Recent Judgements under Criminal Law

By Samanta Rao

Published On: November 4, 2021 at 12:40 IST

Introduction

A criminal justice system is defined as a collection of legal and social institutions that work together to put the law into action while adhering to a set of procedural norms and constraints. Criminal justice systems include a number of important subsystems, each of which is made up of one or more public institutions and their personnel: police and alternative enforcement agencies, trial and proceeding courts, prosecution, and public defenders.

There have been numerous landmark judgement in India. Criminal justice system assisted those judgements in which victims or innocent person get their equivalent rights and justice.

Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Vs The State of Gujarat[i]

Kidnapping of a minor girl of sixteen years old

Facts of the case

In this instant Appellant i.e., Anversinh challenged the decision passed by the High Court of Gujarat and approached the Supreme Court of India with appeal to set aside the order which was passed by the High Court of Gujarat, withdraw the charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but upheld a case of kidnapping under Section 363 and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with rigorous imprisonment of five years.

Issues raised in case

Whether the consensual affair can be a defence against the charge of kidnapping of a minor girl?

Held

Apex Court, while considering the case of the State of M.P Vs Surendra Singh every court should give a fair sentence based on the nature of the offense and how it was committed or how it was committed. Sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances that affect the sentencing question and then proceed with sentencing.

The court must not only consider the rights of the victim of crime but also the community as a whole when it comes to imposing appropriate sanctions. A minimum sentence imposed only for expiration without regard to the extent to which the case will improve will have an impact on the course of time and public opposition.

The court further stated that as long as the prosecutor established evidence that the kidnapping was committed intentionally or with the knowledge of forcing a girl’s marriage or having sex with her illegally, the penalties of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would be appealed, but no Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be filed against the accused.

Further, Court held that consensual affair is not reasonable defence against the charge of kidnapping of minorgirl and extravagant lust or the love of a young girl cannot be allowed as a protection, or the same can interfere with the essence of the kidnapping case.

Hence, the appeal is partially allowed and bail bonds are discharged.

Union of India Vs Prateek Shukla[ii]

Bail under NDPS Act

Facts of the case

In this instant case it was suspected that a large amount of acetic anhydride was purchased by the respondent’s company. It is alleged that based on the diversion, the Narcotics Control Bureau team proceeded to the Company’s registered office. In the area found locked, the owner was summoned there.

The lock is broken, where the amount of acetic anhydride and amphetamine was found. Documents relating to M/s Griffin International were received. Notices were given to respondent’s Shamsuddin and Bismillah Khan Ahmadzai under Section 67 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act,1985

Thus, the appeal filed by the Accused to the High Court for granting him bail

Held

The Supreme Court of India held that the learned High Court erred in granting the accused bail, as the High Court had imposed a backdrop of incriminating evidence, belonging to the Accused in the NDPS cases in terms of Section 68 (J) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Thus, Apex Court cancelled the bail granted to the Accused.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Love Kush Meena[iii]

Benefit of Doubt

Facts of the case

The case dealt with the question of whether the benefit of the doubt leading to the conviction of the accused in terms of Sections 302, Section 323, and Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 could create an opportunity for the defendant to join as a police officer in Rajasthan Police Services.

Held

Apex Court, while considering the case of Avtar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors. (2016), held that a minor fact of rejection would not suffice, and depending on whether the defendant was innocent on the grounds of complete lack of evidence or his withdrawal was made on grounds of scepticism.

The court also held that in the case of serious offenses, if the withdrawal is based solely on grounds of doubt, then the same would not qualify the defendant for employment.

Thus the Apex Court allowed the appeal, impugned order passed by the Division Bench is set-aside and the parties have to bear their own cost.

Patan Jamal Vali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh[iv]

Atrocities against SC and ST

Facts of the case

In the present case the court considered the theory of intersectionality by Kimberly Crenshaw in U.S.A. Appellant argued in instant case that essential ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe’s prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 were not established.

