Search By Topic: Penal Laws

2. (SC) 21-07-2026

***

Juvenile Justice Act -- Classification of Offences -- Heinous offence -- Offence punishable under Section 302 IPC carries life imprisonment as its minimum punishment by necessary implication and therefore falls within definition of "heinous offence".

***

Juvenile Justice Act -- Appeal -- Section 101(2) -- Expression "may" is enabling and discretionary and does not oblige Appellate Court to obtain expert assistance in every appeal arising from Section 15.

***

Juvenile Act -- Preliminary Assessment -- JJ Board must independently apply its mind to all available materials, including the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR).

***

A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Sections 2(33) and 2(54) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 433A -- Classification of Offence – Murder -- Heinous Offence -- The juvenile appellant, aged above 16 years, was apprehended for allegedly slitting the throat of the deceased -- The appellant contended that Section 302 IPC does not prescribe a minimum punishment and should therefore fall under the definition of a "serious offence" under Section 2(54)(b) – Held that a court convicting an accused of an offence under Section 302 of the IPC cannot impose any lesser sentence than imprisonment for life -- Life imprisonment constitutes the minimum punishment by necessary implication -- The disjunctive "or" between "death" and "imprisonment for life" merely confers discretion to choose between the two punishments, but does not open any avenue for a lesser imprisonment -- Section 21, which prohibits imprisonment for life without possibility of release, operates only at the stage of sentencing and has no bearing on classification of the offence -- Categorized as a "heinous offence".

(Paras 8, 14, 32, 33, 39, 40, 85)

B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016), Sections 15 and 101(2) -- Appeal -- Mandatory or directory nature of expert assistance -- Preliminary assessment -- JJ Board disposed of the case by relying solely on the expert's preliminary assessment report, ignoring the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR) -- Appellate Court reversed the decision and directed that the appellant be tried as an adult without obtaining fresh expert assistance -- Held, the word "may" in Section 101(2) does not mandate the Appellate Court to seek expert assistance in every appeal arising from an order under Section 15 -- The expression "may" is enabling and permissive, conferring discretion upon the Appellate Court -- SIR and SBR are not supplementary material but constitute pertinent inputs which must be accorded due weight alongside the expert opinion -- JJ Board must independently apply its mind to all material available before arriving at its conclusion.

(Paras 49, 50, 56, 79, 84, 85)

12. (SC) 25-05-2026

***

Criminal medical negligence -- Anaesthetist giving telephonic post-operative pain management advice after duty hours cannot be held criminally liable for subsequent procedural lapse committed by staff nurse in administering injection -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

***

Criminal negligence -- In absence of direct proximate nexus between telephonic painkiller advice and death caused by acute coronary insufficiency due to 80% coronary blockage, criminal liability of appellant-anaesthetist not sustainable.
***

Medical negligence -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist in case involving epidural anaesthesia rendered medical opinion unreliable and contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1 -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

***

Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Appellant-doctor having been exonerated on merits by Consumer Forum and such finding attaining finality, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical allegations held abuse of process of law.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal medical negligence -- Rash and negligent act -- Degree of negligence -- Anaesthetist whose duty hours had concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse -- Appellant merely suggested administration of painkiller over telephone, which constituted standard medical advice for post-operative pain management and not gross criminal recklessness -- Failure of nurse to accurately locate epidural space may at best amount to deficiency in service giving rise to civil liability, but lacked gross culpability or mens rea necessary to attract Section 304-A IPC -- Essential ingredients of criminal negligence absent -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal negligence -- Proximate cause -- Requirement of direct nexus (causa causans) between negligent act and death -- Painkiller advised by petitioner over telephone -- Deceased found having asymptomatic 80% coronary artery blockage -- Medical evidence proving immediate cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency resulting in heart attack -- Chain of causation too remote to fasten criminal liability upon appellant-anaesthetist -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence -- Expert opinion – Requirement of independent competent medical opinion -- Case relating to administration of epidural anaesthesia -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist -- Effect -- Absence of specialist in concerned branch rendered panel incompetent to evaluate technical nuances of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management -- Reliance on such flawed expert report contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Paras 26, 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Effect -- Consumer Forum after detailed appreciation of evidence exonerating appellant-doctor from liability -- Finding attained finality qua the appellant -- Where exoneration on merits holds allegations wholly unsustainable, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

(Paras 21 to 23)

14. (SC) 25-05-2026

***

Murder and dowry cruelty -- Deceased subjected to persistent harassment for motorcycle and cash demand -- Medical evidence proving homicidal hanging -- Husband failed to explain injuries sustained by deceased in matrimonial home -- Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC upheld.

