#criminalappeal Archives

16 Feb

The collective action of all the accused indicates sharing of common intention: Supreme Court.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #accused, #criminalappeal, #intention, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Ram Naresh vs State of U.P

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 3577 Of 2023

Decided on: 1.12.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present appeal arises from the trial court’s judgement and order convicting and sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for an offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the High Court’s affirmance of the same.

ISSUE RAISED:

Whether the appellant and the other co-accused had a common intention to kill the deceased?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

According to Section 34 of the IPC, when several people commit a criminal act with the same intention, each person is liable for that act as if he did it alone. As a result, if the accused’s participation in a crime is proven, as well as the common intention, Section 34 of the IPC will apply. Section 34 IPC does not require a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. Even during the incident, i.e. during the commission of the crime, a common intention can emerge.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the trial court did not consider any evidence to record a finding of “common intention” on the appellant’s part, and thus Section 34 IPC could not be used to convict him. He went on to say that the evidence on the subject has not even been discussed by the High Court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined that the evidence on record proves beyond a doubt that the accused persons attacked the deceased with the intent to kill him. The fact that they were all related and armed when they arrived at the scene indicates that they intended to kill him.
It stated that the accused had arrived on the scene collectively and delivered serious vital blows to the deceased with the weapons they were armed with, resulting in his death. The collective action of all the accused indicated a shared intention.

The argument that the appellant cannot be found guilty by using Section 34 IPC to support his or her conviction is without merit and cannot be upheld in light of the evidence in the record as well as the decisions made by the trial and high courts. As a result, the appeal is rejected without merit.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

14 Feb

The act of sexual intercourse is not illegal under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act of 1956: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #criminalappeal, #judgement, #SupremeCourt, #Trafficking

Case title: Bikash Kumar Jain vs State of Odisha

Case no.: CRLMC No. 3390 of 2023

Decided on: 09.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sibo Shankar Mishra

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The present petition concerns the accused, who engaged in sexual activity with girls in the brothel. Following the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. Aside from the offences under Sections 3,4,5,6, and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956, the charge sheet includes two additional higher offences: Sections 370(3) and 370A (2) IPC. The petition in this court seeks to quash the FIR for offences under Sections 370(3) and 370A (2) of the IPC filed against the present petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 370 of the IPC deals with the offence of human trafficking. Section 370A (2) of the Act states that anyone who knowingly engages or has reason to believe that a person has been trafficked for sexual exploitation in any way shall be punished.

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

The petitioners argue that the trial Court’s addition of the aforementioned two offences and taking cognizance for them is legally incorrect. The petitioners are not the Spa’s owners or managers; instead, they are customers. They knew nothing about the identity of the victim girls. The perusal of various witnesses’ statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on record also indicates that the petitioners are the customers. They played no role in running the Spa, and they are not the Spa’s owners.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The counsel for the State claims that the Court below correctly took cognizance of the offences under Sections 370(3) and 370A(2) of the IPC in addition to the others. The court has already determined that a prima facie case for an offence under Section 370A(2) of the IPC exists against the similarly situated accused. As a result, no interference is required in the current case.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court held that, taking the allegations at face value, no case is made out against the present petitioners under IPC 370(3) or 370A (2). Because this court, in dealing with the current case, kept in mind the admitted position on the facts that the petitioners are customers of the Spa, where allegedly other accused persons ran a brothel. As a result, no case or evidence on record supports the allegation that they were trafficking the women who were allegedly sexually exploited.

The court ruled that the act of sexual intercourse for consideration is not illegal in and of itself under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act of 1956. However, the intent of legislation is to ensure that women and girls are not illegally trafficked for prostitution and exploited. Soliciting, inducing, or seducing for the purpose of prostitution is illegal, but prostitution itself is not. Though there are limited exceptions to the judicial trend of exonerating customers under the Act of 1956, the customer cannot be tried under the provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act of 1956 on the basis of weak evidence.

As a result, without the women being examined, the prosecution may be unable to prove the factum of women’s trafficking and sexual exploitation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any evidence on record, the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 370(3) and 370A (2) of the IPC against the current petitioners. The petition has been allowed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

14 Feb

Higher courts are required to follow judicial discipline and comity to uphold the law: Supreme Court.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #criminalappeal, #HighCourt, #Judiciary, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Directorate Of Enforcement vs Niraj Tyagi

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 843 Of 2024

Decided on: 13.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellants filed this appeal because they were dissatisfied with the interim orders issued by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition. The High Court has stayed the proceedings of the FIRs registered against the concerned respondents-accused, as well as the proceedings of the Directorate of Enforcement against the concerned respondents, and has further directed that no coercive action be taken against the respondents pending the writ petitions.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

They claimed that the Court issued an order staying the proceedings of the ECIR and the FIRs registered against the respondents without hearing the ED, so the ED filed a Review Petition, which is currently pending before this Court. He went on to argue that the High Court’s orders to stay the ECIR and FIR proceedings lacked compelling reasons.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The Counsel appearing for the respondents in the appeal, referring the Court to the proceedings conducted under the SARFAESI Act and before the High Court and this Court, contended that the respondent-complainant Shipra Group, having failed in all of the aforementioned proceedings, had turned to criminal proceedings to instill fear in the financial institution and its officers.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the High Court issued the impugned orders staying the investigations into the FIRs and ECIR in question in complete disregard of the previously established legal position. Without undermining the High Court’s authority under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings if the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not appear to constitute an offence against the accused, or if the criminal proceedings are found to be manifestly malafide or malicious, instituted with an ulterior motive, etc.