Feeling aggrieved by the decision passed by the High court of Andhra Pradesh Appellant approached in Supreme Court for his conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe’s Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989.

Held

The Apex court ruled that the division of the streets meant oppression arising from a combination of various pressures that came together to express something different from other forms of apartheid.

The court further stated that the steps taken have been taken for some time but have been very far away and very few and have not tried to rebuild and transform society and its institutions but the state must ensure that no woman is discriminated against on the basis of race or religion.

The court also referred to a Justice JS Verma report compiled after the Delhi 2012 rape case focused on how racially motivated discrimination escalates violence against certain communities, gender, religion, etc. The court also discussed the situation of women in modern Indian society and held that while laws were enacted to bring about change, important work needed to be done to ensure that laws served the purpose for which they were enacted.

The court last discussed Section 3 (2) (v) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe’s Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989. It set aside the conviction under this section after the significant findings under this section and confirmed the conviction of the Accused under Section 376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Shaik Ahmed Vs State of Telangana[v]

Appeal in a kidnapping case

Facts of the case

In this case victim, PW-2 Prateek Gupta was kidnapped by the Accused. On 03.02.2011, PW-2 went to a picnic which was organised by his school. After the picnic his father instructed him to took auto for home but he didn’t return at home.

The main question was raised before the court, in this case, was what the essential elements of Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 should prove without hesitation in order to convict the defendant under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Thus, Appellant filed an appeal to Supreme Court, by feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court for his conviction under Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issues raised in case

What are the key ingredients of Section 346A that will be proven without a doubt by the prosecutor about finding the defendant guilty under Section 364A IPC?
Whether each ingredient as prescribed under Section 364A needs to be proved in order to be found guilty under Section 364A and the imposition of any conditions could change that sentence under Section 364A IPC?
Did the Session Judge and the High Court record the findings that all Section 364A ingredients have been proven by the prosecutor?
Whether there is any evidence or find of the Court below that the defendant had threatened to kill or injure the victim or that his or her conduct gave rise to a reasonable fear that the victim may be killed or harmed?

Held

The Supreme Court of India in this case had the necessary provisions to repatriate the defendants’ case:

Kidnapping a person and keeping that person in custody after a kidnapping or abduction,
There is a threat of death or injury to that person, or the kidnapping behavior leads to a reasonable fear that the person may cause death or injury,
Such a kidnapper causes injury or death to that person to compel the government of any foreign country or any State agency or any other person to commit or refrain from committing any act or to pay a ransom.
After establishing the first condition, the prosecutor must establish a second or third condition to prove the defendant’s case.

Hence, the appeal is allowed relied on above conditions and Appellant convicted for seven years under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and shall liable for fine.

Achhar Singh Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh[vi]

Reasonable Doubt

Facts of the case

In the present case, the complainants are No. 1 and 2 were tried under 452, Section 326, Section 323 and Section 302, Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively, and were found not guilty by the Court of Appeal for finding doubt.

While relying on the case of Murugesan & 16 Ors. Vs State Tr.Insp. Of Police (2012) the plaintiff’s attorney argued that as long as the original court opinion was a possible opinion, further investigation by the High Court under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not required.

The main question before the Supreme Court of India is whether the Supreme Court learned to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was eligible for intervening in the withdrawal order presented by the original court.

By feeling aggrieved the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court where they challenged the High Court’s decision to overturn the Sessions Court’s acquittal order

Held

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that one of the most important aspects of criminal law was the assumption that the accused was innocent until proven guilty by a competent court and in this case, the first court, after examining all the evidence, records, and witnesses, acquitted the accused.

Under the Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if there are two opinions, in such cases the High Court will not overturn the original court decision, however, that rule may not be extended to show appeals appearing against an appeal order under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 limited to determine whether the court’s opinion of the trial was possible. There is no limit to the High Court to re-examine the evidence during the sentencing hearing.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed and their bail bonds stand cancelled and thus the Accused convicted under Section 323, 326 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code.