***

Burden of proof -- Murder inside matrimonial home -- Husband failed to explain homicidal death of wife -- Adverse inference rightly drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 498A – Murder -- Dowry demand and cruelty -- Deceased repeatedly subjected to torture for motorcycle and cash demand -- Several panchayat meetings and resolutions effected for compromise -- Direct evidence of father and other witnesses regarding persistent cruelty and harassment -- Deceased found hanging in matrimonial home where appellant-husband was present -- Medical evidence proving simulated hanging/homicidal hanging -- Appellant failed to offer any explanation regarding injuries sustained by deceased prior to death -- Defence of suicide belied by overwhelming medical evidence -- Conviction under Sections 498A and 302 IPC upheld.

(Paras 25 to 31)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder inside house -- Burden of proof -- Where offence takes place inside privacy of house, corresponding burden lies upon inmates of house to give cogent explanation as to how victim succumbed -- Appellant-husband failed to discharge burden or explain homicidal death of wife inside matrimonial home -- Adverse inference rightly drawn against appellant.

(Paras 29 to 31)

17. (SC) 22-05-2026

***

Attempt to murder -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention to cause death -- Incident having occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation, prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge under Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

***

Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- Intention or knowledge to commit murder coupled with an overt act towards its commission are essential -- Nature of injury is not decisive and even simple injuries may attract Section 307 IPC where requisite mens rea is established.

***

Grievous hurt -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline with neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization constituted grievous hurt -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

***

Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- In absence of proof of intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained, though such intention may be inferred from weapon used, motive, part of body targeted, nature of injuries and surrounding circumstances.

***

Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself is not determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC and intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were opined to be dangerous to life.

***

Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis which, in facts of case, could not be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC.

***

Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused having undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period, sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each directed to be paid to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt -- No material suggesting prior planning, preparation or concerted intention on part of accused to cause death of complainant -- Incident occurred suddenly when complainant intervened in ongoing altercation -- Assault arose in heat of moment and as spontaneous reaction rather than pursuant to any pre-conceived intention to eliminate complainant -- Prosecution failed to establish requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract Section 307 IPC -- Conviction altered from Section 307/34 IPC to Section 325/34 IPC.

(Paras 33 to 38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Ingredients of offence -- To constitute offence under Section 307 IPC, prosecution must establish both intention or knowledge to commit murder and an overt act towards commission thereof -- Conviction can be sustained only where, had death ensued from such act, offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC would have been made out -- Nature of injury not determinative -- Accused cannot be acquitted merely because injuries inflicted were simple in nature, intention or knowledge being the decisive factor.

(Paras 26 and 27)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 320 Seventhly, 320 Eighthly and 325, 34 -- Grievous hurt – Common intention -- Injured witness and eyewitness consistently attributed specific roles to accused -- Ocular version corroborated by medical evidence -- Participation of accused in causing injuries proved beyond reasonable doubt -- Fractures in both parietal bones near midline accompanied by neurological complications and prolonged hospitalization -- Conviction under Section 325/34 IPC justified.

(Paras 29, 36, 37)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 300 -- Attempt to murder -- Intention -- Words "such intention" occurring in Section 307 IPC refer to intention contemplated under Section 300 IPC -- Intention to cause death, intention to cause such bodily injury as offender knows to be likely to cause death, or intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death must be established -- In the absence of proof of intention, a conviction under this provision cannot be sustained -- Intention, however, can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, such as the type of weapon employed, the words spoken by the accused at the time of the incident, the motive behind the act, the parts of the body targeted, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted, as well as the force and manner in which the blows were delivered.

(Paras 31 and 32)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 -- Attempt to murder -- Injury dangerous to life -- Gravity of injury by itself cannot be determinative of offence under Section 307 IPC -- Intention to commit murder cannot be presumed merely because injuries were ultimately opined to be dangerous to life.

(Para 35)

F. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307 and 325 -- Attempt to murder -- Weapons used were ordinary lathis -- Though capable of causing grievous hurt depending upon manner of use, could not in facts of case be regarded as inherently deadly weapons -- No conduct indicative of determined effort to cause death -- Offence held to fall under Section 325 IPC.

(Paras 34 and 38)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 325 -- Sentence -- Conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 325 IPC -- Accused had undergone substantial period of imprisonment and remained on bail for long period -- Sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine of Rs.50,000/- each imposed payable to injured, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

(Paras 40 to 42)

18. (SC) 22-05-2026

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking accused to the murder -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

***

Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement implicating co-accused and made while accused were detained by villagers lacks credibility and cannot form basis of conviction.

***

Recovery of weapon -- Recovery from an open and accessible place without proof of concealment does not satisfy requirements of Section 27.

