&ULPLQDO/DZ5HYLHZ &U/5 $5HVHDUFK2UJDQLVDWLRQ...upheld in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008 (9) SCALE...

Ratio Obiter A Fortnightly Newsletter By Criminal Law Review

Issue 3, August 2020

19.08.2020

Criminal Law Review (CrLR) | A Research Organisation

Contributors:

Digvijay Sahni

Nehal Mishra

Khushi Kerur

Kirti Bhushan

Editing Team:

Ishani Shekhar

Pratyusha Ivaturi

http://www.crlreview.in/

Ratio Obiter | Issue 3 © 2020 Criminal Law Review (CrLR). All rights reserved.

2

Contents

About Us ...................................................................................................................................... 3

About ‘Ratio Obiter’ .................................................................................................................. 3

From the Desk of the Founder ................................................................................................ 4

Snippets ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Supreme Court ........................................................................................................................... 6

Delhi High Court ....................................................................................................................... 8

Bombay High Court .................................................................................................................. 9

Rajasthan High Court ............................................................................................................... 9

Karnataka High Court............................................................................................................. 10

Jammu & Kashmir High Court ............................................................................................. 11

Punjab & Haryana High Court ............................................................................................. 12

Himachal Pradesh High Court .............................................................................................. 12

Madhya Pradesh High Court ................................................................................................. 13

Allahabad High Court ............................................................................................................ 13

Gujarat High Court ................................................................................................................. 14

Kerala High Court ................................................................................................................... 15

Legal Maxim ............................................................................................................................. 17

Quiz Questions ........................................................................................................................ 19

This Day in History ................................................................................................................. 21


3

About Us

Criminal Law Review (the ‘CrLR’), is a research organization founded by Ashwani

Kumar Singh. Though the CrLR started as a criminal law blog in Jan 2018, later on (in

the beginning of 2020) we started working to establish the CrLR as a research

organization. CrLR is incubated by the GNLU Legal Incubation Centre (GLIC).

The CrLR takes up several research projects, runs a blog and conducts various events

with an aim to promote legal writing and research and to assist legal fraternity in the

field of criminal law. As a research organisation, the CrLR provides an effective

platform to credible and comprehensive research work that deals with the intricacies

and nuances of criminal law.

About ‘Ratio Obiter’

The Ratio Obiter is a fortnightly newsletter to keep the legal community updated

about the recent happenings with regards to criminal law. The prime objective behind

the inception of this idea is to spark contemporary and insightful discussions in the

realm of criminal law. The CrLR team along with the interns efficiently works in

selecting content and editing process to put out only the best content.

The newsletter would consist of brief updates on select judgements of the Supreme

Court and High Court of India, recent blog posts, important legal news and snippets

of SC judgements among others.

All Rights Reserved.

http://crlreview.in/

http://crlreview.in/

http://crlreview.in/blog

http://crlreview.in/newsletter


4

From the Desk of the Founder

As our tagline suggests, the primary goal behind every activity of the CrLR is to assist

Legal Fraternity in Criminal Law in different ways possible. The Ratio Obiter, our

fortnightly newsletter, runs on the similar lines by keeping you updated.

The Third Issue of the Ratio Obiter has been made possible majorly by the efforts of

our Interns, and our Team is thankful to all of them – Digvijay Sahni (2019-24,

MNLU, Mumbai), Nehal Mishra (2017-22, Nirma University, Ahemdabad), Khushi

Kerur (2017-22, Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad) and Kirti Bhushan (2019-22, Campus

Law Centre, DU).

If you are interested in contributing, reach to us at [email protected] or +91-

7434045410 or any of our social media pages. We would be happy to hear any

feedback / suggestion from your end, please do get in touch.

~

Ashwani Kumar Singh, Founder & M.D.