Lakshman Singh Vs State of Bihar[vii]

Freedom of Speech

Facts of the case

In this case the prosecutor said the suspects formed an illegal rally and tried to snatch the existing voter list from the victim, and when rejected by the aggrieved party, the accused began beating him, and later one of the suspects fired a shot. An educated court has found 16 people convicted under Section 323, Section 307, Section 147, Section 149, and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

By feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Appellant approached in Supreme Court of India to upheld the Accused conviction under Section 147 and Section 323 of IPC, 1860

Held

The Apex Court while relying on People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. Vs The Union of India (2004), which held that freedom of voting was a part of freedom of speech and was needed to strengthen democracy.

The court further stated that the essence of the electoral system must be to ensure the freedom of the electorate to exercise their free will. Therefore, any attempt to vote for a booth and / or a fake vote should be handled with an iron fist because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy. “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.”

Smt. Aneeta And Anr. Vs State of U.P. And 3 Ors.[viii]

Violence in a Live in Relationship

Facts of the case

In this present case Petitioner no. 1 and no. 2 are not husband-wife; responder no. 4 is the husband of the applicant no. 1, and it is the prosecution’s fault that the applicant did not. Petitioner no.1 lives with applicant no. 2 due to the abusive behaviour of the respondent no. 4.

In this case, the applicant prayed for an injunction issued by a letter of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Judges in Allahabad, to protect the fundamental rights of applicants guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India and to ensure that no violations of law Safety and protection of applicants must be enforced.

Held

In this instant case Apex Courtheld that parties may not be allowed to engage in illegal activities as in the future, applicants may indicate that they have sanctified their illegal relationship. Staying in a relationship cannot be at the expense of the social world. Directing the police to protect them may give us permission to engage in such illegal activities.

Further, court imposed fine of Rs.5000/- on Petitioner and allowed the appeal.

Harshvardhan Yadav Vs State of U.P. And Another [ix]

Rape is the most physically and morally despicable crime in society

Facts of the case

In this instance case, a special judge’s ruling was made under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, and an appeal was filed in the Allahabad High Court of Judicature. The appeal was filed under Section 14 of the SC and ST Act of 1989 in this case.

In court, the appellant claimed that he had been in prison since November 2020 and that he had no prior criminal record. Furthermore, the accused had an academic background and was preparing for competitive exams. He claimed that the FIR against him was issued on the basis of a completely false allegation. There was no evidence of racial discrimination throughout the medical examination.

Held

While finding the accused guilty under Section 376 in this case, the High Court held that rape is the most physically and morally despicable crime in society, with long-term consequences for the victim. It is becoming more common for the accused to obtain the victim’s consent before engaging in sexual activity with her. Such cases of sex under the false pretence of marriage are on the rise, as the accused believe that by using the law, they would be able to avoid punitive measures.

As a result, the government must create particular legislation in cases where the accused receives the victim’s agreement to have sexual intercourse with her on the premises.

Re Exploitation of Children In Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India[x]

Imprisonment and Abuse of Minors

Facts

In this case when the learned amicus curiae drew the court’s attention to two occurrences and certain claims about the imprisonment and abuse of minors in police custody in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India took suo moto cognizance of the issue.

Held

In this instance case, the Supreme Court ruled that the youngster could not be placed in a prison or police cell, but rather in a secure household or a safe location. The court also stressed the importance of enforcing juvenile bail, which is mandated by Section 12 of the Child Justice (Child Care and Protection) Act of 2015.

The Supreme Court also held that under Section 10 of the Juvenile justice board Act, any kid detained by the police who is suspected of being a criminal shall be placed in a special police unit or a child chosen by a social worker. The provision further states that such authorities must present a child to the Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours of receiving the child.

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora[xi]

Criminal Charges against Members of Parliament

Facts of the case

In this case, the Supreme Court of India noted that the number of criminal politicians in India has increased over the last four general elections, and political parties have provided no explanation as to why they chose a candidate with a criminal background. In 2004, 24 percent of the members of Parliament were facing criminal charges. In 2009, this figure jumped to 30%, then to 34% in 2014, and to 43% in 2019.

Held

The Supreme Court ordered political parties at the federal and state levels to provide accurate information about pending criminal proceedings against selected candidates on their websites, along with the reasons why they were chosen over other candidates who had no criminal past.

This information must also be published in one local newspaper and one national newspaper, as well as on the political party’s official social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. The information must be made public within 48 hours of the candidate’s selection and no later than two weeks before the first deadline for filing nominations, whichever comes first.

Shilpa Mittal Vs State of NCT of Delhi[xii]

Juvenile Justice

Facts of the case

In this case, the accused, who was a minor at the time of the crime, committed a violation of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The juvenile was over 16 but under 18 years old at the time of the incident, and the Juvenile Justice Board decided that the accused had committed a serious crime and should be tried as an adult.

Held

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that an offence with a maximum sentence of more than seven years but no minimum sentence, or with a minimum sentence of less than seven years, cannot be considered a heinous offence under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Paramvir Singh Saini Vs Baljeet Singh[xiii]

CCTV camera video should be installed and a report of its findings published on a regular basis

Facts of the case

After hearing the learned amicus curiae, the Supreme Court of India evaluated the rules set down in Shri Dilip K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal & Ors., (2015), which stated that CCTV camera video should be installed and a report of its findings published on a regular basis.

Held

In this case, the court ordered that all States and Union Territories install CCTV cameras in their jurisdictional police stations and file an affidavit about it within six weeks of the judgment’s delivery.

The Supreme Court also ordered the Central government to install CCTV cameras with night vision and audio and video footage at the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) offices, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) offices, and other similar central agencies.

Conclusion

The judiciary, like the legislature and the administration, is a co-equal branch. The role of courts in society is to protect people’s rights and liberties in addition to adjudicating conflicts between parties. This is especially important in criminal cases, if a person is detained against the State’s wishes.

There have been multiple landmark criminal law judgments in India, each of which has not only aided the judiciary in providing justice to the victim but also established a new legal precedent that would deliver new legal ideas or conceptions. Landmark judgements are frequently ones that are relatively recent or have received little judicial elaboration.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This article is written by Samanta Rao, a student studying in final year pursuing BBA LLB from Centre for Legal Studies-Gitarattan International Business School, GGSIPU, New Delhi. The author is an ambitious, confident and hard-working law aspirant. She is very passionate about her work and takes initiative to accomplish her goals. She is highly innovative with a keen interest in writing articles and analysing judgements.

Edited by: Aashima Kakkar, Associate Editor, Law Insider

Reference

[i] Anversinh @ Kiransinh Fatesinh Vs The State of Gujarat,2021 SCC OnLine SC 9

[ii] Union of India Vs Prateek Shukla, (2007) 7 SCC 789

[iii] The State of Rajasthan Vs Love Kush Meena,2021 (2) SCT 168 : AIR 2021 SC 1610 : 2021 (1) OLR 837

[iv] Patan Jamal Vali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 343

[v] Shaik Ahmed Vs State of Telangana, 2021 CriLJ 3028

[vi] Achhar Singh vs The State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 543

[vii] Lakshman Singh Vs State of Bihar, LL 2021 SC 319

[viii] Smt Aneeta And Another Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others, 2021

[ix] Harshvardhan Yadav Vs State of U.P. And Another,2021

[x] Re Exploitation of Children In Orphanages Vs Union of India, (2021) RCR (CRIMINAL) 1022, LQ/SC/202/202

[xi] Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 178

[xii] Shilpa Mittal Vs State of Nct of Delhi, AIR 2020 SC 405

[xiii] Paramvir Singh Saini Vs Baljeet Singh, 2021 1 SCC 184

Next Read: What is the Financial Action Task Force? »