MONTHLY JUDGEMENTS MAGAZINE JANUARY-FEBRUARY (Part-1)

Lexpedia · 29 March 2025 · 32 min read

✅ Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana

Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest.
Failure to inform the arrested person vitiates the arrest and remand, violating their right to personal liberty under Article 21.
The police has the responsibility to prove that the arrested person was informed of the grounds in a manner they understand.
Magistrates must ensure that the constitutional safeguards under Article 22(1) are followed during remand proceedings. If violated, the accused should be released.
Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is not sufficient to meet the requirements of informing the arrested person.
The minority opinion stresses that under Section 50A, CrPC, the grounds of arrest should also be communicated to the arrested person’s relatives or nominated persons to ensure the safeguard is effectively implemented.

✅ Jyostanamayee Mishra vs. The State of Odisha

Writ Courts cannot condone or validate the illegalities committed by the department by perpetuating them. A litigant cannot ask the Court to direct the department to act in violation of the law or statutory rules.
Article 14 of the Constitution does not recognize negative equality. If a wrong is committed in one case, it cannot be perpetuated or applied to other cases.
A key constitutional principle is that negative equality is not allowed. If a benefit or advantage is given to someone without legal justification, it cannot be continued or used as a basis for granting similar benefits to others.

✅ Puja Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Goa

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: When the government makes a promise knowing that the promisee will rely on it, and the promisee, acting on the promise, alters their position, the government will be bound by that promise. This applies even if there is no formal contract or consideration for the promise, and it is not in writing as required by Article 299 of the Constitution.
Legal Enforceability of Promissory Estoppel: The doctrine allows citizens to take legal action against the government if it makes a promise creating a legal relationship. If the promisee acts in reliance on it, the promise becomes enforceable in court, regardless of any prejudice.
Principle of Estoppel: The doctrine of estoppel, rooted in equity, prevents the government or public authorities from backing out of a promise or representation. However, it cannot be used to compel the government to honor promises that are contrary to the law or made outside the officer’s authority.
Public Interest Exception: The principle of public interest serves as an exception to promissory estoppel. If the promise is withdrawn in the public interest—such as financial necessity—it may override the requirement for the government to fulfill the promise.
In this case, the State of Goa had promised a 25% rebate on electricity consumption but later withdrew the promise citing financial crunch as a reason, which was deemed to be in the public interest. The Supreme Court upheld the state's decision and ruled that the government would not be bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel in this context.

✅ Dr. Tanvi Behl V. Shrey Goel

Domicile/Residence-Based Reservation: The provision for domicile/residence-based reservation in admissions to PG Medical Courses within the state quota was deemed constitutionally invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Permissibility in UG or MBBS Courses: The concept of domicile-based reservation is permissible to some extent in Undergraduate (UG) or MBBS courses, but not in PG courses.
Domicile - Legal Concept: While "domicile" in common usage refers to a person's place of living or permanent address, legally, domicile has a different meaning. It refers to a legal system that determines a person’s personal law, regardless of whether they have a permanent home or not.
Domicile vs. Permanent Residence: Domicile, as understood by the government, often acts as a substitute for permanent residence or a permanent home. However, the legal concept of domicile comes into play primarily when there are multiple legal systems or laws operating within a country.
This is not the case in India, where each citizen holds one single domicile: the ‘Domicile of India’ as per Article 5 of the Constitution. Thus, the concept of regional or provincial domicile is foreign to the Indian legal system.
Misconception on Domicile: The Supreme Court acknowledged that state governments often misuse the term "domicile" when they actually mean permanent residence or simply residence.

✅ Lalita Vs. Vishwanath

First Informant’s Death: If the first informant has passed away before stepping into the witness box, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved by the Investigating Officer (IO) and, therefore, cannot be read into evidence.
FIR as Evidence: The FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence in itself. It cannot be considered as evidence unless it falls under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). If the informant dies and their death is related to any evidence concerning the FIR, it cannot be used as a dying declaration.
Importance of FIR: The First Information Report (FIR) holds a crucial role as the primary information the police receives regarding the commission of an offense. It can be used to corroborate the informant's story under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 if the informant is summoned as a witness. However, if the informant is the accused, their FIR cannot be used as evidence against them, as self-incrimination is prohibited by the Constitution.
Proving FIR through IO: The content of the FIR cannot be proved by the Investigating Officer (IO). The IO is not allowed to present the exact contents of the FIR to make them admissible. Legally, the IO can only identify the signature of the first informant and their own on the FIR and state that the FIR was registered on a particular date at a specific police station.

