A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- Significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of PW-3 -- Omissions are so relevant that they become contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162 of the CR.P.C. -- Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-3 as reliable -- PW-1 is not a witness to the theory of last seen together -- Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt -- When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established -- There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused -- Two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established -- Conviction and sentence set aside

(Para 10-12)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 145 -- Contradiction in statement – Proof of -- Portion of the prior statement shown to the witness for contradicting the witness must be proved through the investigating officer -- Unless the said portion of the prior statement used for contradiction is duly proved, it cannot be reproduced in the deposition of the witnesses -- The correct procedure is that the Trial Judge should mark the portions of the prior statements used for contradicting the witness -- The said portions can be put in bracket and marked as AA, BB, etc. -- The marked portions cannot form a part of the deposition unless the same are proved.

(Para 11)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 -- Murder -- Common intention -- For convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds -- It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime -- It must be established that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused -- Prosecution failed to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4/ appellants had common intention with accused No.1-JS prior to the accused No.1-JS’s shooting at the deceased resulting in her death – Conviction set aside.

(Para 1, 2, 18-20)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Recovery of weapon --  Investigating Officer neither proved nor exhibited the disclosure statement of the appellant accused during his deposition -- Investigating Officer did not distinctly identify the accused persons at whose instance, the particular weapon, i.e., axe (kulhari) or dagger (katari), was recovered -- No indication in the testimony that he took the signatures of the accused persons on the recovery memos -- Not even this, the said witness did not even state that he signed and attested the memorandums under which the recoveries were effected -- Therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case regarding the disclosure statements rendered by the appellant-accused and the recoveries allegedly made in furtherance thereof remains unproved for want of proper evidence.

(Para 32)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 27, 106 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Murder of six innocent persons -- Investigating Officer did not examine even a single of the villagers living adjacent to the crime scene for establishing the presence of the appellant-accused at or around the crime scene, corresponding to the time of the incident -- Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence regarding the safe keeping of the recovered articles/ material objects, till the same reached the Forensic Science Laboratory -- Prosecution failed to prove even one of the three so-called incriminating circumstances i.e., ‘motive’, ‘last seen’ and ‘recoveries’ in its quest to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused -- Even if, for the sake of arguments the evidence of recovery of weapons were to be accepted, the fact remains that the FSL report does not give any indication regarding the grouping of the blood found on the weapons and hence, the recoveries are of no avail to the prosecution -- The fabric of the prosecution case is full of holes and holes which are impossible to mend -- Conviction of the appellant-accused and death sentence handed down to him can also not be sustained -- Appellant acquitted of the charges.

(Para 33-39)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Death sentence – Life imprisonment – Murder of Wife & 4 Minor Daughters – Must scrutinize not only the nature of the offence but also the totality of the offender’s circumstances -- Certain mitigating factors, especially the Appellant’s lack of criminal antecedents and his reported conduct in prison, tilt the scales in favour of commutation -- There is no material demonstrating that he would remain a perpetual threat to society or that he is beyond reform -- Indeed, the Probation Officer’s input and the Superintendent of District Jail’s report show a potentially reformable individual -- Imposition of capital punishment is an exception and not the rule -- Even where multiple murders have been committed, if there is evidence or at least a reasonable possibility of reform, a lesser sentence must be preferred – Case does not meet the threshold of “the rarest of rare” so as to irrevocably foreclose the option of life imprisonment – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till his last breath.

(Para 21-24)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Evidence law -- Non recovery of the weapon of crime is not fatal to the prosecution case and is not sine qua non for conviction, if there are direct reliable witnesses. Rakesh’s case (2021) 7 SCC 188 relied.

(Para 70)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Evidence law -- Testimony of police personnel involved in recovery of articles need not be disbelieved and testimony of police personnel is to be treated similarly as testimony of any other witness. Karamjit Singh’s case (2003) 5 SCC 291 relied.

(Para 71)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 154 – Murder -- Hostile witness -- Merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely and what is supportive of the prosecution certainly be used. Gangadhar Behera’s case (2002) 8 SCC 381 relied.

(Para 76)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 101 – Murder – Burden of proof -- Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence.

