0

Deposition of witness in the absence of accused when can be used under Section 299 CrPC- SC

blog , , , ,

Case title: Sukhpal Singh v. NCT of Delhi

Case no: Criminal Appeal No(S). 55 Of 2015

Dated on: 07th May 2024

Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavi and Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts of the case:

This appeal is against the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi against the conviction order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial Court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- (in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months). The accused appellant was married to Usha and had three children. Due to matrimonial strife, the appellant left his wife Usha and started residing at his village. Bhajan Pura Police Station received wireless message on 20th May 1990 and upon visit of police officials, Delhi it was found that Usha w/o the appellant was found lying dead with abrasions, scratches and other injury marks. The police officials claim to have recovered a handwritten note from the crime scene indicating that the Appellant was the killer of Usha. The prosecution examined Ashok Kumar Pathak who is residing in the immediate vicinity of House where the victim was residing with her husband, the accused and three children. The witness stated that, four days prior to the alleged occurrence of the incident, accused visited Usha and quarreled with her. On the next day, Usha’s sister, Sudha took the three children and went to her house. On 19th May 1990, prior to the incident, he had seen the spouses talking but the next morning since there was no noise he went to their house and found Usha lying dead. Sukhpal was not present.  The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak was taken as a complaint and based on which FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC. The postmortem report showed cause of death as “Asphyxia resulting from manual strangulation”. A confession letter was found. The Investigating Officer collected two letters purportedly written by the accused appellant from the employer. The accused appellant fled from the crime scene. Efforts were made to trace him but later he was declared to be a proclaimed offender and a charge sheet was filed under Section 299 CrPC. The accused appellant was apprehended on 9th August 2000. His specimen handwritings were obtained and thereafter, the confession note along with admitted handwritings collected from the employer were sent to FSL for comparison. The handwriting expert opined that handwriting of confession letter/note was that of the accused appellant. The Trial court by relying on circumstantial evidence, convicted the accused appellant vide judgment dated 6th March, 2003. The appeal preferred by the accused appellant in the High Court of Delhi was rejected by Division Bench of High Court vide judgment dated 7th January 2010 holding that the confession note written by the accused appellant proved his culpability in the crime. The accused appellant has challenged the above judgment affirming his conviction and sentence through this appeal by special leave.

Issues:

Whether the Accused Appellant is guilty of crime charged under Section 302 IPC and Section 299 Crpc?

Legal provisions:

Section 302 IPC- Murder.  

Contentions of the appellant:

The trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave factual error by holding that complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. This finding is contrary to the record because the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak relied upon by the trial Court and the High Court is actually the statement recorded by the SHO, under Section 161 CrPC. The confession note is a fabricated piece of evidence because the prosecution did not make any attempt to get the two admitted documents compared with the confession note. The handwriting expert’s report and the testimony of the handwriting expert is not reliable, since the expert did not give any opinion after comparing the admitted writings with the confession note (Exhibit PW-12/E). The evidence of Sudha is totally unreliable and not trustworthy and deserves to be discarded. The possibility of Usha having been murdered by some other person cannot be ruled out. The case is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The entire chain of incriminating circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused was not established by clinching evidence and hence conviction of the accused appellant is unsustainable and should be set aside.

Contentions of the respondent:

The chain of incriminating circumstances is complete in all aspects thereby pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak recorded as PW-1 during proceedings under Section 299 CrPC was rightly relied upon as admissible and reliable piece of evidence. The non-examination of Ashok Kumar Pathak during trial is not a deliberate as the witness could not be traced by the prosecuting agency in spite of best efforts. The prolonged abscondence of the accused is the why Ashok Kumar Pathak could not be examined. The evidence of Ashok Kumar Pathak established the presence of accused appellant with Usha on intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1990, where after, Usha was found murdered and the accused was found absconding. The testimony of Usha’s sister Sudha establishes that the accused appellant used to quarrel with Usha suspecting her infidelity and there were repeated altercations between the spouses. The report submitted by the handwriting expert, proves that the handwriting on the confession note recovered from the crime scene matched with the handwriting on the two admitted documents collected from the employer and specimen handwritings of the accused appellant to the police. The prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant through convincing chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence.

