Supreme Court Criminal Digest

  • A. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 20—Executive Magistrate—Appointment of Police Commissioner as Executive Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate to deal with problem of trafficking of minor girls and women in metropolitan city of Bombay—By impugned order High Court set aside the eviction of respondent holding that notification does not empower Commissioner of Police to assume jurisdiction of District Magistrate—status quo ante ordered to be maintained till appointment of Commissioner of Police as Additional District Magistrate
  • Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.
  • AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020 - The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
  • Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Visakha Industries and Another-10/12/2019 - DEFAMATION: Google hosts the Google Groups. The only question of fact is whether the appellant is in control of the said Group or it is, as claimed, controlled by its Parent Company. Hence, the issue is limited as to the role of appellant and its participation in the business of providing Google Groups platform and raising revenues for the same through advertisements, etc. apart from marketing it. The appellant, it is contended, cannot be allowed to disown its role in Google Groups. The appellant has withheld the actual nature of the activities it is carrying on in India. A party must come to court with clean hands.
  • Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs Meenakshi Marwah and another-11/03/2005 - Civil vs Criminal Proceeding-effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.
  • M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER  VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020 - FARE INVESTIGATION-Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
  • Mohd. Yousuf Vs Smt. Afaq Jahan and ANOTHER-02/01/2006 - Proceeding under section 200 and thereafter sending it for inquiry and report under Section 202. When the magistrate applies his mind not for the purpose of proceeding under the subsequent sections of this Chapter, but for taking action of some other kind, e.g., ordering investigation under Section 156(3), or issuing a search warrant for the purpose of the investigation, he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of the offence
  • R. Rajagopal alias R. R. Gopal and another Versus State of TAMIL NADU and others-07/10/1994 - Penal Code, 1860—Sections 499 and 500-Freedom of press vis-a-vis the right to privacy of the citizens of this country-once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others.
  • RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020 - Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a co­accused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co­ accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other co­accused.
  • Raja Vs. State by the Inspector of Police-10/12/2019 - TEST IDENTIFICATION-there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which the TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. In certain cases, this Court considered delay of 10 days to be fatal while in other cases even delay of 40 days or more was not considered to be fatal at all.
  • SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020 - Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC-It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.
  • Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat & Ors-02/03/2020 - Criminal-Whether the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and against whom the trial is in progress, is required to be heard and/or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC – further investigation qua one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date?
  • Sham Singh Vs The State of Haryana-21/08/2018 - Rape Case acquittal -Trial Court and the High Court have convicted the accused merely on conjectures and surmises. The Courts have come to the conclusion based on assumptions and not on legally acceptable evidence, but such assumptions were not well founded, inasmuch as such assumptions are not corroborated by any reliable evidence. Medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution relating to offence of rape.
  • State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Amar Lal-10/12/2019 - Acquittal-It appears from the records that the respondent as under trial had undergone 2 years 8 months 11 days of custody and after his conviction on 24.01.1995 by the Sessions Judge he remained incustody till 18.11.2006 completing 11 years 9 months 26 days. Thus, he has undergone total custody of 14 years 6 months 7 days.
  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai-01/04/2003 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 273 and 284—Recording of evidence by video conferencing—Issuance of commission—Permissibility—When attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience—Commission can be issued to record evidence by way of video conferencing.
  • Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another – 29/1/2020 - Anticipatory Bail-An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
  • VINAY SHARMA  Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-14/2/2020  - Nirbhaya’s case-Vinay Sharma – a death-row convict-we do not find any ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
  • Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat 16/10/2019 - To ensure that a “proper investigation” takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police - which such Magistrate is to supervise - Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and which power would continue to enure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences.