Here are a few notable judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with criminal matters addressing key provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now incorporated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). By examining the principles established in precedent cases, the Court reinforces fundamental tenets of criminal justice, including self-defense, mens rea, evidentiary standards, and the role of judicial discretion in summoning accused persons.
While the legislative framework of criminal justice has undergone structural changes, the core principles remain steadfast. These foundational tenets continue to be upheld through judicial precedents, ensuring consistency in legal interpretation and application. The Supreme Court, through its judgments, bridges the transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS, reinforcing that while the nomenclature and procedural aspects may evolve, the essence of justice remains unchanged.
1. Supreme Court Assesses the Scope of Exceptions to Murder under Section 300 IPC:
In Ratheeshkumar@Babu v. The State of Kerala & Anr., the appellant argued his murder conviction by invoking Exception 2 (self-defence) and 4 (without pre-mediation) under Section 300 (murder or culpable homicide amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, now defined in Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The appellant intervened in a land dispute when his father objected to the deceased putting up a fence on adjacent farmland owned by the deceased. A verbal altercation ensued, during which the appellant allegedly stabbed the deceased in the chest, resulting in his death. The offence took place without any pre-mediation and in ‘heat of the moment’. The court applied the principles acknowledged in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab. It reiterated the need for an imminent threat substantial enough to take extreme measures and parity in the level of force used for self-defence.
2. “Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police.”- Supreme Court Expresses Concern:
In Mahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Apex Court has expressed concern over the casual and frequent invocation of Section 306 IPC, which is abetment of suicide-now an offence under section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The deceased was found hanging with a suicide note alleging harassment by the appellant, Mahendra Awase over a loan dispute. It has applied principles laid down in the cases of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh to highlight that the communication between the accused and deceased must qualify as 'instigation' and is the proximate cause of committing the act of suicide as the only way out for the deceased. Further, mens rea is also considered as an essential element. The communication between the accused and the deceased should be studied from a practical point of view and not just to file a case to console the family.
3. The Supreme Court Upholds the Credibility of Sole Witness and the Standard of Proof for ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’:
In Govardhan v. The State Of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court upheld that the testimony of sole witness cannot be discarded arbitrarily. The court further mentioned that the prosecution's role is to piece together evidence like a ‘jigsaw puzzle’, creating a clear picture of the crime and the accused's role, even if material evidence cannot be presented. The court's duty is to assess if this evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not overshadow the overall evidence, as true witnesses may naturally differ in details, as emphasized in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai. Adopting an overly strict approach to these discrepancies is unrealistic in judicial scrutiny, as laid down in Rammi v. State of M.P.
4. Supreme Court redefines the Scope of Section 319 CrPC: “The Court is not powerless, and at the stage of summoning, if the trial court finds that a particular person should be summoned as accused, even though not named in the charge-sheet, it can do so.”
In Omi@Omkar Rathore vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court redefined the purview of Section 319 CrPC (power of the court to summon who is not an accused but may have committed the crime) which is now similar to section 358 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 . The provision included every individual against whom evidence came up at the investigation irrespective of whether their name is present in FIR and chargesheet. The court has the power to summon at any stage as per this provision if any evidence points towards their involvement even when it is not mentioned in the chargesheet. The case of S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak laid down the same in 2017.
#CriminalLaw #LegalUpdates #IPC #BNS #BNSS #JudicialPrecedents
Supreme Court, today, granted interim protection from arrest to YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia (𝗕𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘀) in connection with multiple FIRs filed against him over alleged obscene remarks made on the YouTube show ‘𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗚𝗼𝘁 𝗟𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁’.
In a recent Judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that obtaining prior approval of the Competition Commission of India is mandatory before presenting a Resolution Plan involving a combination to the Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
The Supreme Court in Vijay Prabhu v. S.T. Lajapathie & Ors. reaffirmed that relinquishment of claims for part performance of a contract can be made at any stage of litigation, citing Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar. It held that such claims cannot be dismissed solely because they were not raised in the plaint or before the Trial Court, provided the conditions under Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 2018, are met.