E: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


5

Snippets

On Contempt of Court and Free Speech

The key word is "justice", not "judge"; the key-note thought is unobstructed

public justice, not the self-defence of a judge; the corner-stone of the contempt

law is the accommodation of two Constitutional values-the right of free speech

and the right to independent justice. The ignition of contempt action should be

substantial and mala fide interference with fearless judicial action, not fair

comment or trivial reflections on the judicial process and personnel

Vide: Baradakanta Mishra and Ors. v. Registrar of Orissa High Court and Ors.,

(19.11.1973 – SC), (1974)SCC(Cri)128.

Grant of Leave to Appeal under Article 136

An appeal is a creature of a Statute and cannot lie under any inherent power.

This Court does undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the discretionary

power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of

the State or an affected private individual but to permit anybody or an

organization pro-bono publico to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine

and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system

Vide: National Commission of Women v. State of Delhi and Ors., (23.07.2010 -

SC), (2010)12SCC599.

Exercise of Discretion by Judges

When it is said that a matter is within the discretion of the court it is to be

exercised according to well established judicial principles, according to reason

and fair play, and not according to whim and caprice

Vide: Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh and Ors., (05.05.2014 - SC), AIR 2014 SC

2840.


6

Supreme Court

1. Gangadhar @ Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,

Criminal Appeal No. 504 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7415 of 2019).

1.1. Keywords: §35, 37, 54 of NDPS Act, 1985, Appreciation of evidence, Right to Fair

Investigation and Article 21, Appeal.

1.2. The judgement of the lower court was questioned on the grounds of lack of

investigation and incomplete appreciation of evidence leading to wrongful

incarceration.

1.3. The provision of presumption of culpability under legal provisions such as

§37 of NDPS (reverse onus clause) does not discharge the duty of the

Prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt. The

initial burden is on the Prosecution and the Prosecution is expected to

establish the basic facts of the case upon which the burden shifts to the

accused.

1.4. Trivia: The constitutionality of Sections 34 and 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was

upheld in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008 (9) SCALE 681).

1.5. Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, appreciation and corroboration

of evidence is not the duty of the Apex Court, nevertheless, the Court decided

that the Right to life of the accused cannot be compromised on account of poor

investigation and mis-appreciation of evidence by the lower courts. Order for

acquittal of accused was thus passed.

2. In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr. … Alleged Contemnor(s),

Suo Motu Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2020, decided on 14th August, 2020.

2.1. Keywords: Contempt of Court, §79, Information Technology Act, 2000, Suo Motu

Action, §15, Contempt of Court Act, 1971,

2.2. A Suo Motu action was undertaken by the Apex Court in order to decide

whether or not the statements made by Mr. Prashant Bhushan through social

media, target the Apex Judicial Institution of the country and undermine its

working in the past few years.


7

2.3. It was contended that attributing the form of contempt to the statements

made, shall unreasonably restrict the freedom of speech in a democratic

nation, given that all the statements were bona fide opinions on the state of

affairs of the country.

2.4. The Court observed that such calculated and mala fide statements made

against the Judges and the Judicial Process, which undoubtedly undermine

the confidence of the public bestowed in the Administrative system, cannot

be left unnoticed or unattended.

2.5. Therefore, the Court held that in light of preserving the honour, dignity and

public confidence of the Judicial system, it is pivotal that such actions are

condemned, therefore Mr. Prashant Bhushan was held guilty of contempt of

court.

3. Preet Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

Criminal Appeal No. 520 Of 2020 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2102 Of 2019].

3.1. Keywords: Appeal against bail, §304B, 498A, and 406, IPC, Dowry Prohibition

Act, §389 CrPC.

3.2. Unnatural death of victim after 8.5 months of marriage. Oral evidence was

procured regarding physical and mental torture for dowry post marriage,

Sessions court convicted accused, appeal was filed before the High Court.

During the pendency of the appeal, bail was granted to the accused.

3.3. The question considered by the Supreme Court was whether the High Court

was right is granting bail during the pendency of the appeal.

3.4. Since none of the offences charged for were bailable in nature, especially as

the present case deals with post-conviction bail, there should be strong and

compelling reasons to grant bail, that have to be recorded in writing.

