Crininal Law:
Innocents never be punished. Punishment is not the ultimate target of criminal law. Criminal Law is not relating to criminals, but more concerned with all citizens. Knowing the Law is not for finding loopholes, but for following. Everybody has got their own view upon certain things, but all cannot be followed & everyone cannot have their own path in common subjects. In order to have uniformity among citizens in a society, law is required. Criminal law has now entered into the domain of family also. Crimes have been developed & increased at par with technological development. We may expect more white collar crimes in the near future. Ultimately, the need of lawyers in the field of criminal law is very much necessary as there is much possibility of innocents being trapped. Invention not only for development but also for crimes. Even some domestic disputes usually, now-a-days coloured, with criminal ingredients. Associated with everyone, criminal Law is the big subject. Let us concentrate:
Criminal Law
State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198
Discharge- at the stage of framing of charge-The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2017-1-SCC-113 -Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others
Perjury- The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Versus State of Uttarakhand (SC) (27-04-2018)
NDPS Act- Section 50- It is mandatory to conduct search in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate as per Section 50, which is mandatory.- As per Section 50 obligation cast upon the Police Officials to follow the procedure envisaged under the section, irrespective of the fact the Accused invoked his right or not.
Two Views :
State of U.P. V. Ram Veer Singh and Another
The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
Evidentiary Value of Hostile Witness.
Podyami Sukada v. State of M.P., (201[metaslider id=2951]0) 12 SCC 142 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 161 at page 145
True it is that the evidence of the hostile witness is not altogether wiped out and remains admissible in evidence and there is no legal bar to base conviction on the basis of the testimony of hostile witness but as a rule of prudence, the court requires corroboration by other reliable evidence.
Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P., (2004) 9 SCC 713 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1479 at page 719
Even the evidence of a hostile witness if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of an accused.
Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 98]
The fact that the witness was declared hostile at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times, has no regard for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness; normally, it should look for corroboration to his testimony.
Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 661]
It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
Rajendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 480 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1072]
Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable.
Govindappa v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 184]
Deposition of a hostile witness can be relied upon at least up to the extent he supported the case of the prosecution.
Non-Explanation of Injuries sustained by the Accused
Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1976 SC 2263
In a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences :
1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version ; 2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable ; 3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab – 2006 AIR SCW 1610
Injuries suffered by accused were simple – Non- explanation thereof would not dislodge prosecution case, which is established by evidence of credit worthy witnesses.
Shahjahan vs. State of Kerala – 2007 AIR SCW 2123
Murder – Non-Explanation of injuries – Minor and superficial injuries would not affect prosecution case.
Credibility of Witness
State of Orissa vs. Brahmananda – AIR 1976 SC 2488.
Section 3 of Evidence Act, 1872 – Eye-witness not disclosing name of assailant for a day and half-Unnatural.
Harbans Lal vs. State of Punjab – 1996 SCC (Cri) 312.
Eye-witness – not informing about the incident till the third day to anyone – Unnatural conduct – Unsafe to rely upon their testimony.
Joseph vs. State of Kerala – 2003 SCC (Cri) 356
Eye-witness not disclosing the fact to anybody that he being an eye-witness till the next day conduct unnatural – not safe to sustain conviction.
Circumstantial Evidence
State of U.P. v. Desh Raj, (2006) 9 SCC 278 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 489 at page 282
It is a well-settled principle that in order to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish that the chain of circumstances only consistently point to the guilt of the accused and inconsistence with his innocence. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution one.
