Section 164 CrPC - The Legal Chamber

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage, courts must sift evidence to determine if a "strong suspicion" exists. It clarified that an offence under Section 354C IPC requires capturing a "private act," which was absent. The Court further ruled that wrongful restraint is not made out if the accused bona fide believes in a lawful right to obstruct. Facts Of The Case: On March 19, 2020, a complaint/FIR was lodged by Ms. Mamta Agarwal against the appellant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas. The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and workmen, attempted to enter a property in Salt Lake, Kolkata, the appellant intimidated them and restrained them from entering. It was further alleged that the appellant clicked her photogr...

The Supreme Court held that a defective Section 313 CrPC statement, with only generic questions failing to put specific incriminating circumstances, causes grave prejudice and vitiates trial. Non-examination of a material Investigating Officer attracts adverse inference. Subsequent FIR superseding the original constitutes an embellished statement under Section 161 CrPC. Defence witnesses carry equal evidentiary value to prosecution witnesses. Facts Of The Case: On 11th May 1990, Gajendra Prasad Gupta was assaulted and fatally injured while returning from a village fair. His father, Rameshwar Sahu, initially gave a Fardbeyan on 12th May 1990 before ASI R. Paswan, which was treated as FIR. This statement described an altercation at the sweet stall and a subsequent attack by three uni...

Tag: Section 164 CrPC

Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint

Supreme Court Acquits Two Men After 35 Years Due to “Defective Trial” and Missing Evidence