3.5. The Court observed that the facts and circumstances show that there is no

basis for the suspension of the execution of the sentence, therefore, the bail

stands cancelled.


8

Delhi High Court

4. Manjeet Kumar & Ors. v. State & Anr.,

CRL.M.C. 1621/ 2020 & CRL.M.A. 10315/ 2020.

4.1. Keywords – Section 498A/ 406/ 34 of IPC, 1860, mutual consent, decree of divorce.

4.2. The court upheld that criminal cases which have a predominant civil nature

should be directed to be quashed when the parties have agreed to resolve the

dispute amongst themselves.

4.3. The list may include those arising out of civil, mercantile, commercial,

financial, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of

matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes, where the

issues have been resolved amicably, irrespective of the fact that such case has

not been made compoundable.

4.4. The High Court has inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings and

criminal complaints against the offender if the Court is convinced that such

settlement could hardly lead to the accused being convicted.

5. Sameer v. State (NCT of Delhi)

CRL.A. 265/ 2017 & CRL.M. (Bail) 7455/ 2020.

5.1. Keywords – Section 164 of the Cr.PC., 1973, rape, sterling witness, solitary

testimony.

5.2. In the offence of rape, solitary testimony of the witness is sufficient to convict

the accused.

5.3. The case at hand upheld that, the conviction of accused is solely based on the

testimony of the witness and that any statement made by the prosecutrix must

be consistent, reliable, and unblemished.

5.4. The court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v.

Babu Meen, wherein it stated that testimonies could be classified into 3

categories: (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly

reliable and neither wholly unreliable and for conviction of the accused, the

statement of the prosecutrix must fall within the ambit of first category i.e.

wholly reliable.


9

Bombay High Court

6. Arumugum Arundatiyar v. The State of Maharashtra,

Criminal Appeal No. 1070 of 2015.

6.1. Keywords – Gravity of offence, section 307 of IPC, 1860, reasonable proportionality.

6.2. The courts are expected to maintain reasonable proportionality between the

gravity of offence and the punishment. Rights of the accused and the interest

of the community at large should go hand in hand.

6.3. Crimes against women should be treated on a higher pedestal, but at the same

time the courts can’t go to any extent to achieve the said purpose. The relevant

factors for punishing the accused must include his age, circumstances under

which the offence was committed and the nature/extent of the injuries

caused, as was reiterated by the Apex Court in Vijay Kant v. State of Rajasthan.

6.4. The High Court is powered to modify the sentence.

7. Baliram s/o Namdeo Bedke v. State of Maharashtra

Criminal Writ Petition No. 539 of 2020.

7.1. Keywords – Section 379 of IPC, 1860, art. 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution,

MPDA act, sand smuggler.

7.2. Registration of offences under section 379 of IPC amounts to sand smuggling

which has serious effects on the water table and poses a threat to the public

and farmers in general.

7.3. The activity of sand smuggling hampers peace and is a direct threat to public

order. Due to the devastating impact of the crime on the society at large,

Section 2 of MPDA act has been amended to include the term “sand

smuggler.”

Rajasthan High Court

8. State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Singh,

Criminal Death Reference No. 7/2020.

8.1. Keywords – Death sentence, section 302 of IPC, 1860, trial court.


10

8.2. The case at hand stipulates that, in case an appeal has been allowed to

challenge the punishment of a trial court where it has awarded a death

sentence, the past criminal record of the convict is of prime importance.

8.3. For the guilt of the accused to be established as per circumstantial evidence,

four tests must be fulfilled: (i) the circumstances from which the guilt is sought

to be produced must be cogent and established firmly, (ii) such circumstances

should definitely point out towards the guilt of the accused, (iii) a chain of

events must be established which depict that the crime was committed by the

accused and no one else and, (iv) such evidence must be consistent with the

guilt of the accused and at the same time must be inconsistent with his

innocence.

8.4. The abovementioned 4-part test established by the Apex Court for cases based

on circumstantial evidence in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Ors. was upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in the present case.

