Tag: Indian Penal Code

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC
13Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies When Courts Can Summon New Accused During Trial Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified the legal principles governing the exercise of power under Section 319 of the CrPC, emphasizing that it can be invoked based on evidence collected during trial, even if the person was not charge-sheeted. The Court held that the standard for summoning an additional accused is stricter than a prima facie case but does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must show strong complicity, and the power should be exercised sparingly to ensure fairness. The Court restored the Trial Court's summoning order, underscoring that the High Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at this stage. The judgment reaffirmed that the provision aims to prevent the guilty from escaping justice. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from an incident on 29th November 2017, w...
Read More
Motive vs. Reform : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Despite ‘Beastly’ Murders
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Motive vs. Reform : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Despite ‘Beastly’ Murders

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC for the brutal murder of five family members, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts. While acknowledging the crime's heinous nature, the Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission, citing mitigating factors such as the appellant's potential for reformation, lack of criminal antecedents, and satisfactory prison conduct. The judgment emphasized adherence to the "rarest of rare" doctrine and the necessity of comprehensive sentencing considerations, including psychological and social background reports, as outlined in Bachan Singh and Manoj v. State of M.P.. The Court balanced the gravity of the offense with the principle of reformative justice. Facts Of The Case: The ...
Read More
DNA Evidence & Last Seen Theory : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty to Life in Child Rape-Murder Case
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

DNA Evidence & Last Seen Theory : Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty to Life in Child Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 376, 377, 302 IPC and Section 5/6 POCSO Act for the sexual assault and murder of a minor. However, it commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, ruling that the case did not meet the "rarest of rare" standard due to insufficient consideration of mitigating circumstances and rehabilitation potential. The Court emphasized the necessity of balancing aggravating and mitigating factors before imposing capital punishment, following precedents like Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Gudda v. State of M.P., while affirming the reliability of DNA evidence and the last-seen theory in securing conviction. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the brutal sexual assault and murder of a 10-year-old girl in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. On 2...
Read More
Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court How Contradictory Witness Testimonies Saved a Man from the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, overturning his death sentence, due to glaring inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies (PW1, PW2) and lack of corroborative evidence. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as recoveries were unreliable, forensic links were absent, and material contradictions undermined the case. The Court emphasized strict adherence to evidentiary standards in capital offenses. Facts Of The Case: The case involves the brutal murder of four family members—Seema Rani (the appellant’s wife), Reena Rani (sister-in-law), and two minor children, Sumani Kumari (3-4 years) and Harsh (1.5-2 years)—along with injuries to two others, Harry (5 years) and Om Prakash (18 years). The incident occurred on November 29, 2013, in the early morning at the...
Read More
Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Man in Rape Case Due to Lack of Evidence on Victim’s Age

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor under Sections 363/376 IPC. The school certificate (Ex.P11) lacked corroborative evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, as the source of birth records was unverified. Additionally, charges of kidnapping (Section 363) and wrongful confinement (Section 342) were unsubstantiated, as the victim’s voluntary companionship and lack of coercion negated criminal intent. The Court emphasized that mere entries in official documents require independent proof to establish age conclusively, and absence of non-consensual sexual intercourse invalidated the rape charge (Section 376). Benefit of doubt was granted due to insufficient evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case involves Birka Shiva...
Read More
DNA Mishandling Leads to Acquittal: Supreme Court Criticizes Investigation in Brutal Murder Case
11Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

DNA Mishandling Leads to Acquittal: Supreme Court Criticizes Investigation in Brutal Murder Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a double murder and rape case, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted critical lapses, including unreliable circumstantial evidence, mishandled DNA samples, an improperly conducted Test Identification Parade, and lack of motive. It emphasized strict adherence to forensic protocols and reaffirmed that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the accused’s guilt. The judgment underscored the prosecution’s burden to ensure a fair investigation and maintain evidentiary integrity. Facts Of The Case: In May 2011, two young victims—Ezhil Muthalvan (D1) and Kasturi (D2)—were found brutally murdered near Suruli Falls in Tamil Nadu. D1 had left home under the prete...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?

The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings—including a non-compoundable offense under Section 376 IPC—based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court emphasized that while such offenses are grave, exceptional circumstances (victim’s unequivocal settlement, societal harmony, and futility of trial) justified judicial intervention to prevent abuse of process. The ruling reaffirms that ends of justice override rigid legal constraints in unique cases. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from two FIRs registered in November 2023 at Mehunbare Police Station, Jalgaon. The first FIR (No. 302/2023) was filed against Madhukar and others under Sections 324, 143, 147, 452, and others of the IPC, alleging they assaulted a woman a...
Read More
Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for conspiring to murder the deceased, relying on circumstantial evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs) and motive established through witness testimonies. The Court clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and emphasized that constitutional powers under Article 161 (pardoning power of the Governor) remain exercisable despite statutory remission rules. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda for circumstantial evidence while dismissing appeals but allowed the convicts to seek pardon. Facts Of The Case: In December 2003, Kum. Shubha (A-4), a 20-year-old law student, was engaged to B.V. Girish (deceased),...
Read More
No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 IPC against respondents for allegedly fabricating a partition deed and family tree to exclude daughters from property compensation. It ruled that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists. The Court emphasized that criminal conspiracy and cheating must be tried independently, reinstating the trial court’s proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, ensuring accountability for fraudulent deprivation of property rights. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around a dispute over compensation amounting to ₹33 crores awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation for ancestral land purchased by K...
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