- This topic is empty.
October 9, 2022 at 9:35 PM #112027GigaGuest
Ss.2(h),173 of Cr.P.C
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben V. State of Gujarat & Ors. ,(2013) 1 SCC 314
K.S.P.RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
Meaning of – Held ,it inter alia includes:
(1) proceeding to the spot and ascertaining facts and circumstances of case,
(2) tracing out accused, arresting him and ascertaining motive how preparation
was made for and how offence was committed, other connected persons/accused , if any,
(3) collecting evidence by examining witnesses , search of places connected with offence and seizure of articles connected with crime , and
(4) evaluation of collected materials so that case can be forwarded for trail, etc.
AIR 1955 SC 196, A three-Judge Bench in H.N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi , while dealing
with “investigation”, has stated that under the Code, investigation consists generally of the following steps:
(1) Proceeding to the spot,
(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case,
(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender,
(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of
(a) the examination of various persons (including the accused) and the reduction of their
statements into writing, if the officer thinks fit,
(b) the search of places or seizure of things considered necessary for the investigation and to be
produced at the trial, and
(5) Formation of the opinion as to whether on the material collected, there is a case to place the
accused before a Magistrate for trial and, if so, taking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of a charge-sheet under Section 173.
October 9, 2022 at 9:39 PM #112028GigaGuest
In Niranjan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh(1957 AIR 142 1956 SCR 734) , it has been laid down that investigation is not an inquiry or trial before the court and that is why the legislature did not contemplate any irregularity in investigation as of sufficient importance to vitiate or otherwise form any infirmity in the inquiry or trial.
In S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari , it has been observed that the power of police to investigate is independent of any control by the Magistrate. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha and others, it has been observed that there is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment and further investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive in the police department.
Coming to the case at hand, it is evincible that the arrest had taken place a day prior to the passing
of order of stay. It is also manifest that the order of remand was passed by the learned Magistrate after considering the allegations in the FIR but not in a routine or mechanical manner. It has to be borne in mind that the effect of the order of the High Court regarding stay of investigation could only have bearing on the action of the investigating agency. The order of remand which is a judicial act, as we perceive, does not suffer from any infirmity. The only ground that was highlighted before the High Court as investigation, the order of remand is sensitively susceptible and, therefore, as a logical corollary, the detention is unsustainable. It is worthy to note that the investigation had already commenced and as a resultant consequence, the accused was arrested. Thus, we are disposed to think that the order of remand cannot be regarded as untenable in law. It is well accepted principle that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody or police custody by the competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal. As has been stated in the cases of B.R. Rao (supra) and Kanu Sanyal (supra), the court is required to scrutinize the legality or otherwise of the order of detention which has been passed. Unless the court is satisfied that a
person has been committed to jail custody by virtue of an order that suffers from the vice of lack of
jurisdiction or absolute illegality, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted. It is apposite to note that the investigation, as has been dealt with in various authorities of this Court, is neither an inquiry nor trial.
It is within the exclusive domain of the police to investigate and is independent of any control by the Magistrate. The sphere of activity is clear cut and well demarcated. Thus viewed, we do not perceive any error in the order passed by the High Court refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus as the detention by virtue of the judicial order passed by the Magistrate remanding the accused to custody is valid in law.
October 9, 2022 at 9:57 PM #112033GigaGuest
CRPC S- 2(h), 156
Investigation-Is in exclusive domain of police-Magistrate has no control on it.
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben v. State of Gujara and ors.(AIR 2013 SC 313)
K.S.RADHAKRISHANA AND DIPAK MISHRA, JJ.
Where the magistrate after considering the allegations in FIR had remanded the accused to custody
and subsequently thereof order staying investigation comes to be passed , the stay order so passed would have no impact on remand order. Stay of investigation could only have bearing on the action of the investigating agency and it is difficult to perceive that the order of remand which is a judicial act, suffers fromany infirmity. Stay of investigation would not make the order of remand and the consequential detention unsustainable necessitating issuance of writ of habeas corpus. It is well accepted principle that a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody by the competent Court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal.
October 9, 2022 at 9:59 PM #112034GigaGuest
CRPC Secs. 161,162
Shyamal Ghosh v. State of Bengal.(2013 (1) SCJ 61)
A.K. PATTANAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR , JJ.
If a significant omission is made in a statement of a witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. the same may
amount to contradiction.
In terms of the explanation to Sec 162 Cr.P.C. which deals with an omission to state of a
fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub- section (1),such omission may amount to
contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether there is any omission which amounts to contradiction in particular context shall be a question of fact. A bare reading of this explanation reveals that if a significant omission is made a statement of a witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. , the same may amount to contradiction and the question whether it is amounts is a question of fact in each case.
The basic element which is unambiguously clear from the explanation to section 162
Cr.P.C. is use of the expression ‘may’. To put it aptly, it is not every omission or discrepancy that may amount to material contradiction so as to give the accused any advantage. If the legislative intent was to the contra , then the legislature would have used the expression ‘shall’ in place of the word ‘may’ .The word ‘may’ introduces an element of discretion which has to be exercised by the court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with law. Furthermore, whether such omission , variation or discrepancy is a material contradiction or not is again a question of fact which is to be determined with reference to the facts of given case. The concept of contradiction in evidence under criminal jurisprudence , thus , cannot be stated in any absolute terms and has to be construed liberally so as to leave desirable discretion with the court to determine whether it is contradiction or material contradiction which renders the entire evidence of the witness untrustworthily and affects the case of the prosecution materially.