***

Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Absence of motive assumes significance where chain of circumstances is not complete and raises a reasonable doubt.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to constitute a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 18 and 20)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 3 and 114 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Proximity between last seen circumstance and death is essential -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

(Paras 7 to 9)

C. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 24 and 30 -- Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement absolving maker and implicating co-accused is inherently unreliable -- Alleged confession made while accused were detained by villagers under accusation of murder lacked credibility and could not form basis of conviction.

(Paras 10 and 11)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Concealment and knowledge of accused are crucial ingredients of discovery under Section 27 -- In absence of any statement regarding concealment, recoveries made from an open and accessible place do not qualify as recoveries under Section 27 -- Recoveries are of no avail.

(Paras 12 to 15)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Though motive is not imperative where chain of circumstances is so complete as to establish only a hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive assumes significance where prosecution case raises a reasonable doubt.

(Para 17)

21. (SC) 22-05-2026

***

Quashing of FIR -- Criminal proceedings arising from civil property dispute -- Subsequent FIR containing improved allegations held to be abuse of process.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 154(3), 156(3), 200 and 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384, 504, 506, 511 and 114 – Quashing of proceedings -- Long-standing civil dispute relating to title over immovable property -- FIR lodged after about 8-9 years -- Earlier complaint lodged seven months prior did not contain allegations of extortion or criminal intimidation -- Subsequent FIR lodged introducing allegation of demand of Rs.1.5 crores -- Material improvements in later FIR showing attempt to give criminal colour to civil dispute -- Held, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law -- FIR and consequential proceedings liable to be quashed.

(Paras 38 to 40, 52 to 58)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 471 -- Forgery -- False document -- Execution of Power of Attorney by persons claiming share in ancestral property -- No allegation of forged signatures, impersonation or fabrication of document -- Mere claim of title subsequently found unsustainable not amounting to making of a "false document" -- Ingredients of forgery absent -- Offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC not made out.

(Paras 44 and 45)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating -- Essential ingredients -- Deception, dishonest intention at inception and delivery of property -- No allegation that complainant delivered any property, money or valuable security pursuant to any inducement -- Section 420 IPC not attracted.

(Para 46)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 384, 504, 506 and 511 -- Extortion -- Criminal intimidation -- FIR not disclosing date, place or circumstances of alleged demand -- No allegation of delivery of property or money pursuant to threats -- Vague allegations regarding intimidation and insult -- Attempt to extort also not established -- Ingredients of offences absent.

(Paras 47 and 48)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 120-B -- Criminal conspiracy -- Substantive offences themselves not made out -- Charge of conspiracy cannot survive independently -- Held, offence under Section 120-B IPC also not attracted.

(Para 49)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal antecedents of accused -- Relevance -- Criminal antecedents cannot constitute sole or primary ground to refuse quashing of proceedings -- Court required to examine whether essential ingredients of offences alleged are made out -- Reliance on antecedents by High Court held unsustainable.

(Para 50)

22. (SC) 21-05-2026

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Death of wife in matrimonial home -- Medical evidence proving strangulation and not suicide -- Missing ornaments, ligature marks and injury on cheek inconsistent with hanging -- False defence through alleged suicide note -- Failure of husband to explain incriminating circumstances within special knowledge -- Conviction upheld.

***

Motive -- Murder -- Once prosecution establishes complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt of accused, failure to prove motive is not fatal to prosecution case.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Complete chain -- Deceased wife found dead inside matrimonial home -- Post-mortem revealing ligature marks around neck, fracture of hyoid bone and trachea and cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation -- Trial Court and High Court rightly relying upon medical evidence and surrounding circumstances to conclude homicidal death -- Missing left ear-ring, right leg anklet and toe-rings held significant circumstance, as such articles were unlikely to go missing in case of suicidal hanging -- Fresh injury mark on cheek further corroborating prosecution case -- Conduct of accused in taking deceased to another private hospital despite first doctor declaring her dead also found incriminating -- Alleged suicide note not accepted and found to be part of false defence -- Circumstances cumulatively forming complete chain pointing only towards guilt of accused and excluding every hypothesis of innocence -- Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld.

(Paras 16, 18 to 20, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Unnatural death in matrimonial home – Facts within special knowledge -- Burden to explain -- Murder -- Appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding circumstances leading to death of deceased -- Failure to discharge burden under Section 106 held to be additional link in chain of circumstances after prosecution established foundational facts.

(Paras 20 to 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Absence of proof of motive -- Effect -- Once prosecution establishes complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt of accused, failure to prove motive is not fatal to prosecution case.

(Para 23)

26. (SC) 13-05-2026

***

Hostile witness -- Evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence.

***

Postmortem report -- Evidentiary value -- Postmortem report by itself not substantive evidence -- Requires corroboration by oral evidence of medical expert.