✅ Naushey Ali Vs. State of UP

Quashing of Proceedings vs. Compounding of Offence: Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the grounds of settlement is not the same thing as compounding of offence under Section 320 CrPC.
Quashing in Non-Compoundable Offences: Even in cases of non-compoundable offences, the High Court may quash proceedings if their continuation would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Role of the Court in Non-Compoundable Offences: Mere mentioning of a non-compoundable offence in the FIR/Chargesheet by the police should not be the basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It is for the court to examine whether such an offence is included merely for the sake of it, or whether it is genuinely made out from the evidence/material available.

✅ Smt. N. Usha Rani Vs. Moodudula Srinivas

In Badshah V. Urmila (2014 SC), maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was granted to a second wife (in a void marriage) who was unaware of her husband's first subsisting marriage.
The issue of maintenance to women in live-in relationships has already been referred to a larger bench for further consideration.
Present Case: The woman, whose first marriage is subsisting, marries a second husband. She did not conceal the fact of her first marriage from her second husband. She also entered into an MOU of separation with her first husband, separated from him, and does not seek maintenance from him.
The Supreme Court held that, barring the absence of a legal decree of divorce, she is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights/entitlements from her first marriage. Therefore, she is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband.

✅ Wahid Vs. State of GNCTD

Where accused persons are unknown and are not named in the FIR, if the prosecution's case regarding the manner in which the accused were arrested is disbelieved or doubted, the court should proceed cautiously with other evidence and objectively determine whether all other circumstances have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, once the manner of arrest was disbelieved, the Supreme Court also disbelieved the recovery of evidence.
The Supreme Court further disbelieved the dock identification of the accused by a few eyewitnesses, as there was no Test Identification Parade (TIP), no opportunity for the witnesses to see the accused at the police station, and when other eyewitnesses refused to identify the accused.

✅ Suneeti Toteja v. State of UP (197 CrPC)

The case dealt with the question of whether a lack of sanction by the concerned authority within the prescribed time leads to a deemed sanction for prosecution. The Court ruled that CrPC Section 197 does not recognize a concept of deemed sanction.
The failure to grant sanction within the relevant time frame does not automatically imply that the sanction is granted for prosecution. Express sanction from the concerned authority is necessary for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC; delay or inaction cannot be considered as deemed sanction.
Legislative Update:
- Section 218(1), Proviso II (BNSS) introduced the concept of deemed sanction.
- If the concerned government does not act within 120 days, the sanction is deemed granted.
Before the BNSS amendment: There was no provision for deemed sanction under CrPC.
After the BNSS amendment: A failure to make a decision within 120 days results in an automatic deemed sanction. Prosecution of public servants requires explicit sanction. Deemed sanction only applies under BNSS in cases of delay by the government.

✅ Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council, Malda

The case involved the issue of whether oral consent given by counsels during proceedings can be treated as valid, and whether the lack of written consent can be used as a ground to recall or review orders passed by constitutional courts. The Court ruled that constitutional courts in India pass orders based on oral consent given by counsels. Lack of written consent does not provide sufficient grounds to recall or review an order passed by the Court.

Important Insight:

Oral consent provided by the counsel during proceedings is valid and binding, just like written consent.
The absence of written consent cannot be used to challenge or review the court’s order.
Courts rely on the oral submissions and oral consent of the counsels during hearings.
The lack of written documentation of consent does not undermine the validity of the orders passed based on oral consent.
This ruling reinforces the practice that oral consent given by counsels is legally binding and cannot be easily contested later based on the absence of written consent.

✅ M/s. Kamal Enterprises v. A.K. Constructions Co.