Courts analysis and Judgement:

The counsel representing the appellant criticized the findings of the trial Court and the High Court by stating that both the Courts erred in holding that the statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak had been recorded on oath in the proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. The Section 161 CrPC statement of complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak was exhibited by the Investigating Officer whereas was never examined in the witness box. The submission so made is without any foundation. The accused appellant was absconding and could not be arrested. The Investigating Officer made all possible efforts such as procurement of arrest warrant, attempt to serve the same at the village of the Appellant. The proceedings of proclamation and attachment were undertaken under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC but still the appellant was not traceable. The trial Court declaring the accused appellant to be an absconder and gave permission to proceed with the trial under Section 299 CrPC. This order was never questioned too. Apart from Ashok Kumar Pathak, three more witnesses, were also examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC. Hence, the submission for the appellant that Ashok Kumar Pathak was never examined on oath in proceedings under Section 299 CrPC have been made out of sheer ignorance and without ascertaining the correct position. The deposition of any witness taken in the absence of an accused may be used against him if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured. In Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana it was mentioned that “before recording the statement of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, the court must be satisfied that the accused has absconded or that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, as provided under the first part of Section 299(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The statement of Ashok Kumar Pathak gives proof that the accused appellant Sukhpal was married to Usha(deceased). There was marital strife between the spouses on suspicion of infidelity of Usha. The accused suspected infidelity of Usha imputes a strong motive to the accused for her murder. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has established the following links in the chain of incriminating circumstantial evidence: – (i) Motive; (ii) Last seen together; (iii) Medical evidence (iv) Confessional note; (v) Abscondence for nearly 10 years; (vi) Wrong explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC; (vii) Failure of the accused to explain death of his wife when only the accused and deceased were present. The view taken by the trial Court and the High Court in convicting and affirming the conviction of the accused appellant for the charge of committing murder of Usha is confirmed. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference. Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant’s bail bonds are cancelled. The Appellant shall surrender before the trial Court within the next 60 days to serve the remainder of the sentence.

“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”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V.
Click here to read the judgement




0

The Delhi High Court Dismisses Charges and Scraps The FIR: Cites Reason as Unconscious Possession Not an Offense Under the Arms Act

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case Title – Pritpal Singh Vs. State

Case Number – CRL. M.C. 5732/2019 & CRL. M.C. 40024/2019

Dated on – 1st of May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Amit Mahajan

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State, the Appellant, Pritpal Singh, was taken into custody by the police at the entrance of the US Embassy while he was entering for his visa interview. The police discovered 14 live cartridges in the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant in the said case had a license for the arms and ammunition but the same was valid until 31st of December, 2017, and had expired at the time of the incident. During further investigation it was unveiled that the Appellant held a valid license (No. 539/PS) issued by the District Magistrate of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, permitting him to carry a 0.32 Caliber NPT bore weapon throughout India.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellant was in conscious possession of the live cartridges recovered from him?
Whether the possessions of the live cartridges amount to an offense under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 prescribes the Offense of possession of arms or ammunition without a valid license.
Section 45(D) of the Arms Act, 1959 prescribes the condition under which the possession of minor parts of arms or ammunition is not considered as an offense
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power of the High Court to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of the process of court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellant, Pritpal Singh was unaware that the bag he carried contained 14 live cartridges.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession of the 14 cartridges with the Appellant was unconscious and unintentional.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellant possessed a valid arms license which authorized him to carry the weapon throughout India.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case did not allege conscious possession or mens rea behind carrying the cartridges.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the possession seemed to be unintended rather than intentional.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State, analysed the concept of conscious possession as interpreted by the varied judgments, inclusive of Gunwantlal Vs. State of M.P. and Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay. The court in this case, stressed that the possession of arms and ammunition under the Arms Act, 1959 require a mental element of consciousness or knowledge. Based on the facts presented and the legal precedents, the court in this case concluded that the possession of the live cartridges with the Appellant, Pritpal Singh, was unconscious and unintentional. As such, it did not amount to an offense under the section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The court also observed that the absence of the evidence suggesting conscious possession and that the prolongation of proceedings would be vain. Hence, the court in this present case, quashed the FIR and all the consequential proceedings. Furthermore, taking into consideration the involvement of the State machinery and to serve the ends of justice, the court imposed a cost of Rupees 50,000 on the Appellant, specifying the allocation of the money to various welfare funds and the bar associations.
“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Supreme Court’s Decisive Verdict in Notable Murder Case: Affirmed the conviction decision of the Trial Court for murder, Highlights Witness Reliability and Legal Scrutiny