(Para 78)

A. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against unauthorised agent – Quashing of -- Respondent/ accused alleged, had created hundreds of fake user IDs to sell tickets without any authorisation from the railways -- Although the internet and e-tickets were unknown in India when the Act was brought into force, this conduct of accused (who is neither a railway servant nor an authorised agent) nevertheless attracts criminality under Section 143(1)(a) of the Railways Act -- Mere fact of the system of e-reservation and e-tickets being introduced after the enactment of the Act does not render the provision in Section 143 toothless to combat the illegal sale of e-tickets – Criminal proceedings restored.

(Para 15, 19, 28)

B. Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), Section 143 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Criminal proceedings against authorised agent – Quashing of -- Fraudulent activities such as supply of Tatkal e-tickets by creating multiple personal-user IDs and issuing unauthorised e-tickets procured through IRCTC website, contrary to IRCTC Rules -- Section 143 only deals with the actions of unauthorised persons and does not mandate a procedure to be followed by the authorised agents for procuring or supplying tickets to its customers – Section 143 would not be attracted insofar as he is concerned – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 35, 39)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 324, 326, 34 – Grievous hurt – Common intention -- Accused No.3 was armed with a knife and Accused No.2 had in his hand a chopper -- Merely for the reason that the injuries inflicted by Accused no.2 were less than what was inflicted by Accused no.3 and the injuries were not a grievous conviction u/s 326 cannot be converted to Section 324 -- Presence of Accused no.2 on the spot is as an accomplice of Accused no.3 and hence, Section 34 of the IPC is clearly made out –  Accused No.2 ordered to be convicted u/s 326 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced for the same period as was given by the High Court to Accused No.3 i.e. two years RI along with the fine of ? 75,000/-.

(Para 7-11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 – Common intention -- Common intention and the pre-meeting of minds can take place at the spur of the moment itself during the course of the incident.

(Para 7)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 25 -- Extra-judicial confession before Village Police Patil – Admissibility of – Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer – Same is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act -- However, such extra-judicial confession should be found to be true & trustworthy before it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty.

(Para 36, 42)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 137, 154 -- Discovery panchnama – Proof of -- Witness turned hostile -- If the panch witnesses are declared hostile then the prosecution is obliged to prove the contents of the said discovery panchnama through the evidence of the Investigating Officer -- Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved -- From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused.

(Para 47-49)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Motive -- Murder -- Motive is a double-edged weapon -- Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that too for a serious offence like murder -- Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances.

(Para 51)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Burden to establish innocence -- Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt & that too on its own legs -- The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution -- However, in cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours & that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against him -- However, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is subject to one well-settled principle of law -- The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act -- If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence.

(Para 55)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Death by rash and negligent driving – Simple imprisonment for 6 months – Conversion to fine – Permissibly of -- Not a fit case for extending sympathy and taking a lenient view considering that the said rash and negligent act of the accused has caused death of one person as well as injuries to one other – S.L.P. dismissed.

(Para 18)

A. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105, 106 – Stunts on road – Culpable homicide – Death by rash and negligent driving -- When someone does stunts on a public road, endangering public safety, and when the motor sport is not being conducted with the knowledge of the traffic control authorities and ample time has been given to them to take preventive steps, the acts of public stunt, it leads to death would fall in the definition of culpable homicide and if death is not caused then an attempt to cause culpable homicide and such acts would not fall only under section 106 BNS [Analogous to 304-A IPC, 1860] because of the requisite knowledge that such an act is likely to result into death or cause death -- Such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but primafacie amounts to culpable homicide.

(Para 37)

B. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 100, 105 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 482 – Anticipatory bail -- Death by stunt on road – Accident by modified tractor by fitting an extra turbo pump to increase the acceleration -- Video points towards its high speed on a public road -- If a soft stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casualties for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region – Anticipatory bail declined.

(Para 3, 12, 13)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 340 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 193, 199, 200 – False evidence before Tribunal – Private complaint – Maintainability of --- An offence u/s 193/199/200 of IPC can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a court -- Proceedings which are taking before the Tribunal is not a Court, as defined under the law – It is not empowered to entertain such an application as prescribed under the law u/s 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. -- Only way such an application can be entertained and that too, for the precise offences of Sections 193, 199 and 200 is through a private complaint and only relating to the offences before the Tribunal -- Complaint shall be entertained by the concerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be passed.