9. Rakesh s/o Shri Murarilal v. State of Rajasthan,

Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3248/ 2020.

9.1. Keywords – Section 482 Cr.P.C., matrimonial/ family disputes, quashing of FIR in

case of compromise.

9.2. The Court upheld that in a family dispute where a compromise has been

arrived at, by the husband and wife, any criminal proceeding pending against

either of the parties in relation to such resolved dispute, should be quashed.

9.3. Upholding the direction of Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi

Narayan, the High Court stated that in the event of resolution of disputes,

especially in family and matrimonial matters by both the parties, all the

criminal proceedings stand quashed under S. 482 of Cr.P.C.

Karnataka High Court

10. Basavaraju @ Basava v. State of Karnataka,

Criminal Petition No. 238/ 2020.

10.1. Keywords – Abuse of power, section 402 of IPC, 1860, Section 482 of Cr.P.C.


11

10.2. The acquittal of the co-accused after a full dressed trial will ultimately lead t

the quashing of criminal proceedings against all other members in case of

absence of any of them during such trial.

10.3. The case at hand upholds the decision rendered by the competent High Court

in JCB Narayana @ Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka, and directed that

continued prosecution and detention of such member amounts to the abuse of

process of the court and leads to failure to meet the the ends of justice.

11. Sri Kumara @ Gonne Kumara v. State of Karnataka,

Criminal Petition No. 1975/ 2020.

11.1. Keywords – Bail, circumstantial evidence.

11.2. The court directed that the accused cannot be granted bail if there is an abuse

of discretion exercised in granting bail.

11.3. The petition for granting bail can only be entertained in the event of any

changed circumstance. The present case rests on circumstances such as motive,

recovery of incriminating material, conspiracy, etc. The Court dismissed the

bail petition on the ground that material witness turning hostile could not be

termed as a changed circumstance, sufficient for the grant of bail.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

12. Mohd. Naseem v. UT of J&K through SHO P/S Bari Brahmana and Anr.,

CRLM NO. 436/2020.

12.1. Keywords: Inherent Powers, Quashing Bail Order, POCSO Act, Minor girl, Section

482-Cr.P.C.

12.2. The Petitioner (Minor girl’s father) challenged the bail granted to Respondent

no.1, who is registered under sections 376-D, 363, 109 IPC, section 4 of POCSO

Act and pleaded that the same should be quashed as such order was not

proper.

12.3. The Court, after taking into consideration the ferocity of the crime and the

statement of the victim recorded as well as the apprehension of threat to the

victim at the hands of the accused and absconding co-accused, quashed the

bail issued to Respondent no. 1.


12

Punjab & Haryana High Court

13. Balvir Singh @ Binda v. National Investigation Agency and Another,

CRA-D-325-2020 (O&M).

13.1. Keywords: Bail, NIA, Khalistan Zindabad Force, Arms Act, Explosive Substances

Act.

13.2. The Appellant was charged under sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 120-B IPC,

section 25 of the Arms Act, sections 3, 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908

and section 52-A of the Prisons Act, 1894 due to his involvement in various

activities related to terrorism.

13.3. The Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by Special Judge, NIA,

Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing the regular bail application filed by him.

13.4. The High Court held that the present appeal of the Appellant seeking bail on

medical grounds is liable to be dismissed as he wasn’t suffering from any

serious ailment and t he was charged with a serious offence and thus, he

cannot be granted bail.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

14. Harsh Anand v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,


14.1. Keywords: Theft, Non- compoundable, Inherent Power.

14.2. The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing

the F.I.R. filed against him along with consequential proceedings for an

offence under Section 380 IPC as he and the respondent no. 3 (the owner of

the goods) have entered into a compromise inter se.

14.3. The High Court observed that the case was at an initial stage and no purpose

will be fulfilled by continuing the proceedings as there has been a compromise

between the parties.

14.4. The High Court took into consideration the guidelines given by the Supreme

Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014) and

quashed the F.I.R as well as the consequential proceedings.


