Note: Click on case number/citation to download Judgment/Orders
Section 313 CrPC – What is the effect of not putting the incriminating circumstance to the accused while recording their statements under Section 313 CrPC.?To enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. – Where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused – Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in this Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused- Sunil vs State of NCT Of Delhi 2023 INSC 840
Section 319 CrPC – Summoning order against Appellants (brother and sister-in-law of the husband of the deceased lady) set aside – No specific allegation against the appellants barring allegations of harassment, which are omnibus in nature. -Shivani vs State of UP SLP(Crl) 451 of 2020
CrPC – Code (CrPC) is procedural in nature and technical defects and irregularities should not come in the way of substantial justice” – Bijoy Shankar Mishra vs State of Jharkhand SLP (Crl.) No. 894/2022 –
Criminal Trial – When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination – Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat 2023 INSC 829
Section 378,386 CrPC – – The judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence. If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused. (Para 24) – Rupesh Manger (Thapa) vs State of Sikkim Section 84 IPC –2023 INSC 826
Section 482 CrPC – The power to quash a criminal investigation or proceedings should not be lightly exercised. Yet, to refuse recourse to that power, in cases that require or may demand it, is being blind to justice, which the courts can scant afford to be.” – Religare Finvest Limited vs State of NCT of Delhi 2023 INSC 819
Bail – Bail application of the petitioner is opposed on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and as such warrants came to be issued – Since the petitioner is in prison, therefore, it was the duty of the police authorities to produce him before the Trial Court. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the negligence on behalf of the police authorities- Bail granted – Satendra Babu vs State of UP –– SLP(Crl) 8247/2023
Section 357 CrPC – “State did not prosecute the case fairly, rather throughout assisted the accused.” Supreme Court observed thus while sentencing former RJD MP Prabhunath Singh to life imprisonment and 20 lakhs fine in a 28 year old murder case. Section 357 CrPC provides that whenever fine is imposed as a sentence, the Court may while passing the judgment, order the whole or in part of the fine recovered to be applied for defraying the expenses incurred in the prosecution. The court, in this case, refused to grant any such expenses to the State. Instead it awarded Rs.10 Lakh each as damages to legal heirs of two deceased. Though we have seen judgments which blame the prosecution/state for faulty investigation etc., this might be a rare case where the Supreme Court clearly said that State assisted the accused. Harendra Rai vs State of Bihar 2023 INSC 806
Section 482 CrPC – An FIR may not be quashed merely because the allegations of criminality have a civil element. But when the civil dispute is the overwhelming flavour of the criminal accusation, the Courts can intervene – Mohammad Ziad vs State of Uttar Pradesh CrA 2633 of 2023
Section 148 CrPC – Magistrate constituted a team to make an an appropriate local enquiry under Section 148 of the Cr.P.C – He directions to the said team to get the revenue records including the possession, title documents and also the maps examined and get the same clarified and corrected, if there was any discrepancy, and after getting the same done, then submit the appropriate report- Supreme Court held: The course open to the Magistrate in proceedings, under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., would have been to keep the properties attached if there was any law and order issue and direct the parties to obtain appropriate relief with regard to the title and also correction of Revenue Records, if any, but not direct the team, so constituted under Section 148 Cr.P.C., to get the said exercise carried – Sanjay Kumar vs State of Madhya Pradesh SLP(Crl) 7622 of 2023
Section 482 CrPC – X married Y in June 1999. On Y’s uncle’s complaint, police lodged FIR against X for kidnapping Y. A charge sheet was filed in July, 1999 alleging offences under Sections 363,366 IPC. In the year 2016, X approached High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC – but it refused to quash the criminal case. Thus he approached the Apex Court challenging this HC Order. Day before yesterday, Supreme Court allowed his appeal. It noted that X and Y are happily cohabiting together for 24 years and now have two grown up children. The hanging sword of the trial continues on the appellant for 24 years… ….No purpose will be served by compelling the appellant to undergo trial which will affect a well settled family of husband and wife and two grown up children, the court said while it quashed the criminal case against X. Sachin alias Pinku vs State of UP CrA 2730 of 2023
Section 378, 386 – An appellate court, in the case of an acquittal, must bear in mind that there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. It was also emphasised that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused is to be leaned on. (Para 18)