(Para 10,11)

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Section , 22(1)(d), 26A -- Prohibited article -- No notification issued u/s 26A of the D&C Act, 1940 prohibiting or restricting the aromatic tincture of cardamom -- Absence of such a notification is decisive -- Without it, the tincture remains a licensed medicinal preparation that can be manufactured and sold in accordance with the general rules and the conditions of the license held by the Appellants -- Respondent authorities cannot, on their own accord, treat this lawful product as a “prohibited article.” -- Section 22(1)(d) is not a substitute for Section 26A of the D&C Act, 1940.

(Para 9-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 463, 464 – False document -- Forgery -- Document containing a false recital does not amount to forgery.

(Para 33)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(1)(d) -- Forest Rules of Kullu Division of 1878, Rule 4A -- Cheating – Corruption -- Acquittal -- Gift of land by accused – Sanction of Timber distribution right thereafter -- Mere gift of the half share did not amount to divestment of her forest right as per Rule 4A – Accused had not made any false representation, and she cannot be held to be guilty of cheating -- Accused/ Donor, being the right holder, was entitled to get the Tinder Distribution/ TD and the sanction of TD in her favour is not illegal; hence, the offence punishable u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out – Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2, 36-40)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Circumstantial evidence – Onus on accused -- Onus to explain would shift on to the accused only after the prosecution succeeds in establishing the basic facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused – If the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstances in the first place, then the accused's failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act becomes irrelevant.

(Para 17)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 – Acquittal -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Last seen theory -- Onus on accused -- One of son of deceased’s testimony remotely suggest that any or all of the three accused persons were present in the house or that they had quarrelled with his mother when he left for school -- None of the neighbours had seen the accused present with deceased or that they were seen fleeing away on the fateful morning – Prosecution has not explained as to where the girl child was on the date of the incident -- Likewise, the prosecution also failed to provide any explanation, as to why the other son was not examined in evidence -- Failure to examine them in evidence calls for drawing of adverse inference thereby, further denting the credibility of the prosecution case -- Prosecution failed to prove the chain of incriminating circumstances against the accused-appellants by convincing evidence and beyond the shadow of doubt, so as to affirm their guilt -- Accused-appellants acquitted of the charges by giving them the benefit of doubt – Appeal allowed.

(Para 18-38)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 294, 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 239 -- Offence under SC/ST Act -- Public view – Backyard of private house -- Place of occurrence was at the backyard of the appellant’s house -- Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view -- Persons who accompanied the second respondent/ complainant were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant’s house -- They cannot also be termed as public in general – Appellant discharged from the offence.

(Para 13)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A, 287 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 359, 528 – Death by electrocution in Rolling Mill – Non-compoundable offence -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- When the deceased’s family absolves the accused of any negligence or rash act, it would be impossible for the prosecution to succeed during the trial -- Thus, quashing of cases u/s 304-A IPC, other than roadside accidents, can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, the role assigned to the accused, mens rea, and the guilt of the such person -- After the death, the petitioners helped the complainant family financially and emotionally -- Accident occurred in broad daylight, and as an adult, the victim should have been more careful while performing his duties -- It is not a case where the acts of the Rolling mill or the Manager can be termed as rash or negligent -- Inherent jurisdiction u/s 528 BNSS, 2023 invoked, the FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-18)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Fair trial -- Right of accused – Preservation of call details – Right to privacy of police officials -- Legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings -- While passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/ tower location details u/s 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/ trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials.

(Para 7)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A, 427, 279 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 91 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 65A, 65B -- Death by rash and negligent driving -- Fair trial – Right of accused -- Preservation of call details – Denial of an adequate opportunity to the accused by non-production of the electronic record, which is admissible u/s 65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal trial, would amount to miscarriage of justice -- Power u/s 91 Cr.P.C. must be exercised for production of such evidence, which would assist the Court in discovering the truth in the pursuit of justice -- Learned trial Court directed to pass necessary directions u/s 91 Cr.P.C. for preserving and production of the call details/ tower location details of the phone numbers mentioned in the application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C

(Para 8-10)

Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25, 27, 30 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 309 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Attempt to commit suicide – Use of arms without license -- Petitioner No.1 was handling the licensed revolver of respondent no. 2 and while doing so, an accidental shot was fired -- Petitioner No.1 was having no mens rea to kill himself by committing suicide -- Illegal use of a licenced weapon per se does not constitute an offence u/s 27 of Arms Act – Alleged weapon used was having licence in the name of petitioner No.2 and thus no case is made out u/s 25 of the Arms Act -- Prima facie no offence u/s 30 of Arms Act is made out against the accused, as there was no breach of condition of the arms licence -- FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-14)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 441, 442, 452 -- House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint – Incident at restaurant – Acquittal -- Incident had taken place in a restaurant run by the injured PW-1, which cannot be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or for worship or for the custody of the property -- Appellant could not have been convicted for the offence under Section 452 IPC – Conviction set aside -- Appellant acquitted for the offence u/s 452 IPC.