13

Madhya Pradesh High Court

15. Vinod Raghuvanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh,

MCRC 38669/ 2019.

15.1. Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C., Forgery, Custodia legis, Cr.P.C. 340 r/w 195.

15.2. During the course of a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., a letter was

allegedly sent by the petitioner, by the name of the respondent, to the Chief

Justice of MP High Court that the case should be transferred to some other

judge as the Judge presiding over the current case is a relative of the

Petitioner’s counsel.

15.3. The Court observed that as the offence falls under section 206 IPC, the same

is to be instituted under Section 340 r/w Section 195 of Cr.P.C. However, the

letter wasn’t not traceable by the registrar and the author was also

anonymous.

15.4. The Court allowed the application and the Principal Registrar (Judicial) was

directed to make an inquiry to ascertain the name of the author who wrote the

letter, with the help of a handwriting expert.

Allahabad High Court

16. Gulshan alias Makedam Singh Jatav v. State of U.P,

Criminal Appeal No. - 4122 of 2015 decided on 6th August, 2020.

16.1. Keywords: §452, 302 of IPC, §161 CrPC, discrepancy in witness statements, delay

in filing statements.

16.2. The Court observed that the evidence produced, the unexplained delay in

recording of the witness statements, the discrepancy and contradiction of the

witness statements during cross examination, casts a doubt on the

Prosecution’s submissions and creates a benefit of the doubt in favour of the

accused.

16.3. Emphasis was placed on, “When two views are created by the submissions of

the party, one towards the guilt and other towards the innocence, the view that

is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”


14

16.4. Wrongful acquittals are undesirable but wrongful conviction shakes the

confidence of the people in the criminal justice system. Hence, failure to

consider the vitiating circumstances, alongside the facts and evidence

adduced fails to establish a prima facie case, therefore awarding the accused

a benefit of doubt. The accused was accordingly acquitted.

17. Ram Shankar v. State of U.P,

Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1987, decided on 6th August, 2020.

17.1. Keywords: §395, IPC, §399/402 of IPC, §25 of Arms Act, §9 Evidence Act, Test

Identification Parade.

17.2. There was an unexplained and undue delay of 7 weeks in conducting the Test

Identification Parade (TIP). Delay raises questions regarding the genuineness

of the evidence thereof.

17.3. The occurrence of the instant offence took place at midnight which created a

lack of fair chance on the part of the witness to clearly see the accused. In

addition to this, the undue delay in conducting the TIP, renders both the

witness and the evidence put forth, unreliable.

17.4. Cardinal Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence is that the guilt of the accused

has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt also known as the presumption of

innocence, therefore the 5 accused were acquitted.

Gujarat High Court

18. Vipul @ Vijay Jinabhai Sapara v. State of Gujarat,

Criminal Misc. Application No. 8823 of 2020, Decided on 11th August, 2020.

18.1. Keywords: §482 Cr.P.C., §363, 366, 376 and 506(2), of IPC and §4, 8 of POSCO,

amicable settlement.

18.2. The offences in the instant case were under §363, 366, 376 and 506(2), of IPC

and §4, 8 of POSCO. It was claimed that the said FIR was filed due to a

misunderstanding and post the counselling by well-wishers, the dispute was

amicably resolved.

18.3. Legally, any proceeding under §376 of IPC cannot be quashed due to the grave

nature of the crime on the grounds of settlement. But in the interest of the


15

welfare of the victim and to secure her future, it may be ordered that the

proceedings be quashed.

18.4. Both the parties are now happily married and a settlement has been reached,

taking this into consideration the court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction

to quash the FIR.

Kerala High Court

19. Abdul Rassaque @ Abdu v. State of Kerala,


19.1. Keywords: §5(k) r/w §6 of POSCO, §375 and 376 IPC, age of prosecutrix.

19.2. The grounds of conviction were Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault under

POSCO and Rape under IPC. The sentence was passed according to the

provisions of POSCO, which is contested through the present appeal.