The case addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction of a Magistrate in relation to entertaining a complaint under Section 201 CrPC and whether a lack of territorial jurisdiction is grounds for a transfer petition before the Supreme Court. If the Magistrate does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, the objection must be raised before the Magistrate itself under Section 201 CrPC. Lack of territorial jurisdiction is not a valid ground for filing a transfer petition before the Supreme Court.
Section 201 CrPC provides that a party must raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction before the Magistrate itself. Territorial jurisdiction challenges should be dealt with at the trial court level rather than through a transfer petition to the Supreme Court. Parties who believe that the Magistrate lacks territorial jurisdiction should first raise the issue at the trial court under Section 201 CrPC.
Transfer petitions to the Supreme Court are not the proper remedy for addressing territorial jurisdiction issues. The issue should be resolved at the lower court level. The ruling emphasizes that jurisdictional issues should be contested at the appropriate judicial level, and bypassing this process by filing directly in the Supreme Court is improper.

✅ Baban Shankar Daphal v. The State of Maharashtra

The Court held that the testimony of related witnesses (such as family members) cannot be dismissed solely because of their relationship to the victim.
While the law requires careful scrutiny of the evidence of related witnesses, it does not mandate that their testimony be discarded altogether.
In criminal cases, the credibility of related witnesses is often questioned, but being related does not automatically imply bias or that the witness is "interested".
A witness is considered "interested" only if they have a personal stake in the case, such as revenge or personal gain, which is not the case for most close relatives.
A close relative is generally the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person.
The court's focus should be on the consistency and credibility of their testimony, not merely on their relationship to the victim.
The Court observed that the Trial Court gave undue weight to minor discrepancies, such as variations in the sequence of events or the number of blows.
Minor contradictions do not make testimony unreliable if the core facts remain consistent. The Court is required to evaluate the evidence in totality, not isolate individual inconsistencies.
Ocular evidence (eyewitness testimony) is considered the best evidence in a criminal trial, and if it inspires confidence in the court, it is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
Medical evidence serves only to corroborate ocular evidence, and the only time ocular evidence might be disbelieved is when there is a gross contradiction between the two, making the ocular testimony improbable.

✅ Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana

Section 82 CrPC falls under Chapter VI titled “Process to compel appearance.”
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that a person, whose appearance is required before the court, appears before it.
Section 174A IPC punishes a person who fails to appear before the court when a proclamation has been published under Section 82 CrPC.
The purpose of this section is to impose penal consequences for defying a court order that mandates a person’s presence.
Section 174A IPC is an independent and substantive offense that remains valid even if the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is extinguished.
It is a stand-alone offense and the prosecution can proceed even after the proclamation is no longer in effect.

Issues & Rulings:

Issue 1: Whether the status of Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 CrPC subsists if the accused is acquitted in the main offense?
- No, once the accused is acquitted in the main offense, the proclamation under Section 82 CrPC becomes null and void, as the accused’s presence is no longer required before the court.
Issue 2: Whether the subsistence of the proclamation order under Section 82 CrPC is required for authorities to proceed against the accused for the offense committed under Section 174A IPC?
- Yes, the prosecution can still proceed against the accused for not appearing before the court when the proclamation was in effect.
- While Section 174A IPC cannot be initiated independently of Section 82 CrPC, it can continue even if the proclamation is no longer in effect.
- The Trial Court can take note of the acquittal in the main offense and may close the proceedings under Section 174A IPC if a prayer is made and circumstances so warrant.
- Ultimately, the Supreme Court closed the proceedings under Section 174A IPC.

✅ Mahesh Singh Banzara v. State of MP

Right of Appeal as a Fundamental Right: The Court held that the right of appeal from a judgment of conviction affecting the liberty of a person is also a fundamental right. This is in line with the expansive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Implication of Article 21: The Court emphasized that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not just limited to the protection of life and personal liberty but also extends to procedural safeguards. The right to appeal ensures that a person who faces a conviction and potential deprivation of liberty can challenge the judgment in a higher court, preserving the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.
Key Takeaway: Appeal rights are intrinsic to the right to personal liberty. The right to appeal serves as a mechanism to prevent any unjust or illegal deprivation of liberty, ensuring due process and access to higher judicial scrutiny.

