Tag: criminal procedure

Can’t Claim Juvenile Benefit Based on Weak Evidence: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling
29Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can’t Claim Juvenile Benefit Based on Weak Evidence: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that a school transfer certificate based solely on an oral declaration, without corroborating proof, is unreliable for determining juvenility. When such evidence conflicts with official documents like a family register, voter list, and medical opinion, the latter must be given precedence to prevent the abuse of benevolent legislation. Facts Of The Case: On August 31, 2011, the appellant's brother, Rajesh, was shot and killed. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against Liliu Singh and his son, Devi Singh (Respondent No. 2), under Sections 302 (murder) and 452 (house-trespass) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident allegedly occurred after Liliu Singh and Devi Singh forcibly entered the appellant's house and manhandled his wife. When Rajesh went to confro...
Read More
When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When Protest Isn’t Nuisance: Supreme Court Explains Limits of Police Power, Quashes 5-Year-Old Case

The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, applying the Bhajan Lal principles. It held that the allegations, even if accepted entirely, did not prima facie constitute the offences under Sections 290, 341, 171F IPC, and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861, as their essential ingredients were absent. Continuing the prosecution was deemed an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: During the 2019 General Elections, the Model Code of Conduct was in force in Andhra Pradesh. On March 22, 2019, appellants Manchu Mohan Babu, an educational institution chairman, and his son, along with staff and students, conducted a rally and dharna on the Tirupati-Madanapalli Road. They were protesting the state government's failure to provide student fee reimbursements. The gathering, which las...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Top Cop’s Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case, Stresses “No One Above Law”
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Top Cop’s Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case, Stresses “No One Above Law”

The Supreme Court held that the absence of a requirement for custodial interrogation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. The court must primarily consider the prima facie case and the nature of the alleged offence. The High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial and rendering detailed findings on evidence at the anticipatory bail stage. Facts Of The Case: An IPS officer, holding the post of Additional Director General of Police in Andhra Pradesh, was accused of manipulating tenders and misappropriating public funds. The allegations involved two key transactions. First, an agreement for awareness camps on the SC/ST Act was signed on January 30, 2024, and the entire payment was approved on the very same day without any verification of the work done. Second, l...
Read More
Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned
26Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reinstates Drug Case: Acquittal Based on “Same Informant-Investigator” Rule Overturned

The Supreme Court held that an investigation is not automatically vitiated solely because the informant and investigator are the same. This procedural irregularity must be examined on a case-specific basis for bias. The Court overruled the contrary precedent in Mohan Lal and restored the matter for a merits-based hearing. Facts Of The Case: Based on the secret information received on September 20, 2009, police intercepted a truck. The respondent, Gurnam @ Gama, was found sitting on a stack of bags in the cargo area, while the other respondent, Jaswinder Singh, was driving the vehicle. Upon search, the authorities recovered a significant quantity of 750 kilograms of poppy husk along with two motorcycles. Consequently, FIR No. 221 of 2009 was registered under the relevant sections of the N...
Read More
Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties
23Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...
Read More
Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment
18Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...
Read More
Supreme Court Verdict : Police Can’t Serve Appearance Notices via WhatsApp
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Verdict : Police Can’t Serve Appearance Notices via WhatsApp

The Supreme Court dismissed the application seeking modification of its earlier order, holding that electronic communication (e.g., WhatsApp) is not a valid mode for serving notices under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The Court emphasized that such notices, which impact personal liberty, must adhere strictly to prescribed modes of service under the BNSS. It clarified that while electronic service is permissible for court summons under Sections 63, 64, and 71 of the BNSS, the same cannot be extended to investigative notices under Section 35, as the legislative intent excludes electronic modes for this purpose. The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case aro...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhanyam v. State of Kerala & Ors., set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be used sparingly and only in situations affecting "public order," not merely "law and order". The Court reiterated that if a detenu is on bail and allegedly violating conditions, the State should seek bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention. Facts Of The Case: The appeal originated from a High Court of Kerala judgment dated September 4, 2024, which affirmed a preventive detention order issued on June 20, 2024, by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The detenu, Rajesh, the appellant's husband, runs a registered lending firm named 'Rithika Finance'. The detention order, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala ...
Read More
Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case
12Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : From Life Imprisonment to 20 Years Young Offenders Get Relief in POCSO Case

The Supreme Court of India granted leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dated April 26, 2024, which affirmed the conviction of appellants under various sections of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, including imprisonment for life. While upholding the conviction, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals, reducing the sentence from life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment based on Section 6 of the POCSO Act and considering the appellants' age and incarceration period. Facts Of The Case: Pintu Thakur @ Ravi and other appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 36/2020. This conviction was subse...
Read More
Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Age Dispute in Crime : Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Status in Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the determination of an accused as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizing that school records and birth certificates take precedence over medical age tests under Section 94(2). The Court clarified that once juvenility is established, bail considerations for juveniles differ from adults, focusing on rehabilitation rather than offence gravity. It also affirmed that Section 15 (preliminary assessment for heinous offences) does not negate juvenile status but mandates a separate evaluation for trial as an adult. The ruling reinforced the statutory hierarchy of age-proof documents and restricted JJBs from reviewing earlier age determinations. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Rajni (appellant), the mother of a ...
Read More