They opined that the High Court could not have stayed the investigations and prevented the investigating agencies from looking into the cognizable offences alleged in the FIRs and ECIR, especially since the investigations were still in their early stages.

The court stated that it is sufficient to say that judicial comity and judicial discipline require higher courts to follow the law. The court’s extraordinary and inherent powers do not grant it arbitrary jurisdiction to act at its discretion.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement

13 Feb

Conviction cannot be imposed based on statements made by untrustworthy witnesses: the Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #criminalappeal, #SupremeCourt, #Witness, conviction

Case title: State of Haryana vs Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2012

Decided on: 12.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M.M Sundresh, Hon’ble Justice Prasant Kumar Mishra

FACTS OF THE CASE:

There are four accused who have faced trail for the commission of offence of murder. The trail court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the other three. The other three who are convicted went for appeal to the high court. The court rejected the appeal of two of the accused and reduced the charges of one of the accused named Mohd. Yunus. The current appeal is by the State, challenging the High Court’s decision to acquit Mohd. Yunus of charges under Section 302 of the IPC while convicting him under Section 323 of the IPC.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the IPC states that a person who commits murder will face the death penalty. Section 34 of the IPC addresses common intention. When two or more people commit a criminal act with the same intention, all of them are liable.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing harm. It states that anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person will face imprisonment.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contended that the same set of evidence that was used to convict Mohd. Jamil, one of the accused, should have been considered when upholding Mohd. Yunus’ conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They contended that the High Court erred in acquitting Mohd. Yunus of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined in the second trial that both of the prosecution’s star witnesses should be disbelieved because their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted, and improvements are made. For a trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy for allegedly twisting the facts and making a contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction based on such a statement. When there is an attempt to falsely implicate one accused person, a statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be trusted without strong corroboration. As a result, the State of Haryana’s criminal appeal challenging Mohd. Yunus’ acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been dismissed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

1 Feb

The supreme court issues new guidelines for the bail application procedure.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #criminalappeal, #HighCourt, #judgment, #law, #SupremeCourt, bail

Case title: Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 2024

Decided on: 19.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal is for bail for the accused, who has been in custody in connection with exclusive and conscious possession of the substance of Ganja.

Application for release on bail pending trial was denied. The appellant filed his first bail application in the High Court after being dissatisfied with rejection his bail application. However, the appellant’s bail application was dismissed in high court.

The appellant filed the SLP before this Court, expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation. On 06.12.2023, the appellant’s counsel stated that while the current matter was pending before this Court, the High Court granted bail to the appellant in another bench of the high court by order dated 11.10.2023.

He presented with a soft copy of the High Court’s order. On a reading of the aforementioned order, the Court found that it made no mention of the appellant’s second bail application or the SLP’s pending before this Court, for which notice had already been issued.

The appellant filed a second bail application, in which he was granted bail by the High Court via an order dated 11.10.2023. The Court received the original record of this bail application, along with a report dated 08.12.2023 from the High Court and a note from the Hon’ble Judge who heard the case and issued the order on 11.10.2023.

The judge who granted the bail stated in his comments that at the time of hearing the second bail application, the court was not aware of the factum of the SLP’s pending before this court.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court noted that the appellant made no mention of the High Court’s decision on his earlier bail application, as well as the filing of the SLP in this Court. Though, just below the names of the parties, the appellant mentioned the number of his previous bail application. The appellant has notably refrained from discussing the High Court’s decision to reject his previous bail application and his filing of the SLP with this Court, even within the body of the bail application.

During the course of this case, a new bail application was filed not only before the Trial Court but also before the High Court. The appellant was even granted bail by the High Court.

The appellant did not specify that this was his second bail application in the one he filed with the High Court.

The court has established the following mandatory guidelines in an effort to streamline the proceedings, prevent anomalies with regard to bail applications filed in cases pending trial and even for sentence suspension, and to clear up any confusion going forward:

Information about the case and copies of the orders issued in the petitioner’s prior, already-decided bail application(s).
Information regarding any bail application(s) that the petitioner has filed, which are pending in any court either the court below the one in question or the higher court or, in the event that none are pending, express notice to that effect.
A report generated by the system regarding the approved or pending bail application(s) in the relevant criminal case should also be annexed by the court registry. Even in the case of private complaints, the same procedure must be followed because, even in the absence of a FIR number, every case filed in trial courts is given a unique number (CNR No.).
The Investigating Officer and any other officers supporting the State Counsel in court should be responsible for informing the State Counsel of any orders, if any, issued by the court regarding various bail applications or other proceedings related to the same criminal case. Additionally, the solicitors representing the parties must behave themselves genuinely as court officers.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant’s bail was not cancelled. The court ordered a cost of ₹10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the Orissa High Court.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

1 2 3