in custody for a previous offense ?
The investigating agency, if it deems necessary for the purpose of interrogation/investigation in an offence, can seek remand of the accused whilst he is in custody in connection with a previous offence so long as no order granting anticipatory bail has been passed in relation to the subsequent offence. However, if an order granting anticipatory bail in relation to the subsequent offence is obtained by the accused, it shall no longer be open to the investigating agency to seek remand of the accused in relation to the subsequent offence. Similarly, if an order of police remand is passed before the accused is able to obtain anticipatory bail, it would thereafter not be open to the accused to seek anticipatory bail and the only option available to him would be to seek regular bail. (Para 60 (iii)) –Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani 2024 INSC 669 [Question framed by Law Student Adnan Mohiuddin Siddqui ]
What are the pre-conditions for a person to apply for a pre-arrest bail?
Under Section 438 of the CrPC, the pre-condition for a person to apply for pre-arrest bail is a “reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence”. Therefore, the only pre-condition for exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely to be arrested. In view of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs, custody in one case does not have the effect of taking away the apprehension of arrest in a different case. (Para 60 (vi)) –Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S. Mulchandani 2024 INSC 669 [Question framed by Law Student Adnan Mohiuddin Siddqui ]
What are ingredients of the offence of dowry death under Section 304B IPC?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 304B – The ingredients of the offence : (a) death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (c) soon before her death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (d) such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with the demand for dowry. [In this case, the Court noted that the fourth ingredient i.e. cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry is missing and therefore set aside conviction under Section 304B] – Referred to Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477. (Para 8,9) –Chabi Karmakar vs State Of West Bengal 2024 INSC 665