✅ Anil Kumar J. Bavishi v. Mahendra Kumar Jalan

Offenses under Sections 193/199/200 IPC: The Court clarified that offenses under Section 193 (false evidence), Section 199 (false statement made in a declaration), and Section 200 (using as true a declaration known to be false) IPC can be committed both inside and outside the court.
Procedure for Offenses Committed Before the Court: If such offenses are committed before the court, the mandatory procedure under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC must be followed. This procedure involves the court initiating proceedings based on the offense, and a complaint being filed by the court itself.
Procedure for Offenses Committed Outside the Court (e.g., Before a Tribunal): If the offense occurs outside the court (e.g., before a tribunal or other authority), the remedy is to file a private complaint. In such cases, a complaint by the concerned court under Section 195 CrPC is not required, and the matter must be pursued by the individual (victim) through a private complaint.

✅ Kim Wansoo v. State of UP

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: The Court reaffirmed that quashing of criminal proceedings is typically sought under the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. However, this does not mean that quashing cannot also be done under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court can invoke its extraordinary constitutional powers to quash proceedings if necessary.
Judicial Review in Criminal Matters: The High Court has the authority to exercise judicial review in criminal matters. This power of judicial review can be invoked either under Article 226 of the Constitution (writ jurisdiction) or under Section 482 CrPC (inherent power) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

✅ Musheer Alam v. State of UP

Police Arrest After Chargesheet Filed: The Court observed that once the investigation is complete, the chargesheet is filed, and the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case, it makes no sense for the police to arrest the accused at that stage. Arresting the accused after these procedural steps have been completed is unnecessary.
Anticipatory Bail Application: The Anticipatory Bail application was disposed of with the direction for the accused to appear before the Court and apply for regular bail there, instead of being arrested before the trial process.

Related Case Law:

Siddharth v. State of UP (2021 SC): The Supreme Court clarified that it is not mandatory for the police to arrest and produce the accused at the time of filing the chargesheet. The mere filing of a chargesheet does not automatically warrant arrest.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021 SC): The Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent the routine arrest of accused persons, especially those who were not arrested during investigation or had cooperated with the investigation, upon the filing of the chargesheet.
Tarsem Lal v. ED (2024 SC): The Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot arrest an accused after the trial court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet.

✅ Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra

Invocation of Section 156(3) CrPC:

Order a police investigation under Section 156(3), or
Directly take cognizance of the complaint under Section 200 and issue process under Section 204, or
Dismiss the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.
Section 156(3) CrPC is usually invoked when the police refuse to register an FIR.
In such cases, the complainant can file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate and request that the Magistrate order a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
However, it is within the discretion of the Magistrate to decide whether to:

Judicial Mind of the Magistrate:

Determine whether a cognizable offense is made out from the complaint.
Assess whether there is a need for police investigation to gather evidence that the complainant cannot procure independently.
When ordering the registration of an FIR, the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to:

Criteria for Ordering Police Investigation:

The complaint reveals the commission of a cognizable offense, and
There is a necessity for police investigation to gather evidence that is beyond the complainant's reach or requires police assistance.
The Magistrate should order the registration of an FIR only if:
The Magistrate is not required to order police investigation merely because a complaint under Section 200 CrPC has been filed. If the complainant's evidence is within their possession or can be gathered by summoning witnesses, the Magistrate can proceed with the trial without directing the police to investigate.

Judicial Approach of the Magistrate:

The Magistrate must evaluate whether the police investigation is necessary for justice.
If the allegations are simple and the Court can proceed directly to trial, the Magistrate should record evidence and move forward rather than passing the matter to the police under Section 156(3).
However, if the allegations are complex and require a detailed investigation that only the police can conduct, the Magistrate may order a police investigation.

Changes under S.175(3) BNSS:

Mandatory Requirement: If the police refuse to lodge an FIR, the complainant must apply to the Superintendent of Police before approaching the Magistrate. The application to the Magistrate must include a copy of the application to the Superintendent, along with an affidavit.
Magistrate’s Enquiry: The Magistrate has the power to conduct an enquiry before directing the registration of the FIR.
Consideration of Police Refusal: The Magistrate must consider the submissions of the police officer who refused to register the FIR before making a decision under Section 175(3).
Section 175(3) BNSS corresponds to Section 156(3) CrPC and codifies judicially evolved practices with added safeguards.

✅ ED v. Shubhash Sharma

Mandatory Production Before Magistrate (Section 57 CrPC): Section 57 CrPC mandates that an arrestee must be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. This provision is in alignment with the Fundamental Right under Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against illegal detention and ensures the arrestee’s right to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and to be brought before a magistrate.
Consequences of Failure to Produce Within 24 Hours: If the arrestee is not produced before the Magistrate within the stipulated 24 hours, the arrest becomes illegal. As a result, the accused must be released on bail. This safeguards the personal liberty of the individual and prevents unlawful detention beyond the prescribed period.