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015

Dated on – 3rd of May, 2024

Quorum – Justice J.B. Pardiwala

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368, Saira, the deceased in the present case, was married to the Appellant of this present case in the year 1982 as per the Muslim rites. They had a daughter from the wedlock, named Shaheena, who was five years old during the incident in 1995. On the 29th of December, 1995, at around 04:00 AM, a wireless operator of the Delhi Police notified a lady constable on duty in a PCR (Police Control Room) concerning a woman being stabbed in the House No. 220, Gali No. 3, Mustafabad. The information was communicated to the duty officer at P.S. Gokulpuri, who sent S.I. Mohkam Singh for inquiry. SI Mohkam Singh, upon reaching the location, found Saira lying in a pool of blood with multiple wounds of stabbings on her body. The Appellant was also present on the scene, having superficial injuries. Saira was declared deceased upon arrival at the hospital, whereas the Appellant was discharged after being preliminarily treated. The fact that the Appellant and the deceased had a strained relationship, often resulting a quarrel due to the habit of the deceased to leave the house without informing and returning late at night was unveiled during the investigations. It was alleged that on the night of the incident, a quarrel occurred between the Appellant and the deceased, leading to the Appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife. The only eye-witness in this case was the daughter of the Appellant and the deceased, Shaheena. An FIR was registered against the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on a report prepared by the Investigating Officer. The post-mortem of the deceased revealed that she had sustained multiple stab injuries, indicating a violent attack. Shaheena, the daughter, initially claimed to witness the incident as her father, the Appellant, inflicting injuries on her mother but during the trial, she turned hostile. The knife used to stab the deceased was discovered at the instance of the Appellant. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration, all the evidences and witness, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court, stressing on the inconsistencies in the statements of the Appellant and his conduct, rejecting the explanations of the defense. The Appellant instituted an Appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES

The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellant, accused of murdering his wife Saira, is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Whether the testimonies of the witnesses, inclusive of the daughter Shaheena, is reliable and consistent?

Whether the post-mortem report and the forensic analysis of the evidence provide conclusive proof of the guilt of the Appellant?

Whether the inconsistent statement of the Appellant and his conduct, including his initial silence and subsequent explanation, contribute to establishing his culpability?

Whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Whether the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court of the conviction of the Appellant based on the evidence furnished during the trial justifiable?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes that How much of information received from accused may be proved

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Burden of Proof

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Burden of Proving that case of accused comes within exception

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes that the Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Cross Examination as to previous statements in writing

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Definition of Murder

Section 300 Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes that If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Murder

Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Examination of Witnesses by police

Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes that the Statements to police not to be signed

Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power to summon material witness, or examine person present

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power to examine the accused

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the case of the Respondents is entirely based on the circumstantial evidences and that Respondents failed to establish foundational facts for invoking the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Appellants cited the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and stated that it was accentuated that for a conviction based on the circumstantial evidences, the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with innocence.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the sole eyewitness, Shaheena (PW-3) did not support the case of the Respondent and that her testimony suggested that the strangers entered the house, causing injuries to both the Appellant and the deceased.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Sayed Ali (PW-9), the witness for the discovery of the knife, turned hostile and failed to prove the contents of the discovery panchnama.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that SI Mohkam Singh (PW-17) admitted that he questioned Shaheena before forwarding the written report to the police station, but this fact was not included in the written report and that this inconsistency raises doubts regarding the credibility of the testimony of the Investigating Officer.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents failed to establish any motive for the Appellant to commit the crime and that no witness was examined to support the assumption that an altercation had arisen due to the deceased arriving home late at night.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that even if the case of the Respondent is accepted as true, it falls within the exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that the alleged crime occurred in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel without any criminal intent.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there was no error on the part of the High Court, specifically errors of law, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and upholding the conviction issued by the Trial Court.