(Para 10-12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 441, 442, 452 -- House trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- The “house trespass” being an essential ingredient for convicting a person under Section 452, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the accused committed the house trespass and criminal trespass by entering into or unlawfully remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, as contemplated in Section 442 IPC.

(Para 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 , Section 304 Part I – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Benefit of doubt -- Previous enmity between the parties -- A month prior to the date of the incident, an FIR was lodged by the wife of the appellant No.1 against the deceased since he had tried to dispossess the appellants -- Place of the incident is adjacent to the field in possession of the appellants -- Weapons used by the accused persons are axe and sticks commonly used by the agriculturists -- No material to show that there is any premeditation – Possibility of offence being committed by the appellants without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- It cannot be said that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction u/s 302 IPC needs to be altered Part I of Section 304 IPC.

(Para 18-21)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – NDPS Case – Regular  bail -- Recovery of 3.17 Kg. of charas – Sample was not taken from each piece or each strip, 100 gram sample was randomly taken -- It cannot be said that each sample is the representative sample of the allegedly recovered quantity of the applicant -- Bail allowed. Gaunter Edwin Kircher’s case (1993) 3 SCC 145 relied.

(Para 4-9)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (n), 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376(3), 376 (2)(n) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – Applicant submitted hat the victim in her examination u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that she was known to the applicant and she on her own left her house and joined the company of the applicant and they did not establish any physical relationship -- These facts admitted by State -- Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3(a), 4(2), 5 (l), 6– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 376 (3) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 164, 439 -- POCSO – Rape – Regular bail – In statement u/s 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., victim stated that the victim and the applicant both were in relationship and their relations were consensual – State submitted that the victim is a minor – Bail allowed.

(Para 4-7)

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 9, 39, 48, 50, 51 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Recovery of elephant tusk – Regular bail -- No expert opinion at this stage -- Applicant has no criminal history – Bail allowed.

(Para 3-7)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B, 420, 468, 471 -- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) – Cheating and forgery – Corruption case – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Matter compromised between the borrowers and the Bank -- Upon payment of the amount under the OTS, the loan account of the borrower has been closed -- Only question would be, as to whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be justified or not -- In Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4353 of 2018, it was held that when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be justifiable – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 3, 14-17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Matrimonial dispute – Financial matters -- In the matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.

(Para 15)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Case under SC/ ST Act – Compromise quashing of FIR – FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 4)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR/ Complaint – Duty of High Court -- Beyond holding that there are specific allegations, there is no other analysis by High Court -- Duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the Complaint/ FIR is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- While the husband institutes the civil suit, his wife has chosen to initiate criminal proceedings -- Interestingly, there is no reference of one proceeding in the other -- On 27.02.2013, the husband filed the Special Civil Suit against the three appellants, i.e. his father, stepmother and stepbrother seeking for a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property and also sought a declaration that he is entitled to use the trademark of the family business – Complainant/ wife filed the criminal complaint on 01.03.2013 alleging demand of dowry and threat by appellants that she and her husband will be denied a share in the property -- Provocation for the Complaint/ FIR is essentially the property dispute between father and son – FIR and Chargesheet quashed.

(Para 9, 18)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 – Dowry case -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Husband not accused in criminal case -- Allegations are vague, lacking in basic details -- The essence of the complaint is in the alleged threat to deprive the husband any share in the property with respect to which the husband has already filed the suit for declaration – In DV complaint identical allegations were examined in detail, subjected to strict scrutiny, and rejected as being false and untenable – The case is instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process – FIR and charge-sheet quashed.

(Para 9-18)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 (XXIII of 1989), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Quashing of FIR – Charge-sheet filed -- There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed.