✅ M/S JM Laboratories v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Magistrate’s Order Under Section 204 CrPC: The Magistrate’s order issuing summons under Section 204 CrPC must be a speaking/reasoned order. This ensures that the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind while issuing the summons, demonstrating that the decision is not arbitrary but based on a careful evaluation of the case.
Judicial Mind Application: A reasoned order ensures transparency in the judicial process and protects the rights of the parties involved, especially the accused, by providing clear reasoning for why the summons is being issued.

✅ Vinod Kumar v. State (GNCTD)

Procedure for Contradicting a Witness Using Section 161 CrPC Statement: The Supreme Court observed that witnesses cannot be confronted with their Section 161 CrPC statements during cross-examination unless the procedure is properly followed. When a portion of a prior statement is used to contradict a witness, it must first be proved through the investigating officer. Reproducing the portion of the prior statement in brackets within the witness’s deposition, without proving it through the investigating officer, is not permissible.
Correct Procedure for Contradiction: The trial judge should mark the portions of the prior statement used to contradict the witness. These marked portions should be identified with labels (e.g., AA, BB) and should not form part of the deposition unless proven through the investigating officer.
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA): If the witness admits to making the prior statement, there is no need to prove it again through the investigating officer. As clarified in cases like Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (1959 SC) and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1952 SC), Section 145 IEA comes into play only if the witness denies making the prior statement.

✅ State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore

Principles Regarding the Permissibility of Registration of a Second FIR:

Counter-Complaint or Rival Version: A second FIR may be permissible if it is a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts for which an earlier FIR has already been registered.
Different Ambit of FIRs: A second FIR can be allowed when the scope or ambit of the two FIRs is different, even though they arise from the same set of circumstances. This implies that if new facts or perspectives emerge, they can be addressed through a second FIR.
Larger Conspiracy: A second FIR may be registered when investigations or other avenues reveal that the earlier FIR is part of a larger conspiracy. This may be based on new evidence that links the initial incident to a broader network of criminal activity.
Uncovered Facts or Circumstances: A second FIR may be permissible when investigations or related individuals bring to light new facts or circumstances that were previously unknown and materially relevant to the case.
Separate Incidents: The registration of a second FIR is allowed if the incident is separate, even if the offenses are similar or different in nature. This ensures that different criminal activities or offenses, though they may have some common elements, are treated separately and investigated independently.

✅ Muskan Enterprises v. The State of Punjab

Differences Between Criminal and Civil Procedure Laws: Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and Civil Procedure Code (CPC) have fundamentally different procedural laws, though both are guided by the principle of fairness and the rule of audi alteram partem (right to a fair hearing). Res judicata under Section 11 CPC does not apply to criminal proceedings, and there is no equivalent provision in the CrPC like Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. While Section 114 and Order 47 CPC empower civil courts to review their decisions, Section 362 CrPC bars any review of a criminal judgment, ensuring finality.
Successive Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: There is no blanket ban on filing successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court. When a successive petition is filed, the court must assess whether there has been a change in facts or circumstances, which justifies the filing of the second petition.
Change of Law as a Basis for Successive Petition: Change of law can be considered a substantial change in circumstances, giving the High Court jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent petition, even if the earlier petition was withdrawn without leave. The High Court must be satisfied that the subsequent petition is warranted to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
Court’s Interpretation: “The words mean what they say…” – This simple principle reflects that the court will adhere to the clear and plain meaning of statutory provisions while considering applications under Section 482 CrPC, ensuring that justice is not denied due to technicalities.

