criminal revision - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration

14Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Father’s Hearsay Statement Cannot Overturn a Dying Declaration

The Supreme Court held that a High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence to overturn an acquittal. It can only correct glaring errors. Finding no such error and that the dying declaration did not establish the charges, the Court restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an incident on June 14, 2005, in which a woman sustained fatal burn injuries in a fire at her marital home. Her husband (Appellant 1) and another accused (Appellant 2) were charged under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants harassed the deceased and that the fire was a result of a deliberate act. The core of the prosecution's case was a dying declara...

Supreme Court Settles the Law: A Person Not Named in Police Report Can Still Be Summoned to Face Trial

The Supreme Court held that under Section 193 CrPC, a Sessions Court is empowered to summon additional accused persons not named in the police report upon committal of a case, as cognizance is taken of the offence—not the offender—and such power is incidental to the court’s original jurisdiction post-committal. This does not amount to taking "fresh cognizance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR registered at Police Station Shivali, Kanpur Dehat, concerning the murder and rape of a woman. The initial investigation named one Ajay as the suspect. However, during the probe, the petitioner's name surfaced based on witness statements and an alleged extra-judicial confession. Despite this, the Crime Branch gave the petitioner a clean chit, and a chargesheet was filed solely agai...

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...