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented the following incriminating circumstances as foundational facts in support of the invocation of the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act –

The incident occurred inside the house of residence of the Appellant and the deceased, where the deceased was found severely injured.

The Appellant was present at the scene when the Investigating Officer arrived, indicating his proximity to the crime.

The Appellant did not disclose immediately to the Investigating officer that unidentified individuals entered the house and assaulted the deceased.

The Appellant’s story about unidentified individuals entered the house and assaulted the deceased, was contradictory to the other circumstances.

The false explanation of the Appellant recorded under the Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was another incriminating circumstance.

The clothes worn by the Appellant at the time of the incident had blood stains matching the blood group of the deceased.

Even though the discovery of the weapon may not have been established, the conduct of the Appellant, leading the Investigating Officer and witnesses to a nearby drain where the knife was claimed to have been found reflects negatively on him, according to the Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there is no merit in the appeal of the Appellant and that its dismissal is requested.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368, considered the decision of the court in the State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, (2000)8 SCC 382, and stated that the court should apply section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in Criminal cases with care and caution and that it cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The court stated that to infer the guilt of the accused from the absence of the reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to be accused. The court stated that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under the Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it still cannot be a ground to convict the accused for a serious offense like murder and that the court cannot Suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The court observed that the cross examination of the Respondent of hostile witnesses were insufficient. The court stressed on the duty of the Respondent to thoroughly cross examine the witnesses to uncover the truth, especially in cases where witnesses turn hostile. Further, the court criticized the passive role of the judge of the Trial Court, particularly considering the sensitive nature of the case involving a child witness. The Court rejected the argument of killing occurring due to the heat of the moment, stating that the Appellant failed to meet the criteria outlined in Exception 4. The court acknowledged the lengthy incarceration of the Appellant and granted him liberty to submit a representation to the State Government seeking remission of sentence. The State Government was directed to consider the representation within four weeks and communicate its decision to the Appellant.
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction decision of the Trial Court for murder. The court disposed off any pending applications. The judgment accentuated the importance of effective prosecution, judicial oversight, and adherence to legal principles in ensuring fair trials and dispensation of justice.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

State Authorities’ Assertion of Ownership, Designation of Disputed Plot as Pond Land Leads to Intervention in Appellant’s Possession: Supreme Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363

Case Number – CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1074 of 2017 with CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9482 of 2021 and CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 5419 of 2022

Dated on – 1st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sanjiv Khanna

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, revolves around a dispute of the property regarding a Property No. 80-A, covering 23.072 Sq.ft., part of Khasra No. 1016/647 and 645, situated in Chandrawali/Shahdara, now in Abadi, at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The Appellant No. 2, Sharif Ahmad, and the Appellant No. 3, Anwar Ahmad (now deceased), bought a part of the property on behalf of their partnership firm Dream Land & Co. Appellant No.1, Vakil Ahmad (also deceased), obtained another portion individually. The Respondent No.2, Mohd. Iqbal, instituted FIR No. 108/2016 against the Appellants under Section 420, 406, and 506 of the India Penal Code, 1860, alleging failure to register the property and refund the advance payment. The FIR was challenged by the Appellants and chargesheet through various legal avenues, including petitions before the Allahabad High Court seeking for the quashing of the proceedings were framed. The chargesheet alleged breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but did not detect an offense under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court, in this present case, inspected the legal provisions related to the criminal offenses mentioned in the chargesheet, inclusive of the Section 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accentuating the need of fulfilling the essentials elements of each offense. The court, in this present case, allowed the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017, quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellants. Moreover, the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 was allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the Appellants Imran and Kamaluddin. The court, in this case, stated the concerns over the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle the Civil disputes and reprimanded against the issuance of the non-bailable warrants without decent vindication. The court, in this case, ordered for the re-examination of the case against the Manager Singh taking into consideration the examination made, accentuating the need for fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the chargesheet instituted against them was sham and bogus and was lacking proper investigation and that the chargesheet failed to establish any offense against them under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no involvement of the entrustment of property and that mere transactions like sale or exchange of property do not compose entrustment, and thus, the charge of criminal breach of trust was not applicable.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that regarding the offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the time of the agreement, there was no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent inducement and that there was absence of essential element of fraudulent intent, hence, depicting the charge of cheating inapplicable.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no sufficient evidence to prove the intention of the Appellants to intimidate the complainant and that they alleged threats were no supported by reliable evidences.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had committed the offense of breach of trust by not refunding the solemn money received for the sale of property and that there was refusal on the part of the Appellants to register the property or return the money regardless of repeated plea, hence the violation of the Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had dishonestly induced the complainant into the transaction related to the property by making false pledges and that the Appellants had received the solemn money but there was a failure on the part of the Appellants to fulfil their obligations, committing the offense of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, evidence regarding threats made by the Appellants to the complainants and his family was presented by the Respondent and that the actions of the Appellants inculcated fear and amounted to criminal intimidation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
  2. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
  3. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
  4. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
  5. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt
  6. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
  7. Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Attempt to commit culpable homicide
  8. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
  9. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes the power of the police officer to investigate the cognizable case
  10. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes that the Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the chargesheet instituted against the Appellants under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was valid?
  2. Whether the actions of the Appellants amounted to Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Criminal Intimidation as defined under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
  3. Whether the evidences exhibited by both the parties to constitute the conduction of the offenses and the accountability of the Appellants copious?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, scrupulously critiqued the contents of the chargesheet and discovered that it was lacking satisfactory evidence to prove the alleged offenses. The pivotal analysis of the chargesheet spotlighted the inadequacy in the case of the Prosecution, presaging the failure in establishment of a prima facie case against the Appellants. The court, in the present case, on the basis of the legal analysis and assessment of the facts, annulled the charges framed against the Appellants and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellants, stating the absence of the ample evidence to proceed with the case. The court, in this case, allowed the anticipatory bail for certain Appellants, taking into consideration the situations of the case and the principles of justice. The court warned against the misuse of the criminal proceedings for civil disputes and issued the directives for fair and justifiable handling of the case against Manager Singh, upholding the integrity of the legal process.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Dowry harassment case revived by Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction ruling of the High Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 10668 of 2022

Dated on – 30th April,2024

Quorum – Justice Aravind Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, the Appellant and the Respondent No.8 were espoused twice on the date 5th of October,2018 in Kolkata and on date 18th of January, 2019 in Jamshedpur. The accusations in this present case are inclusive of abuse by the in-laws concerning the dowry demands, abuse, and physical assault. The Appellant in the present case, lodged a complaint on the 4th of March,2021 which resulted in an institution of an FIR No. 68 of 2021 against Respondent 3 to 8. The Respondents did not reply to the investigation notices resulting in the issuance of Non-Bailable warrants. The Respondents 3 and 4, on date 17th of June, 2021, were arrested with others filing the applications for bail. The Appellant in this case, challenged the order dated 16th of June, 2022 of the Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M. P No. 1291 of 2021, which quashed the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3 to 8 for the offenses under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), and the Non-Bailable warrants were issued against them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the it was an error on the part of the High Court in quashing the proceedings on the basis of non-compliance with the Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complaint perspicuously reveals the offenses and that the High Court should not have intervened with the process of investigation
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court faultily considered the territorial jurisdiction on the basic of the residency, ignoring the facts related to the jurisdiction.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the application of the High Court of principles from the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was erroneous.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court justifiably quashed the proceedings.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as non-compliance with Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the lack of jurisdiction as per the allegations.
  4. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the generic and omnibus nature of allegations against them.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
  2. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
  3. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intend to provoke breach of peace
  4. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
  5. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for giving or taking dowry
  6. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for demanding dowry
  7. Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states the Notice of appearance before police officer

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, stated that the court cannot conduct a mini trial or entertain evidence at the stage of quashing the proceedings. The court stated that the complaints contain the specified accusations against the Respondent 3,4, and 8 and thus, quashing was erred. The court regarding the territorial jurisdiction, stated that the residency of the Appellant at Jamshedpur was sufficient for the purpose of jurisdiction. The court in this case ruled that the accusations in the complaint must disclose a prima facie case against the accused and that the lack of specific details in the complaint doesn’t justify the quashing proceedings. The court in this case, set aside the quashing the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3,4, and 8 and upheld the Respondents 3,4, and 8 due to the lack in specific accusations. The court achieved for record-keeping purpose, any pending applications (if any).

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11