✅ Reena Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto

Wife's Maintenance Order: The wife was granted maintenance under Section 125 CrPC by the family court, indicating her entitlement to maintenance from her husband.
Restitution of Conjugal Rights: The husband obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), but despite the decree, the wife did not return to the matrimonial home.
Husband’s Revision Petition: The husband filed a Revision Petition against the maintenance order. The Revision Court ruled that the wife had withdrawn from the husband's society without reasonable excuse and had not returned, despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Consequently, the court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance, applying Section 125(4) CrPC, which disqualifies a wife from maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without reasonable cause.
SC's Observation on Maintenance Proceedings: The Supreme Court observed that although maintenance proceedings are civil in nature, they are provided under the CrPC for being a quicker and cheaper remedy for the wife to secure maintenance.
SC’s Ruling on Wife’s Right to Maintenance: The Supreme Court upheld the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, stating that merely the passing of a restitution of conjugal rights decree and the wife’s non-compliance does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance.The SC emphasized that the matter should be decided based on individual facts and circumstances, considering whether the wife had a valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically extinguish the wife's right to maintenance or attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC. The decision must depend on the evidence presented in each case.
Judicial Authority and Family Court Findings: The Family Court’s findings that the wife’s refusal to live with the husband was unjustified are not binding on the Magistrate when deciding an application under Section 125 CrPC. The Magistrate must assess the case based on the evidence adduced, and it must be decided on the facts, not merely on prior findings of the Family Court.

✅ Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala

Legal Heirs' Right to Appeal Post Death of the Accused: Under Section 394(2) CrPC, after the death of the accused, the legal heirs of the accused/convict can apply for the continuation of appeal against conviction. This allows the heirs to clear the stigma attached to the accused and his family.
Reliance on the Principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Case: The Supreme Court in this case relied upon the five golden principles (Panchsheel) for evaluating circumstantial evidence, as laid down in the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984 SC) case.
Principles for Evaluating Circumstantial Evidence: The testimony of each prosecution and defense witness must be meticulously discussed and analyzed to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. Circumstantial evidence relies on inferences to connect it to a conclusion of fact. The reasonable inferences drawn from each witness’s testimony must be explicitly stated.
Each link in the incriminating circumstantial evidence must be carefully examined to establish if each circumstance is individually proven. Collectively, these circumstances should form an unbroken chain that is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.
The judgment must clearly explain why specific evidence was accepted or rejected, and how the conclusion of guilt was logically derived from the evidence. The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt was based on a careful evaluation of circumstances and should ensure they are incompatible with any other reasonable hypothesis.

✅ Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI

Service of Notice Under Section 41 CrPC: The service of notice under Section 41 CrPC (and Section 35 BNSS) through WhatsApp or other electronic modes is not recognized as a valid mode of service under CrPC or BNSS.
Valid Modes of Service: The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to traditional modes of service for notices in criminal proceedings. Electronic methods like WhatsApp do not satisfy the legal requirements for serving notices under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or the BNSS.

✅ B.N. John v. State of UP

Meaning of "Complaint" under Section 2(d) CrPC: A "complaint" as defined under Section 2(d) of CrPC refers specifically to a complaint filed before a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate.
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings: The SC quashed the criminal proceedings since no cognizable offense was made out from the FIR. The complainant attempted to introduce crucial facts in his Section 161 CrPC statements, but the SC found these facts to be afterthoughts, as they were not mentioned in the initial FIR.
Missing Facts and Afterthoughts: If vital facts are missing from the FIR, which the complainant was already aware of at the time of filing, and are later introduced, it suggests these facts were fabricated after the FIR was registered. This undermines the credibility of the complainant's case.
FIR's Role and Requirements: While the FIR is not expected to contain every detail of the incident, it must disclose the nature of the offense. If it fails to do so and does not trigger the legal process effectively, it could lead to the case being quashed.

✅ Laxmi Das v. The State of W.B.

Abetment of Suicide under Section 306 IPC

Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide) read with Section 107 IPC (Abetment) requires certain criteria to be fulfilled i.e. Direct or indirect instigation by the accused. Proximity in time to the commission of the suicide. Clear mens rea (intention) to abet the commission of suicide.

Elements Required to Prove Abetment of Suicide

For the offense of abetment to suicide to be made out, there must be proof of direct or indirect instigation or incitement by the accused. This instigation must be in close proximity to the act of suicide, and it should be sufficiently clear that the accused's actions or words led the victim to feel they had no other option but to commit suicide. The mens rea (intention) of the accused to abet the suicide must be clearly evident.