19.3. The statement of the Prosecutrix was questioned on grounds of her being

mentally retarded, but the examination showed that she could understand the

questions posed to her and the answers given by her were rational therefore,

she was considered as a competent witness.

19.4. Age of the Prosecutrix was not established through any substantial evidence

(certificate by the headmaster and the school admission register do not qualify

as conclusive evidence without the presence of supporting evidence),

therefore, the application POSCO was rejected. The remaining charges were

of §375 and 376, IPC.

19.5. A thorough appreciation of the facts and evidence, proved the commission of

offence of Rape by the accused, therefore the sentence was modified to that

under §376 IPC, thereby imprisonment for a term of 7 years along with a fine

of Rs. 25,000 was awarded by the Court.

20. Jithesh v. State of Kerala,

Crl. Appeal Nos .567 of 2014 along with others, decided on 12th August, 2020.

20.1. Keywords: Circumstantial evidence, §34, 120A, 120B, 201, 302, 328, 394, 465 IPC,

Witness Testimonies and Oral Evidence §9, 25-27, 65B of Evidence Act, Kerala

Identification of Prisoners Act, ,1963.


16

20.2. On Oral Evidence: deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place

of incident remains doubtful should be discarded.

20.3. On Test Identification Parade: Not conducting TIP is a serious flaw especially

when the witnesses deposed that they have no acquaintance to the accused

persons. But in present case, non-conducting of the TIP has not caused any

prejudice to the accused as no ill-will or animosity was noted on the part of

the witnesses against the accused.

20.4. On Awarding of Sentences- The Court observed that due consideration to the

charges framed has to be given in order to make sure that the punishment

does is not unjustified. Courts should be clear as to whether the sentences

should run concurrently or consecutively.

20.5. The charges filed by the Trial court were modified based on the offences

committed by each of the accused and the sentence was awarded accordingly.

21. Rajendran v. State of Kerala,

Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2007, decided on 10th August, 2020.

21.1. Keywords: §58 of Abkari Act, lack of requisition marking on evidence.

21.2. This appeal arose against conviction of the accused under §58 of Abkari Act

for the possession of illicit liquor.

21.3. The main contention raised was the lack of any seal or mark of requisition on

the can collected. This rendered the chemical analysis report unreliable due to

lack of certainty of the evidence processed in the lab.

21.4. The Court placed reliance on this and observed that, mere production of a

laboratory report stating that the sample tested was a contraband substance

cannot be conclusive by itself. The sample seized and tested have to be co-

related.

21.5. Therefore, the order for conviction was reversed on grounds of non-

appreciation of evidence by the Trial court and the findings of the present

court.


17

Legal Maxim

Corpus Delicti:

Meaning: This Latin phrase translates to ‘body of the crime’. Black’s Law Dictionary

defines ‘corpus delicti’ as the “fact of a crime having been actually committed”. A crime

must have occurred in the first place in order to establish a charge. For instance, before

a person can be tried for the offence of larceny, it must be proven that property has

been stolen. The term ‘body’ in the phrase refers to evidence. The components of corpus

delicti include occurrence of the specific injury and a criminal act as the source of the injury.

Corpus Delicti and Confession: Corpus delicti or the body of the crime shares a close

relationship with confession. The absence of either of the components of corpus delicti

render the confession weak as a confession can’t hold water if it’s not backed by a

corroborative piece of evidence. The Prosecution is therefore expected to discharge a

twin burden i.e. first the actual occurrence of crime and second evidence which

connects the accused with that occurrence.

Relevant Law: The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with what evidence is relevant in

a Court of Law and how the same has to be presented.

It has been established through a catena of judicial decisions that an absence of body

doesn’t necessarily mean the absence of corpus delicti. The archaic rule of ‘no body,

no crime’ is not practiced anymore. Usually the presence of circumstantial evidence

compensates for the absence of corpus delicti especially in homicide cases.