October 10, 2022 at 7:59 PM #112101Tina DUGuest
The FIR in criminal case is vital and valuable piece of evidence, though may not be substantive piece of evidence. Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was responsible for the offence in question.
‘Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr.’,
2012 CRI.L.J.2101, the Supreme Court held :
“The FIR in criminal case is vital and valuable piece
of evidence though may not be substantive piece of
evidence. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging
of the FIR in respect of the commission of an offence
is to obtain early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was committed, the
names of actual culprits and the part played by them
as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the
scene of occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the
FIR, it looses the advantage of spontaneity, danger
creeps in of the introduction of coloured version,
exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of
large number of consultations/deliberations.
Undoubtedly, the promptness in lodging the FIR is an
assurance regarding truth of the informant’s version.
A promptly lodged FIR reflects the first hand account of what has actually happened, and who was
responsible for the offence in question.”
October 10, 2022 at 9:24 PM #112113Tina DUGuest
Where the FIR is lodged soon after the incident promptly, there is least possibility of
fabrication of a false story in a short interval.
When the conduct of witnesses who claim to be present at
the spot but do not report the matter to the police, nor do
interfere in the scuffle nor do take victims to the hospital,
such conduct is quite unnatural and unreasonable and is not
in accordance with the acceptable human behaviour making
their presence at the spot highly suspicious.
Injured is the most natural witness who is accorded a special
status in law.
Where efforts were made to summons and examine a witness
but he was not traceable, it cannot be said that the prosecution
did not intentionally or deliberately produce him in the Court
for giving evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn
against the prosecution.
The Court are concerned with quality and not quantity of
evidence and in a criminal trial conviction can be based on
the sole testimony of a witness if it inspires confidence.
Non recovery of crime weapon is not fatal to the prosecution
case and does not discredit the testimony of the injured.
To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, It is not
essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. It is sufficient if there is present an
intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. If
the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or
intention to cause death, the nature, extent or character of
the injury or whether such injury was sufficient to actually
causing death are irrelevant factors for adjudging the
culpability under section 307 IPC.
The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the
accused at the act, the motive for commission of the offence,
the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of
the victim selected for causing injuries and the severity of
the blow or blows are important factors that can be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a
particular case, the accused can be convicted for an attempt
Victim is not to be forgotten in criminal justice system and
Section 357 Cr. P.C. Should be read as imposing mandatory
duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of
awarding compensation in every case.
- Ankush Shivaji Gaikwal vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (6) SCC 770.
- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 324.
- Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259.
October 15, 2022 at 5:15 PM #112405ritu raj JNUGuest
Suicide is a major public health concern. Suicide is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Based on recent mortality data, suicide in some populations is on the rise.
Suicide is defined as death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with intent to die as a result of the behavior.
A suicide attempt is a non-fatal, self-directed, potentially injurious behavior with intent to die as a result of the behavior. A suicide attempt might not result in injury.
Suicidal ideation refers to thinking about, considering, or planning suicide.
Suicide is a Leading Cause of Death in the United States
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) WISQARS Leading Causes of Death Reports, in 2020:
Suicide was the twelfth leading cause of death overall in the United States, claiming the lives of over 45,900 people.
Suicide was the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10-14 and 25-34 , the third leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 15-24, and the fourth leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 35 and 44.
There were nearly two times as many suicides (45,979) in the United States as there were homicides (24,576).
In 2019, suicide was the 10th leading cause of death (47,511 suicide deaths). In 2020, liver disease and COVID-19 surpassed suicide as leading causes of death, but suicide deaths decreased compared to 2019 totals (45,979 suicide deaths). Suicide is not among the twelve leading causes of death among children in the 0-4 year age group nor in adults in the age group 65 years and older.
Trends over Time
Suicide rates are based on the number of people who have died by suicide per 100,000 population. When comparing rates from one year to another year, ‘age-adjusted’ rates allow for differences in population age distributions and changes in population size over time to be taken into account.
Figure 1 shows age-adjusted suicide rates in the United States for each year from 2000 through 2020 for the total population, and for males and females separately.
The total age-adjusted suicide rate in the United States increased 35.2% from 10.4 per 100,000 in 2000 to 14.2 per 100,000 in 2018, before declining to 13.9 per 100,000 in 2019 and declining again to 13.5 per 100,000 in 2020.
In 2020, the suicide rate among males was 4 times higher (22.0 per 100,000) than among females (5.5 per 100,000).
METHOD OD SUICIDE
The percentages of suicide deaths by method among females and males in 2020. Among females, the most common methods of suicide were firearm (33.0%), suffocation (29.1%), and poisoning (28.6%). Among males, the most common methods of suicide were firearm (57.9%) followed by suffocation (26.7%).
Around 4.9% of adults aged 18 and older in the United States had serious thoughts about suicide in 2020.
Among adults across all age groups, the prevalence of serious suicidal thoughts was highest among young adults aged 18-25 (11.3%).
The prevalence of serious suicidal thoughts was highest among adults aged 18 and older who report having multiple (two or more) races (11.0%).
October 15, 2022 at 5:22 PM #112407ritu raj JNUGuest
Symptoms of mental illnesses
Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness or pessimism
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite or weight changes (or both)
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment