#IPC Archives - Prime Legal

28 Jun

Burden of Proof Not Met: Supreme Court Overturns Murder Conviction.

Blog #circumstantialevidence, #IndianPenalCode, #IPC, #KarnatakaHighCourt, #MurderCase, #StateofKarnataka, #SupremeCourt, #TrialCourt, acquittal

CASE TITLE – Sharanappa v. State of Karnataka

CASE NUMBER – Criminal Appeal No. 1673 of 2011

DATED ON – 04.10.2023

QUORUM – Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). For the offence under Section 302, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand). In the appeal, by the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction. The deceased is Meenakshi with whom the appellant married on Basavajayanti day in the year 2003 in a mass marriage programme. The case of the prosecution is that on 28th May, 2004 PW-3 Alfred Mathai saw the appellant in the company of the deceased near Mariyapura Bus Stop. On 30th May, 2004 a body of a female person was recovered in a decomposed state. The body was identified as that of the deceased wife of the appellant. The prosecution case is that on 28th May, 2004 itself, the appellant informed his father-in-law that his wife was missing. However, he did not file a missing complaint. The appellant filed a missing complaint on 31st May, 2004. The First Information Report was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by appellant’s father-in-law on 1st June, 2004. The allegation made therein was that the appellant suspected that his wife was living an adulterous life and that was pleaded as a motive to kill the deceased. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is of last seen together. The second circumstance is of the recovery of knife allegedly used as a weapon of offence by the appellant, at the instance of the appellant. The third circumstance is that though even according to the appellant, the deceased was missing since 28th May, 2004, he never filed a missing complaint till 31st May, 2004 and he did so after getting the knowledge of the fact that the dead body of his wife was found on earlier day.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution has been able to successfully prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of the witness, PW-3 Alfred Mathai is wholly unreliable. He also brought the Court’s attention to the evidence of the alleged witnesses to the Recovery Memorandum of alleged recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant. He submitted that both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution. His submission was that both the important circumstances which constitute the chain of circumstances against the appellant have not been established.

CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State, while supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the Trial Court and the High Court have analyzed the evidence of PW-3 and found that his version was reliable. His submission was that the appellant has not explained a very important circumstance against him that from 28^th May, 2004 to 31^st May, 2004 he did not lodge even a missing report with the police. He submitted that only after he came to know about the recovery of body of his wife, he lodged missing complaint.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the circumstances forming a part of the chain, and noted that the first and the most important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was of last seen together, the only witness examined to prove the said circumstance was PW-3 Alfred Mathai. In the cross-examination, The Court observed that the witness stated that he had not stated anything before the police which is found in his statement Exhibit D-1 which was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, he stated that only when he went to the police station he came to know who the accused was and also whose dead body it was. Thus, it was crystal clear that what was stated by the PW-3 Alfred Mathai in his examination-in-chief is a complete improvement. Therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was impossible to believe his testimony. Hence, the theory of the prosecution about the last seen together must fail. So far as the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the appellant is concerned, the Court found that both PW-4 and PW-5 were allegedly the witnesses to the mazhar have not supported the prosecution. PW-4 stated that he signed the mazhar at the police station. PW-5 did not depose before the Court that the appellant, while in police custody, stated that he was aware about the place at which he had concealed the weapon of the offence. Therefore, even the second circumstance pleaded by the prosecution was not at all established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that only on the basis of the third circumstance based on the conduct of the appellant, the appellant cannot be convicted. Hence, the appeal succeeded and was accordingly allowed. And the impugned judgments were set aside and also acquited the appellant of the offences alleged against him.

“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.”

Judgment Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao

Click here to view full Judgment

27 Jun

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #evidence, #IPC, #judgment, #SupremeCourtofIndia, maritaldispute, uttarpradesh

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. C. T. Ravikumar, J. Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

Indian Penal Code:

Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

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.

27 Jun

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #evidence, #IPC, #judgment, #SupremeCourtofIndia, maritaldispute, uttarpradesh

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. C. T. Ravikumar, J. Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

Legal Issues

Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

Indian Penal Code:

Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Contentions of the Respondents

Judgement and Analysis

Conclusion

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

27 Jun

SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION – 302 OF IPC.

Prime Legal

Blog, high court, Legal procedure, Lucknow High Court, Supreme court #appeal, #ArmsAct, #Conviction #Witness, #CulpableHomicide, #Intoxication, #IPC, #judgment, #LegalPost, #MalafideIntention, #SC #ARMSACT #MURDER #PRIMELEGAL, #SupremeCourt, #UPHighCourt

CASE NAME: NANHE VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791OF 2023.

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 21, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA & JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 30.05.2007, an incident occurred in a market area, resulting in injuries and a death of Mahendra Hussain, son of Mohd. Ali. Two cases were registered against the accused, Nanhe, under Section 304 and 308 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both cases were tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act,1989. The trial court found Nanhe guilty of Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-.

The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the accused in criminal appeal No.4474 of 2010, which was filed by the accused in both cases. The accused has appealed against the High Court’s judgment and order through this appeal, highlighting the single appeal filed by the accused against his conviction.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the said offence is liable to be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under second part of section 304 IPC.
Whether the offence committed in the state of intoxication can be taken into consideration for convicting the same .
Whether the known level of intoxication can be determined factor in convicting the accused.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

INDIAN PENAL CODE

Section-86: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Section-301: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended. – If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

Section-302: Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section-304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

The learned counsel for appellant argues that the deceased’s death was accidental, not intentional. The appellant was heavily intoxicated and unaware of his actions. The incident occurred on 30.05.2007 when Mohd. Ali, his son, and his son, Saddam Hussain, argued. Sant Ram, Mahendra’s brother, intervened and asked Nanhe to leave. Nanhe fired a shot, piercing Mahendra’s neck and killing him. Saddam was taken to a hospital where he died.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

The counsel for the respondent argues that the action of the Nanhe (appellant) which inflicted to the death of Saddam Hussain was intentional and not accidental. The appellant was arguing with Mahendra and then, the Sant Ram intervened and asked appellant to leave the place. After walking 15 -20 steps he moved back and fired with his country made pistol in the state of intoxication, which shows the clear intention of the appellant to murder.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

Saddam Hussain died from a firearm shot received in his neck, fired from a country-made pistol owned by appellant Nanhe. The weapon and cartridges were recovered from him. The trial court and High Court concluded that Nanhe is guilty of an offense under Section 302 IPC. The question is whether the offense can be reduced to culpable homicide, not murder, under Section 304 IPC, given Nanhe’s intention to settle his score with Mahendra and the impact of his intoxication at the time of the incident.

The appellant argued that he had no intention to kill the deceased and was accidentally killed, despite firing a shot on Mahendra, a person he had a quarrel with earlier. Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is relevant, as it embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The court in Shankarlal Kacharabhai & Ors Vs. The State Of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260 stated that to invoke Section 301, an offender must not have any intention to cause the death or knowledge of the potential harm.

In Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 51, the court ruled that the High Court’s decision to set aside a Special Judge’s order based on the fact that the shooting was not aimed at the victim and he was accidently injured was in ignorance of Section 301 IPC. In Jagpal Singh Vs. State Of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 982, the court ruled that the accused was punishable under Section 302 IPC (simplicitor) under the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive’ under Section 301 IPC.

The appellant is found guilty of culpable homicide under section 302 IPC, based on the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The offence was committed by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of their act. The court ruled in Basdev Vs. State Of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, that if no evidence shows an accused’s incapacity to understand their actions due to intoxication, the killing would be an offence of murder.

The incident occurred due to a quarrel between the appellant and Mahendra, with which Saddam was killed. Hussain had no connection to the firing, but Saddam was killed by accident. The appellant may have accidentally killed Saddam intoxicated, but there is no evidence to prove he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was dangerous enough to cause death. Therefore, Section 86 IPC would not apply and Hussain would not be entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

JUDGEMENT:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in confirming the conviction and punishing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant can apply for remission under the current state policy, which the State is expected to consider on its merits promptly.

“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 falls 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.”

Click here to view the full judgement: NANHE VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

25 Jun

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Kerala Uxoricide Case.

Prime Legal

Blog, Supreme court #CrPc, #IPC, #SupremeCourtofIndia, #uxoricide, abuse, highcourtofkerala, legalblog

Anil Kumar v State of Kerala.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2697 of 2023.

Date: November 01, 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

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

Facts of the case

The appeal was filed when the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A IPC. The appellant allegedly threw a lit matchstick on his wife after she poured kerosene over herself due to the quarrel.

Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of IPC as it was stated that the wife was tired of the torture and wanted to end everything. The appellant took advantage of the situation. The charge changed to 302 and 498 after she died in the hospital, and her husband was charged with uxoricide. The children of the couple testified that the appellant had the habit of hitting their wife.

Legal Issue

Whether there was a premeditated mind to kill or was it merely grave and sudden provocation resulting in the action?

Legal provisions

Indian Penal Code:

300 – Murder and when culpable homicide is not murder.
302 – Punishment for murder.
304 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
307 – Attempt to murder.
498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

Contentions of appellant

The learned counsel for the appellant defended that he was not guilty of burning his wife. She had suicidal tendencies and had made several attempts to do it. He did the act due to the grave and sudden provocation caused by the quarrel. Later, he tried to prevent her from doing it the day by pouring a bucket of water, and therefore, he did not possess any premeditated mind to kill. Thus, these Sections are not applicable; at best, he can be charged under Section 304 part II of IPC. They argued that it was due to grave and sudden provocation and that there was no premeditated intention to kill.

Contentions of the respondent

The learned counsel of the respondent opposed this and argued that the appellant had burnt his wife with a matchstick, fully knowing she was drenched in kerosene oil and it would cause death. Additionally, the evidence of the witnesses clearly proves that the couple had petty arguments often and the husband tortured her, including the statement of the wife before passing away in the hospital. She had stated that he would assault her after getting drunk and threw light on the pending criminal cases against the appellant.

Judgement and analysis

The Supreme Court of India held that the evidence and dying declaration of the wife clearly points to the fact that the appellant had a clear intention to kill her and had taken advantage of the situation in which his wife was drenched in kerosene. The testimony of the neighbour helped in establishing that there was a substantial amount of time between the quarrel and setting on fire. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of the offense of culpable homicide amounting to murdered and is not entitled to exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

Thus, the Court upheld the decisions of lower courts and was of the opinion that the courts did not commit any error of fact or law in convicting and sentencing the appellant to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. They dismissed the appeal due to lack of merits.

Judgment reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

1 2 3 … 13