Insufficient Evidence for Abetment in This Case

The mother’s disapproval of the marriage and a comment like "don't be alive if you cannot live without marrying your lover" was not sufficient to constitute abetment of suicide. Such remarks did not amount to direct or indirect instigation or incitement that could have led the victim to take the extreme step of suicide. The court pointed out that mere disapproval or emotional outbursts, even if they seem harsh, do not create the necessary environment or push the deceased to the edge for sustaining a charge under Section 306 IPC.

Positive Act of Instigation

To sustain the charge of abetment, there needs to be a positive act by the accused, creating an environment that compels the victim to feel they have no escape but to commit suicide. The mere presence of verbal disapproval or a comment urging the victim to not live does not rise to the level of instigating suicide under Section 306 IPC.

✅ Vijay v. State

Burden of Proof under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)

Section 105 IEA places the burden of proof on the accused to establish that their case falls under any General/Special Exceptions. This is especially important in cases where the accused pleads grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (which relates to culpable homicide).

Elements to Prove for Exception-1 to Section 300 IPC

To invoke Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, the accused must prove three key elements:
- Grave and Sudden Provocation: There must be provocation which is both grave and sudden.
- Loss of Self-Control: The provocation must have deprived the accused of his power of self-control.
- Causing the Death of the Victim: The accused must have caused the death of the victim while being in a state where they had lost their power of self-control.

Suddenness of Provocation

Sudden provocation involves two key factors:
- Unexpected: The provocation must be unexpected. If the accused planned to provoke himself in advance, it cannot be deemed sudden.
- Proximity: The time interval between the provocation and the homicide must be brief. If the killing occurs within minutes of provocation, it qualifies as sudden provocation. However, if there is a significant time gap (like several hours), it cannot be considered sudden provocation.

Graveness of Provocation

The gravenness of provocation is one of the most critical aspects to evaluate. The accused’s statement that he was provoked is not enough. The court must apply an objective test. Test for Grave Provocation: The court considers whether a reasonable person, situated in the same circumstances as the accused, would lose self-control in response to the provocation.
Reasonable Man Standard:
- A reasonable man is an average person, not perfect or ideal. His responses can vary based on social conditions and the community's standards in which he lives.
- Courts must consider the cultural context and the accused’s societal background (e.g., educational and social factors).
- Ordinary abuse in society doesn’t usually qualify as grave provocation. However, acts like adultery are often considered grave provocation in many cultures and legal systems.

Deprivation of Self-Control

If grave and sudden provocation is established, the court will generally assume that the accused lost their self-control while committing the homicide.
While there may be cases where the prosecution proves the accused killed with a cool mind (despite the provocation), these are rare instances.
The court usually holds that, when grave provocation is established, it is presumed that the accused was deprived of self-control at the time of the incident.

Court’s Approach

The court’s approach is that the provocation should be significant enough to upset not just a hasty or hot-tempered person, but also an individual with ordinary calmness and self-control.
The court must consider whether a reasonable person, in the same position as the accused, would have reacted similarly to the provocation.
The provocation, therefore, must be viewed in light of the ordinary, average person’s response to it.

✅ Dalip Kumar v. The State of Uttaranchal

Bodily Injuries Are Not Necessary to Prove Sexual Assault

It is a common misconception that bodily injuries are essential to prove a case of sexual assault.
The court emphasized that bodily harm is not a prerequisite for establishing that sexual assault occurred.
Sexual assault can happen even in the absence of physical injuries. The focus should instead be on the nature of the assault, the conduct of the accused, and the victim's testimony.

The Myth of Physical Injuries in Sexual Assault Cases

Victims of sexual assault do not always exhibit visible bodily injuries. The response to trauma can vary greatly from one person to another.
Factors like fear, shock, social stigma, and a feeling of helplessness can significantly influence the victim's response.
Psychological trauma often affects the victim more than physical injuries. The emotional and psychological impact of sexual assault is profound and should be considered in legal proceedings.
It is unrealistic and unjust to expect all victims to react in the same way, especially when social and cultural factors (such as the stigma of sexual assault) prevent them from disclosing the incident.

Stigma and Barriers to Disclosure

The stigma associated with sexual assault can create significant barriers for women when it comes to reporting the incident or disclosing it to others.
Many victims hesitate to report due to the fear of being judged, social alienation, or disbelief from family or society.
This stigma often leads to delayed reporting and reluctance to seek help, making it difficult for victims to come forward and share their experiences.

Monthly Magazine Judgments