Landmark Judgment:

C. Rama Nand And Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh(1981 AIR 738)

Date of Judgment: January 6, 1981

Bench: Justice Ranjit S Sarkaria

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing

physical evidence has never been considered as the only mode of proving corpus

delicti in murder.


18

General Trivia: It is pertinent to note that corpus delicti is not only relevant in cases

of homicides. It is very much relevant in every crime. It is a cardinal rule that the

occurrence of the crime has to be established before the accused can be tried for such

a crime. The occurrence of a crime can be established only by way of evidence and the

surrounding circumstances which together make the body of the crime.


19

Quiz Questions

1. Which case decided that state laws establishing racial segregation in public

schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal

in quality in USA?

2. Which legal maxim means a personal action dies with the person?

3. Which case redefined the manner of appointment of judges, judicial

independence, and separation of powers between the three branches of

government?

4. Which symbol relating to justice, equite, and fairness was the Supreme Court of

India designed keeping in mind?

5. Which is the first case involving conviction under Information Technology Act,

2000?

6. Under which Article of the constitution can the concept of Contempt of Court be

recognized?

7. What is the maximum time limit for filing of a complaint before the consumer

disputes redressal forum from the date when the cause of action arises?

8. Which statute is the EIA backed by?

9. Which article of the Indian Constitution deals with the principle of autrefois

convict and autrefois acquit?

10. What is the maximum period of preventive detention that any person can be

subjected to?

11. Which section of the Cr.P.C deals with preventive detention?

12. How many kinds of punishment are prescribed by the IPC?

13. What range of Sections under the IPC deal with the right of private defence?

14. What is the term used for clauses which place a burden on the accused?

15. What does ‘abet’ mean?

16. Promoting hatred among classes is an offence under which section of the IPC?

17. Which case established the ‘rarest of the rare case’ doctrine?

18. Which article of the Constitution confers pardoning powers on the Governor?

19. What all does ‘injury’ entail according to the IPC?

20. Which section of Cr.P.C lists the powers of superior police officers


20

Answers

1. Brown v. Board of Education

2. Actio Personalis Moritur Cum Persona

3. Keshavananda Bharti case

4. Scales of Justice

5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti

6. Article 129

7. 2 Years

8. Environmental Protection Act, 1986

9. Article 20(2)

10. 3 months

11. Section 151

12. 5 kinds; death, life imprisonment, rigorous or simple imprisonment, forfeiture of

property and fine

13. Sections 96-106

14. Reverse Onus Clauses

15. It refers to ‘incite someone to commit a crime’

16. Section 153A

17. Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab

18. Article 161

19. Harm to a person in body, mind, reputation and property

20. Section 36


21

This Day in History

• August 12, 1765- Treaty of Allahabad signed marking the political and

constitutional involvement and rule of the British in India.

• August 8, 1942- Quit India Movement day- it started at Mumbai’s Gawalia Tank

Maidan.

• August 6, 1945- Hiroshima Day; due to a nuclear bomb attack, an entire city of

Hiroshima in Japan was destroyed and thousands of people lost their lives.

Hiroshima Day is observed on August 6 in the remembrance of those who lost

their lives on this unfortunate day, decades ago.

• August 9, 1945- The United States on 9 August, 1945 dropped a second bomb

on Japan at Nagasaki and the bomb is also known as ‘Fat Man’. It was dropped

three days after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

• August 15, 1947- Partition of India, Pakistan came into being as a separate

nation.

• August 7, 1905- Swadeshi Movement started on this day in Calcutta 1905

commemorated as National Handloom day.

• August 2, 1990- Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.

Thank You!!

For Subscribing to the Newsletter, follow this link.

http://crlreview.in/newsletter

&ULPLQDO/DZ5HYLHZ &U/5 $5HVHDUFK2UJDQLVDWLRQ...upheld in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008 (9) SCALE...

Documents

Transcript of &ULPLQDO/DZ5HYLHZ &U/5 $5HVHDUFK2UJDQLVDWLRQ...upheld in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008 (9) SCALE...