CrPC - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Explains When It Can’t Be Trusted :Dying Declaration Sole Basis for Conviction?

7Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains When It Can’t Be Trusted :Dying Declaration Sole Basis for Conviction?

This Supreme Court judgment underscores the indispensable procedural safeguards for a fair trial, particularly the right to effective legal representation. It reiterates that a conviction based solely on a dying declaration requires the court to be fully satisfied of its voluntariness, truthfulness, and that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. The ruling emphasizes that such a declaration cannot form the basis for conviction if it suffers from grave infirmities, such as the lack of a fitness certification from an identified doctor and the recording officer's failure to note his own satisfaction regarding the declarant's condition. Facts Of The Case: On March 31, 2012, Munish Kumar and his brother Amit were returning to their village by car when they were intercepted by two other veh...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Legal Heir Can Continue Criminal Appeal if Original Victim Dies

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the legal right of a victim to prefer an appeal under Section 372 CrPC includes the right to prosecute it. The Supreme Court held that upon the death of the original victim-appellant, their legal heir is entitled to be substituted to continue the appeal, ensuring the victim's statutory right is not extinguished. Facts Of The Case: On December 9, 1992, an attack occurred stemming from previous enmity. The accused persons, armed with guns, sharp weapons, and bricks, assaulted informant Tara Chand (PW-1), his brother Virendra Singh, and his son Khem Singh (PW-3). As a result, Virendra Singh died, while Tara Chand and Khem Singh sustained injuries. The specific roles attributed were that accused Ashok fired at Virendra Singh, accused Pramod fi...

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...

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...

No Set Formula for Human Reaction: Supreme Court Backs Parents Who Fled Fire That Killed Kids

8Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

No Set Formula for Human Reaction: Supreme Court Backs Parents Who Fled Fire That Killed Kids

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court erred in its appreciation of evidence, particularly witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. It upheld the trial court's conviction, establishing that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that witness conduct cannot be judged by a uniform standard of reaction. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from a tragic incident on the intervening night of April 1-2, 1992, in Khunti, where the informant, Santosh Kumar Singh, his wife, and their two infant daughters were asleep. The prosecution's case was that accused persons Nilu Ganjhu and Md. Mahboob Ansari, motivated by a business rivalry with the informant over his bus agency operation, threatened him weeks prior. That night, an explosive substance was used, c...

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that a confessional FIR made to a police officer is wholly inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove its case with legally admissible evidence, rendering the medical and other evidence insufficient for conviction. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Narayan Yadav, himself lodged an FIR at Korba Kotwali Police Station on 27.09.2019, confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. In the FIR, he stated that a quarrel ensued at the deceased's residence after the latter made an obscene remark upon seeing a photograph of the appellant's girlfriend. In a fit of rage, the appellant claimed he picked up a vegetable knife and inflicted injuries on the deceased, later also hitting him with...

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

6Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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...

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Rape Conviction, Rules Victim’s Testimony Alone Is Enough

The Supreme Court upheld that a rape conviction can be based solely on the sole, credible testimony of the prosecutrix. Corroboration through medical evidence is not a legal necessity. The absence of injuries does not disprove the offense, especially when the victim's account is consistent and inspires confidence. Facts Of The Case: On April 3, 2018, at approximately noon, a 15-year-old victim and her 11-year-old brother were alone at their home in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, as their parents had gone to a nearby village to attend a funeral. The appellant-accused, Deepak Kumar Sahu, who was known to the family and lived in the neighbourhood, entered the house. Finding the victim alone, he sent her younger brother away to buy chewing tobacco. Once the brother left, the accused forced the v...

Technicality or Right? Supreme Court Acquits Man, Rules Mandatory NDPS Procedures Were Ignored

5Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Technicality or Right? Supreme Court Acquits Man, Rules Mandatory NDPS Procedures Were Ignored

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay, particularly when the appellant was incarcerated. On merits, the Court acquitted the accused due to fatal procedural lapses: non-compliance with mandatory sampling guidelines under Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which rendered the seizure and FSL report unreliable. The trial court also erred in clubbing separate recoveries to constitute commercial quantity without evidence of conspiracy under Section 29. Facts Of The Case: On July 16, 2018, based on source information, police apprehended the appellant, Nadeem Ahamed, and a co-accused, Amit Dutta, near Laxmi Store in Kolkata. A search, conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, led to the recovery o...

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

16Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Overturns Conviction Under Section 306 IPC: Limits on High Court’s Revisional Powers

The Supreme Court of India, in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, held that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict on a charge for which the trial court acquitted the accused, especially when no appeal or revision was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. The Court emphasized the principle of no reformatio in peius, meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal Facts Of The Case: Nagarajan, the appellant, was the neighbor of the deceased, Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant entered Mariammal's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Mariammal's mother-in-law intervened, scolded the appel...