Section 162 CrPC – Can Trial Court suo motu put questions to witnesses for the purpose of contradicting them?- “There is in our opinion nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose – (Para 45-48) Munna Pandey vs State of Bihar – 2023 INSC 793
Section 366-368 CrPC – In a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions Court’s appraisal and assessment of that evidence – The duty of the High Court, in dealing with the reference, is not only to see whether the order passed by the Sessions Judge is correct, but to examine the case for itself and even direct a further enquiry or the taking of additional evidence if the Court considers it desirable in order to ascertain the guilt or the innocence of the convicted person. (Para 2, 57-60) – Munna Pandey vs State of Bihar – 2023 INSC 793
Section 53A – Whether failure to subject the accused to medical examination by a medical practitioner is a serious flaw- Medical examination of an accused assumes great importance in cases where the victim of rape is dead and the offence is sought to be established only by circumstantial evidence. (Para 24-29) – Munna Pandey vs State of Bihar – 2023 INSC 793
Sentencing – While imposing sentence, aggravating and mitigating circumstances of a case are to be taken into consideration – the factors to be kept in mind while imposing punishments discussed (Para 11-19) – Accused convicted under S 307 IPC – 39 years have passed since the date of offence – There was old enmity between the complainant and accused relating to the piece of land where the offence came to be committed – There are no criminal antecedents and it cannot be said that the accused acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever – Thus the sentence imposed on the appellant – accused reduced from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment – Pramod Kumar Mishra vs State of UP 2023 INSC 791
Section 323 CrPC – Gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment. It is, evident from the statute that the power under Section 323 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the learned Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment. Thus, it is a settled provision of law that the said power may be invoked even 3 after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions – Archana vs State of West Bengal | CrA 2655 OF 2023.
Section 438 CrPC – Can a person declared as a proclaimed offender seek anticipatory bail ? In this case, Supreme Court set aside a High court judgment that had granted anticipatory bail to such a person. The court said that without first successfully assailing the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender, he could not have proceeded to seek anticipatory bail. Of course, in an exceptional and rare case, this Court or the High Courts can consider a plea seeking anticipatory bail, despite the applicant being a proclaimed offender, given that the Supreme Court and High Courts are Constitutional Courts. However, no exceptional situation arises in the case at hand – State of Haryana vs Dharamraj | 2023 INSC 784
Section 311 CrPC – Scope discussed – A discretionary power like Section 311, CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to anyone – Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when ‘… it is essential for the just decision of the case.’- Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana | 2023 INSC 786
Section 173, 190, 200 CrPC – Three options available to Magistrate on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (1) may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. (2) may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; (3) may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 – Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report -Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report- Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be. Zunaid vs State of UP – 2023 INSC 778
Bail – Gujarat High Court granted bail to a murder accused. One of the factors considered by the High Court was that the accused and deceased’s son entered into settlement. Now, Supreme Court finds it strange and sets aside the bail order. Accused’s antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime, the court said – Bharwad Santoshbhai Sondabhai vs State of Gujarat
Section 272 CrPC – A charge sheet filed within the period provided either under Section 167 of CrPC or any other relevant statute in a language other than the language of the Court or the language which the accused does not understand, is not illegal and no one can claim a default bail on that ground. If both the accused and his advocate are not conversant with the language in which the charge sheet has been filed,…. the Courts can always direct the prosecution to provide a translated version of the charge sheet. – CBI vs Narottam Dhakad -2023 INSC 770
On Section 4(2) CrPC – Section 4(2) lays down that the provisions of the CrPC shall apply to all offences under any other law apart from the IPC. However, the application of the CrPC will be excluded only where a special law prescribes special procedures to deal with the investigation, inquiry, or the trial of the special offence. –In determining whether a special procedure will override the general procedure laid down under the CrPC, the courts have to ascertain whether the special law excludes, either specifically or by necessary implication, the application of the provisions of the CrPC – Dhanraj N Asawani vs Amarjeetsingh Mohindersingh Basi and Others | 2023 INSC 710