(Para 16)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 211 -- Attempt to murder – Simple injuries – Effect of -- Question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of Section 307, IPC is a question of fact and not one of law – Minor nature of injuries is not sufficient reason to not frame a charge u/s 307 IPC.

(Para 14-16)

A. Evidence law -- Injured eye-witnesses -- Sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight -- Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility -- If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.

(Para 12)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34 -- Common intention -- There cannot be a fixed timeframe for formation of common intention -- It is not essential for the perpetrators to have had prior meetings to conspire or make preparations for the crime -- Common intention to commit murder can arise even moments before the commission of the act -- Since common intention is a mental state of the perpetrators, it is inherently challenging to substantiate directly -- Instead, it can be inferred from the conduct of the perpetrators immediately before, during, and after the commission of the act.

(Para 19)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 302 – Murder -- Common intention -- Appellants are related by blood, arrived at the crime scene armed with a 12 bore double-barrel gun, dangs, and lathis within 15 minutes of the initial altercation, and subsequently attacked P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, and the victims -- During this attack, A-4, the father of A-1, raged by the incident of P.W.3 slapping his adult son A-1 and the pursuant altercation, fired with his gun at P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and the victims -- Thereafter, all the appellants fled together carrying their weapons -- It is evident that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill, seeking to avenge the slapping incident.

(Para 20)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Common intention – Common object -- Determination of common intention or common object should primarily be within the domain of the trial courts, and at the most the high courts -- It should not be the role of Supreme Court to directly adjudicate issues of common intention and common object.

(Para 21)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216, 464 – Non-framing of charge -- Failure of justice -- No finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in an appeal, confirmation or revision, a claim of "failure of justice" has been substantiated.

-- Law is well-settled that in order to judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself.

(Para 24, 25)

F. Evidence law – Independent witness -- It is settled law that examination of independent witness is not an indispensable requisite if the testimonies of other witnesses are deemed trustworthy and reliable --  Prosecution's case cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of the absence of independent witness.

(Para 29, 30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part-I – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- There is a possibility of deceased and (PW-1) coming to the shop of accused no.2 and a fight taking place between the two groups -- Nothing on record to establish that there was any pre-meditation --  Possibility of the offence being committed by the appellants without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- Nothing on record to show that the appellants have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Case would be covered under Part-I of Section 304 of IPC --  Appellants have undergone the sentence of more than 8 years without remission – Appeals partly allowed, appellants sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Para 3, 15-18)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 306 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113A – Abetment to suicide – Presumption – Acquittal -- Marriage on 14.11.2011 – Suicide on 11.05.2012 -- Accused went to Assam in the month of April, 2012 for joining his duty -- Deceased had died while she was in her parents’ house and at that time the accused was in Assam -- General allegations of harassment, no independent witness to prove that any demand of dowry was made by the accused in their presence -- No evidence led by prosecution that there was abetment of such grave nature which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide -- Suicidal death may be the deceased's own act, being of hyper sensitive nature, for which, the husband cannot be held guilty -- Acquittal order, upheld.

(Para 2(a), 18, 36-39)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451, 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8, 20, 29, 60 -- NDPS Case – Superdari of vehicle -- Confiscation of vehicle – Ground of -- Release of vehicle cannot be denied to the applicant on the ground that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated; rather a duty has been cast upon the Court to immediately release the vehicle to the rightful owner until the question of confiscation of the vehicle is decided by the Competent Court -- Pendency of the confiscation proceedings has nothing to do with the release of the vehicle -- Subject to the furnishing of sapurdari bond in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, vehicle ordered to be released.

(Para 8-14)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Excise matter -- Regular bail – Direction to furnish bail bonds after 6 months – Sustainability of -- High Court ordered to release the petitioner on bail subject condition that “the petitioner shall furnish his bail bonds after completion of six months in custody from today” – Held, no valid reason for the High Court to impose the condition – Condition set aside, Trial Court directed to release the petitioner on bail forthwith on furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction.

(Para 1-4)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner is in custody for more than 5 years -- An accused or an under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial -- When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that the charges are very serious -- Bail cannot be denied only on the ground that the charges are very serious though there is no end in sight for the trial to conclude -- Out of 48 witnesses, only about 16 to 18 witnesses have been examined – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

A. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 22 – Court of Session -- Special Court – Power of -- Court of Session exercising jurisdiction of the Special Court u/s 22 Sub-section (3) of the NIA Act, can exercise all the powers that have been conferred on the Special Court under Chapter IV of the NIA Act.

