Tag: Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Balancing Act in UAPA Bail Appeals :Trial Delay vs. Terror Charges

The Supreme Court, while dismissing appeals against bail grant and refusal under the UAPA, emphasized the prima facie test for bail under the stringent Act. It declined to interfere with the High Court's reasoned analysis of the chargesheet evidence, distinguishing the roles of the accused. The Court underscored the right to a speedy trial, directing the conclusion of proceedings within two years due to the accused's prolonged incarceration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered in January 2020 against 17 individuals, including Saleem Khan (Accused No. 11) and Mohd. Zaid (Accused No. 20), for alleged conspiracy under the IPC and various offences under the UAPA and Arms Act. The allegations involved connections with terrorist activities and organisations. The inves...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, was unsustainable as the confessions were unreliable and the circumstantial chain was incomplete, violating the principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The benefit of doubt was accorded to the appellant. Facts Of The Case: Neelam Kumari, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her infant son. The prosecution's case was that on December 8, 2006, after returning with her husband, Nikku Ram, from his ancestral village, she was left alone with the child at their home in village Nand. When Nikku Ram returned later that evening, both the a...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”
23Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When a Criminal Court Cannot Change Its Own Order :”Functus Officio”

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC are criminal in nature and thus governed by the CrPC. Consequently, a review petition filed under Order XLVII of the CPC is not maintainable. The Court reiterated that Section 362 CrPC bars criminal courts from altering or reviewing their own judgments, except for correcting clerical errors, and the High Court's recall order constituted an impermissible substantive review. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated between two groups, the Khosla Group and the Bakshi Group, regarding a joint venture to develop a resort in Kasauli. A key point of contention was the validity of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of their joint venture company, Montreaux Resorts Private Limited (MRPL), held on 30.09.2006. The Bakshi Group relied on ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Be Guilty of Handling Stolen Goods If There Was No Theft
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Be Guilty of Handling Stolen Goods If There Was No Theft

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, ruling that a conviction under Section 411 IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property is legally unsustainable once the accused stands acquitted of the primary offence of theft under Section 379 IPC. The Court further held that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution and cannot be reversed onto the accused. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from the disappearance and suspected murder of M. Narsalah on December 22, 2005, after he traveled to Warangal to collect outstanding business dues of approximately ₹2.92 lakh. When his phone was switched off, his cousin filed a missing person's report. The prosecution alleged that Narsalah's former employer and business rival, Accused-Moulana, murdered him, stole the cash, and enlisted t...
Read More
Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mens Rea is Must: Supreme Court Rules Accused Must Intend to Drive Victim to Suicide for Abetment Charge

The Supreme Court reiterated that to establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of mens rea and a proximate act of instigation by the accused, which directly led the deceased to commit suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without positive action intended to push the victim toward suicide, are insufficient to sustain the charge. The absence of a live link between the alleged acts and the suicide warranted quashing of the FIR. Facts Of The Case: A seven-term independent Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22 February 2021, leaving behind a suicide note. In the note, he named several officials from the administration and police of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, accusing them of conspiring to defame, degrade, and demean him to end his political caree...
Read More
Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, holding that the order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind to material facts, including the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence. The Court reiterated that bail in serious offences like murder requires careful consideration of the allegations, evidence, and risk of witness tampering, and cannot be granted mechanically. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the brutal murder of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, whose body was discovered near an apartment in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by actor Darshan (A2) and his partner, Pavithra Gowda (A1), after the deceased had sent obscene messages to A1's Insta...
Read More
Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hostile Witness & Unproven Demand Lead to Acquittal in Landmark Corruption Appeal

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the mere recovery of tainted money is not conclusive proof of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution failed to prove the crucial element of demand beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Facts Of The Case: The case involved an appeal against the conviction of a Lower Division Clerk at the Passport Office, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution's case was that the accused demanded an additional ₹500 as a bribe from the complainant to expedite his passport application. After negotiation, an initial gratification of ₹200 was to be paid along with the official ₹1000 fee. The Cen...
Read More
Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes

The Supreme Court reiterated that bail grant requires a balanced assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie case, and the accused's potential to influence the trial or evade justice. It set aside the High Court's bail order for failing to consider these established parameters, particularly the accused's conduct and the crime's seriousness. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from an FIR registered concerning a violent incident on the intervening night of May 4-5, 2021. The accused, Sushil Kumar, and his associates were alleged to have abducted several individuals from different locations in Delhi and taken them to Chhatrasal Stadium. There, they were violently attacked with wooden sticks and lathis, and gunshots were allegedly fired. One of the abducted in...
Read More
Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: 20-Year Life Sentence Means Release After 20 Years, No Remission Needed

The Supreme Court ruled that a "life imprisonment" sentence specifying a fixed term of "actual imprisonment without remission" is a determinative sentence. Upon completing that fixed term, the convict is entitled to automatic release and need not apply for remission. Any detention beyond this period violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: Sukhdev Yadav was convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara, alongside Vikas and Vishal Yadav. In 2015, the Delhi High Court, while upholding his life sentence, specifically modified it to "life imprisonment which shall be 20 years of actual imprisonment without consideration of remission." This fixed-term sentence was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Sukhdev Yadav completed this mandated 20-year period of actual inc...
Read More
Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement
16Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Complete Justice: Supreme Court Uses Special Powers to End Family Dispute, Quashes FIR After Settlement

The Supreme Court, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the criminal proceedings. It held that continuing prosecution after a mutual divorce and full settlement serves no legitimate purpose and amounts to an abuse of the process of law, especially in the absence of specific allegations. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (No.67 of 2019) registered by the second respondent against her husband (appellant No.1) and in-laws (appellant Nos. 2 & 3) under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC, alleging cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation. The marriage, solemnized in March 2018, lasted approximately ten months before the wife left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed in November 2019. However...
Read More