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
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus –False in one thing, false in everything- 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- Saheb Maroti Bhumre vs State of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 700
Nemo Tenetur Prodere Seipsum: no one is bound to criminate himself and to place himself in peril (Para 12)- Raghuveer Sharan vs District Sahakari Krishi Gramin Vikas Bank 2024 INSC 681
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia -The law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. (Para 1) – Sudeep Chatterjee vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 567
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius- When a manner is specified for doing a certain thing, then all other modes for carrying out such act are expressly excluded -When a statute contemplates a specific procedure to be adhered to in order to arrive at a desired end, such procedure cannot be substituted by an alternative procedure which is not contemplated under the statute. Further, if an action is to be carried out by way of issuance of a particular statutory instrument on the basis of certain requirements, such action cannot be validly carried out by way of issuance of an instrument when the same is not contemplated under the statute –Gene Campaign vs Union of India 2024 INSC 545
Secundum allegata et probate – The court will arrive at its decision on the basis of the claims and proof led by the parties. (Para 71) – S Tirupathi Rao vs M Lingamaiah 2024 INSC 544
Culpae poena per esto – Let the punishment be proportionate to the offence; let the punishment fit the crime –Amit Rana @ Koka vs State Of Haryana 2024 INSC 543
Omnia Consensus Tollit Errorem- Every assent removes error. (Para 22) – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Darshan Lal Bohra 2024 INSC 508
Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria – No one can be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is a sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the nonperformance he has occasioned. To put it differently, ‘a wrong doer ought not to be permitted to make profit out of his own wrong’- Referred to Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127. (Para 18-19) –Municipal Comittee Katra vs Ashwani Kumar 2024 INSC 398
Causus omissus – What has not been provided in the Statute cannot be supplied by the courts’ in the strict rule of interpretation- However, there are certain exceptions thereto- Referred to Surjit Singh Kalra vs. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87: 1991 INSC 36: (1991) 1 SCR 364 and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa (2008) 9 SCC 284: 2008 INSC 913: (2008) 11 SCR 992. (Para 9.24) – Child In Conflict With Law Through His Mother vs State Of Karnataka 2024 INSC 387
Actio personalis moritur cum persona – a personal right of action dies with the person . (Para 18) -Vinayak Purushottam Dube (D) vs Jayashree Padamkar Bhat 2024 INSC 159 :: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 127
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt -The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their right-Arif Azim Co. Ltd. vs APTECH Ltd 2024 INSC 155
Actus curiae neminem gravabit– No litigant should be allowed to suffer due to the fault of the Court. If that happens, it is the bounden duty of the Court to rectify its mistake. (Para 16) –High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 2024 INSC 150
De minimis non curat lex – Law does not concern itself with trifles. (Para 15) -Vashist Narayan Kumar vs State of Bihar 2024 INSC 2