(Part 31)

B. National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (34 of 2008), Section 21, 22 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967), Section 15, 16 – UAPA -- Rejection of bail by Session Court/ Special Court -- Orders passed by the Court of Session u/s 22(3) shall be appealable u/s 21 of the NIA Act -- An appeal would lie before the Division Bench of High Court.

(Para 3, 31, 32)

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 18 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 41, 438 -- Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act – Maintainability of -- Whether Section 18 of the Act, 1989 imposes an absolute bar on the grant of anticipatory bail in cases registered under the said Act? -- The term ‘arrest’ appearing in the text of Section 18 of the Act, 1989 should be construed and understood in the larger context of the powers of police to effect an arrest and the restrictions imposed by the statute and the courts on the exercise of such power -- Bar u/s 18 of the Act, 1989 would apply only to those cases where prima facie materials exist pointing towards the commission of an offence under the Act, 1989 -- Because it is only when a prima facie case is made out that the pre-arrest requirements as stipulated u/s 41 of CrPC could be said to be satisfied.

(Para 13, 46)

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 18 – Anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act -- Mere knowledge of the fact that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 -- Offence must have been committed against the person on the ground or for the reason that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – While considering,  whether prima facie materials exist, warranting arrest of the appellant, there is nothing to indicate that the allegations/ statements alleged to have been made by the appellant were for the reason that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste -- Appeal succeeds, in the event of arrest of the appellant, he shall be released on bail.

(Para 80-89)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 82 -- Proclaimed offender – Quashing -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued for 04.11.2022 -- Proclamation warrant were fixed on 03.11.2022 at the house of the petitioner, public place and notice board of the Court -- On 04.11.2022, as one month’s time has not elapsed after the publication, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner – Held, the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C -- Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/ village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside.

(Para 1, 6-8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300, 302, 304 Part-I -- Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by both the accused persons as well as the deceased, the possibility of the incident taking place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel cannot be ruled out -- No evidence that the appellant has taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner -- Weapon used is a pocketknife -- Injury caused by the said knife is a single injury -- Appellant held entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC -- Conviction u/s 302 IPC altered to the one under Part-I of Section 304 IPC -- Appellant sentenced to suffer R.I. for 8 years.

(Para 16-20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304B, 498A – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106, 113B -- Dowry death – Presumption – Onus of proof -- Deceased subjected to harassment and cruelty and death occurred within seven years of marriage sustaining 100% burn injuries inside her matrimonial home -- Onus was on the appellants/ accused to establish that it was not a dowry death -- Section 106 of the Evidence Act also put burden on the appellant no.1-husband who went to sleep with her in the same room, but escaped unscathed to explain as to how the death had occurred -- High Court arrived at the rightful conclusion reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court and in convicting and sentencing the appellants.

(Para 7-10)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 18, 18(b), 29 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS – Commercial quantity – Regular bail –  Trial delayed due to the repeated and continuous non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, the State cannot justifiably oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail -- Petitioner in custody since 13.09.2022, there is no foreseeable conclusion to the trial in the near future -- Court deemed it appropriate to allow the petition by dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act -- Petitioner admitted to bail.

(Para 7-9)

A. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- Right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is overarching and sacrosanct -- A constitutional court cannot be restrained from granting bail to an accused on account of restrictive statutory provisions in a penal statute if it finds that the right of the accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed -- In that event, such statutory restrictions would not come in the way.

(Para 32)

B. Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Right to bail – Right to Life and liberty – Restrictions imposed by Statute – Effect on Constitutional Court -- In the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to leError! Hyperlink reference not valid.an in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part -- In the given facts of a particular case, a constitutional court may decline to grant bail -- But it would be very wrong to say that under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted --  It would run  counter to the very grain of our constitutional jurisprudence.

(Para 32)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 216 -- Charge-sheet can be amended/altered at any stage before pronouncement of judgment -- Either prosecution or accused can file application for amendment of charge and in case Court comes to conclusion that charge required to be amended then Court can suo moto amend charge-sheet at any stage before judgment is pronounced.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 – Criminal breach of trust – Cheating -- Charge-sheet u/s 420 of IPC cannot be framed simultaneously along with offence u/s 406 of IPC.

