SC criminal digest of September
Bail – One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. (Para 8)
PACL v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 747 : 2023 INSC 795
Can anticipatory bail be granted to proclaimed offender? only in exceptional & rare cases, holds the Supreme Court.
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 : 2023 INSC 784
Certified copy can be produced to prove original sale deed in trial.
Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 811 : 2023 INSC 835
Cheque bounce case can be quashed u/s 482 only if the amount is patently non-recoverable; whether debt time-barred or not is a question of evidence.
K. Hymavathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 752 : 2023 INSC 811
Circumstantial Evidence – In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of unbroken events unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and none other. (Para 14)
Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 100 (4) – Plea of unreliability of the testimony of the independent witness – It is a general provision relating to search and applies to a closed place, as for example, a residence, office, shop, a built-up premises etc, where a search is required to be conducted by the investigation. It is in this context that sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. provides that to maintain the purity of the process, before undertaking a search, a couple of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality where the place to be searched is located, be joined as witnesses to the search. (Para 24 – 25)
Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control Bureau, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 813 : 2023 INSC 852
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 – There is nothing in Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from looking into the papers of the chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness. The Judge may do this or he may make over the recorded statement to the lawyer for the accused so that he may use it for this purpose – The proviso would prevent the Court from using statements made by a person to a police officer in the course of investigation for any other purpose than that mentioned in the proviso but it does not in any other way affect the power that lies in the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu. (Para 45-48)
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 162 – Witnesses to the panchnamas and the seizures acted as mere attestors to the documents and did not disclose in their own words as to how these objects were discovered, i.e., at whose instance and how. Ergo, no lawful validity attaches to these proceedings recorded by the police in the context of collection of all this evidence. (Para 32)
Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814 : 2023 INSC 839
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 313 – To enable an accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence must be put to him. But where there has been a failure in putting those circumstances to the accused, the same would not ipso facto vitiate the trial unless it is shown that its non-compliance has prejudiced the accused. Where there is a delay in raising the plea, or the plea is raised for the first time in the Apex Court, it could be assumed that no prejudice had been felt by the accused. (Para 44)
Sunil v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 815 : 2023 INSC 840
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 323 – High Court directed the Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 IPC only after the conclusion of the entire evidence of prosecution witness – It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to wait for the completion of the entire evidence of the prosecution witness, which is inclusive of cross-examination – Section 323 Cr.P.C. gives a discretion to the Court to exercise its power at any stage of the proceeding before signing judgment – The power under Section 323 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment – The said power may be invoked even after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness. The key requirement for the invocation of the power under the Section 323 is that the learned Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions.
Archana v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 742
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 366 – 368 – In a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death, the High Court is under an obligation to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 367 and 368 resply of the CrPC. Under these Sections the High Court must not only see whether the order passed by the Sessions Court is correct but it is under an obligation to examine the entire evidence for itself, apart from and independently of the Sessions Court’s appraisal and assessment of that evidence – The Court must examine the appeal record for itself, arrive at a view whether a further enquiry or taking of additional evidence is desirable or not, and then come to its own conclusion on the entire material on record whether conviction of the condemned prisoner is justified and the sentence of death should be confirmed – In this case, the court found serious lapses on the part of the defence in not proving major contradictions in the form of material omissions surfacing from the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses – remit the matter back to the High Court for deciding the death reference. (Para 2, 57-60)
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 744 : 2023 INSC 793