Section 302 IPC - 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...

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Frees Men, Citing Gaps in Circumstantial Case

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Frees Men, Citing Gaps in Circumstantial Case

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Key scientific evidence, including DNA reports, was deemed inadmissible due to an unproven chain of custody and procedural flaws. The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Facts Of The Case: On the evening of September 4, 2012, a 12-year-old girl left her home to answer the call of nature and did not return. Her parents initiated a search throughout the night. The next morning, her denuded body was discovered in a paddy field belonging to Harikrishna Sharma. Her personal belongings, including her slippers, water canister, and underwear, were found scattered in an adjacent field cultivated by the ac...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling :The Problem with Extra-Judicial Confessions

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction, based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, was unsustainable as the confessions were unreliable and the circumstantial chain was incomplete, violating the principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. The benefit of doubt was accorded to the appellant. Facts Of The Case: Neelam Kumari, the appellant, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of her infant son. The prosecution's case was that on December 8, 2006, after returning with her husband, Nikku Ram, from his ancestral village, she was left alone with the child at their home in village Nand. When Nikku Ram returned later that evening, both the a...

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: No Special Treatment for Celebrities in Bail Matters

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court, holding that the order was perverse and suffered from non-application of mind to material facts, including the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence. The Court reiterated that bail in serious offences like murder requires careful consideration of the allegations, evidence, and risk of witness tampering, and cannot be granted mechanically. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from the brutal murder of Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, whose body was discovered near an apartment in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of a criminal conspiracy orchestrated by actor Darshan (A2) and his partner, Pavithra Gowda (A1), after the deceased had sent obscene messages to A1's Insta...

Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes

17Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Influencing Witnesses? Supreme Court Sets Strict Rules for Granting Bail in Serious Crimes

The Supreme Court reiterated that bail grant requires a balanced assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence, the prima facie case, and the accused's potential to influence the trial or evade justice. It set aside the High Court's bail order for failing to consider these established parameters, particularly the accused's conduct and the crime's seriousness. Facts Of The Case: The case stems from an FIR registered concerning a violent incident on the intervening night of May 4-5, 2021. The accused, Sushil Kumar, and his associates were alleged to have abducted several individuals from different locations in Delhi and taken them to Chhatrasal Stadium. There, they were violently attacked with wooden sticks and lathis, and gunshots were allegedly fired. One of the abducted in...

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...

How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

How Unexplained Injuries and a Family Dispute Led to an Acquittal by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, granting the benefit of doubt. The conviction was overturned due to material inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including an unexplained timeline of death, unrebutted defence evidence of family enmity, and a lack of medical corroboration for the alleged weapon and dying declaration. Facts Of The Case: Based on the altercation, the appellant and her husband were accused of fatally beating the deceased with sticks near a temple later that night. The prosecution's case, supported by eyewitnesses including the deceased's father (PW-7), was that the attack was retaliation for the afternoon dispute. The victim was allegedly carried home unconscious and died minutes later, with a First Information Report (FIR) lodged around 9:00 PM. How...

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 Upholds Life Sentence: Daughter’s Testimony Convicts Father in Wife’s Murder

26Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence: Daughter’s Testimony Convicts Father in Wife’s Murder

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, affirming the reliability of a child witness. It ruled that the accused's mere denial under Section 313 CrPC was insufficient to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances of his wife's death within their home. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the murder of Smt. Ranjana by her husband, the accused-appellant Manohar Keshavora Khandate, within their home in Amravati. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the eyewitness account of their nine-year-old daughter (PW-3). She testified that on the night of the incident, she was sleeping beside her mother when she was awakened by a commotion. She found her father sitting nearby her mother, whose body was covered with a chaddar. The...

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

25Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Jail Overcrowding Can’t Be a Ground for Granting Bail in Heinous Crimes

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the absence of "new circumstances" as mandated by the Court's earlier judgment cancelling bail. The impugned order lacked cogent reasoning, relied on irrelevant factors like jail overcrowding, and failed to accord due deference to the Supreme Court's previous decision, warranting its quashing. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the informant, Ajwar, against an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, Waseem. Waseem was charged under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). His bail was initially granted by the High Court in 2022 but was cancelled by the Supreme Court. A subsequent grant of bail by the High Court was again cancelled by th...