(Para 7)

A. Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 59(5)(28) – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 19 -- Parole -- Son going abroad – A happy occasion like this, son secured an admission in a prestigious University in Australia, who is going to depart from the country for a period of two years -- If for the purpose of celebration of marriage parole can be granted, Court failed to understand why merely because the rule do not contemplate such a contingency, the benefit of this rule shall not be extended to the petitioner – 10 days parole granted.

(Para 8-10)

B. Prisons Act, 1894 (9 of 1894), Section 59(5)(28) – Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, Rule 19 -- Parole – Furlough -- Provisions of Parole and Furlough have been time and again looked towards as a humanistic approach towards the convicts lodged in Jail for an act purely attributed to them. -- In order to afford an opportunity to them to be in touch with the outside world and to arrange for their family affairs as though behind bars, the convict continue to be someone’s son, husband, father, brother and upon being released, though for temporary period on Furlough or in an emergency situation on parole, like death of a member of family or to attend to a member on account of his illness, the Furlough and Parole have received approval as conditional release of a prisoner.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP not done during investigation -- All the prosecution witnesses who identified the accused in the Court were not known to the appellant -- They had not seen the appellant prior to the said incident -- TIP had become necessary particularly when both the accused, who are alleged to have committed this murder were arrested within two days -- Inspite of being questioned as to what the reasons were for not holding TIP in this case, no satisfactory reply was given by him -- Identification of the accused before the court ought to have been corroborated by the previous TIP which has not been done -- Appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of a very doubtful evidence as to the appellant’s identity -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 10-16)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 9 -- Test identification parade (TIP) – TIP is only a part of Police investigation -- The identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence -- Not conducting TIP in a given case may prove fatal for the prosecution.

(Para 12)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 397 – Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise thereafter – Quashing of conviction/ sentence – Trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/- to the complainant – Appellate court affirmed the same -- Matter ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside -- Petitioner-accused acquitted subject to deposit of 10% of the Cheque amount with the HPSLSA.

(Para 1, 8, 9)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 6 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO – Rape – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Since the parties have married each other, the petition is allowed -- FIR and consequential proceedings arising therefrom ordered to be quashed.

(Para 1-4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 147 -- Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compromise – Acquittal --  Entire amount of compensation agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence -- No impediment in accepting the prayer for compounding of offence while exercising power u/s 147 of the Act even after recording of conviction by the courts below – Matter compounded, impugned judgments of conviction and sentence quashed and set aside. Damodar S. Prabhu’s case (2010) 5 SCC 663 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15231 relied.

(Para 9-10)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 363, 376, 376 (2n) -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – POCSO -- Rape with minor – Compromise quashing of FIR -- Complainant and the victim (19 year old) on oath stated that the FIR sought to be quashed, is the result of misunderstanding same the was lodged in a hot haste, without realizing the consequences of the same -- Both victim and the petitioner were in touch with each other, but there is no allegation of sexual assault, if any -- At the time of alleged offence, the victim was 17 and ½ years old – Victim in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC specifically denied factum with regard to her abduction and kidnapping by petitioner, coupled with the fact that she does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings – Since the matter stands compromised and they are no more interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings against each other, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings are allowed to continue – FIR as well as consequent proceedings ordered to be quashed and set-aside.

(Para 4-7, 13, 14)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 14(2), 18 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Anticipatory bail – SC/ST Case – Cheating -- It has not been specifically stated IN FIR that the appellants had any knowledge that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste and even no specific words have been attributed by the appellants – Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act are not made out and thus, the appeal is allowed and in the event of arrest, the appellants shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.

(Para 8, 9)

A. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3k(i), 29(1)(a)(i), 33 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint – Company not arrayed as party -- Once the company has not been arrayed as accused, the petitioners who are employees of the company, cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the alleged offence -- Complaint quashed.

(Para 3, 8, 13)

B. Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), 3k(i), 24(3)(4), 29(1)(a)(i) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of Complaint -- Re-analysing of sample – Delay by trial court -- Ld. trial court did not decide the application of the petitioners for re-analyzing the samples within the period of shelf life of the product  -- Right of the petitioners for getting the samples reanalysed under section 24(3)&(4) of the Act, has been violated – Complaint quashed.

(Para 2, 9-13)