***

Independent witnesses -- Incident alleged to have occurred on public road with vehicular movement and presence of nearby persons -- Failure of prosecution to examine any independent witness assumes significance and renders occurrence doubtful.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 323 -- Murder -- Conviction -- PW3 turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story -- Other witnesses did not support prosecution case regarding holding of Panchayat about the issue of elopement of the sister of the accused and the deceased. -- No other evidence which could corroborate the factum of holding of Panchayat etc. -- No independent witness examined though incident allegedly occurred on busy public road -- Medical evidence suffered from discrepancies and contradictions -- Held, prosecution failed to prove occurrence, genesis and motive of crime -- Evidence weak and unreliable -- Conviction unsustainable -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 5 to 10.4)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 145, 157 and 159 -- Hostile witness -- Admissibility and evidentiary value -- Evidence of hostile witness remains admissible and can be relied upon once corroborated by other reliable evidence.

(Paras 8.3 to 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Medical evidence -- Postmortem report -- Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence -- Medical expert required to satisfactorily explain discrepancies and contradictions appearing in postmortem report -- Failure to explain inconsistencies diminishes evidentiary value of medical evidence.

(Paras 6 to 6.1)

37. (P&H HC) 06-04-2026

***

S. 351 BNSS/ S. 313 Cr.P.C. -- Failure to put vital incriminating circumstances including medical evidence of rape, DNA report and forensic evidence to accused -- Trial Court relying upon such material for conviction and award of death sentence -- Serious prejudice caused -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded to Trial Court from stage of recording statements of accused.

***

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Ss. 5 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB and 302 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- POCSO offence and murder -- DNA report and forensic evidence -- Conviction based partly on DNA evidence matching victim's blood with articles recovered from accused -- Such incriminating material not put to accused during examination under S. 313 -- Reliance thereon held prejudicial.

(Paras 39-46)

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Examination of accused -- Must bring to notice of accused each material incriminating circumstance separately and intelligibly -- Omnibus and composite questions reproducing prosecution evidence do not satisfy statutory requirement.

(Paras 35-38, 44)

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Circumstances not put to accused -- Resultant prejudice -- Irregularity held curable -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded for fresh examination of accused and decision afresh from that stage.

(Paras 46-47)

38. (SC) 06-04-2026

Obscene – Bastard -- Mere use of the word “bastard” during a heated conversation does not by itself amount to obscenity -- Conviction u/s 294(b) IPC set aside.

Common intention -- A-1 only caused simple injuries to PW-4 and there was no evidence that he exhorted or participated in the fatal assault by A-2 on the deceased -- Conviction of A-1 u/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC set aside.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – A-2 inflicted a single blow with a log on the head of the deceased during a sudden quarrel arising out of a boundary dispute, resulting in skull fracture and death -- incident is of the year 2014, occurred in the heat of the moment and only a solitary blow was inflicted with a log picked from the spot, sentence reduced from 5 years to 3 years R.I. u/s 304 Part II of IPC.

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 292, 294 -- Obscene words – Acquittal -- Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person -- More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations -- Conviction of the appellants for offence punishable u/s 294(b) IPC is not sustainable, set aside.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 324, 304 Part II – Common intention – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- A-1 charged on the deceased by taking an Aruval in his hand but, when PW-4 intervened, gave two blows to PW-4, which did not result in any grievous injury -- Testimony of PW-4 that A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies, but this statement is not attributed to A-1 -- Besides, there is no evidence that A-1 exhorted A-2 to strike the deceased -- No reliable evidence to show that A-1 had beaten the deceased after he fell to the ground --  Not be safe to hold that A-1 shared common intention with A-2 to cause such bodily harm to the deceased as is likely to cause his death -- Conviction of A-1 u/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC set aside -- However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to PW-4 and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.

(Para 21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Section 304 Part II IPC – A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies – Injury sustained by the deceased discloses fracture of the skull and there were blood clots in the brain -- No evidence that the death had occurred on account of improper treatment – Conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC confirmed -- Having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 2014 and was preceded by an altercation between neighbours, who are close relatives, arising from a boundary dispute, and injury was not caused by using a dangerous weapon, but by a log lying on the spot, and only a solitary blow was inflicted in the heat of the moment – Sentence reduced to 03 years from 05 years R.I.

(Para 21-28)

39. (SC) 02-04-2026

Evidence -- Dying declaration – Reliable dying declaration recorded by Magistrate with medical certification and corroborated by medical evidence sufficient to sustain conviction even when eyewitnesses turn hostile.

Evidence – Dying declaration – A dying declaration, an exception to the rule of hearsay, carries special evidentiary value on the presumption that when a person is about to meet his maker is unlikely to speak untruth.

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Conviction based on dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in question-answer form after medical certification of fitness –Plea of tutoring by relatives found to be a bald assertion – Though eyewitnesses turned hostile, medical evidence corroborated the dying declaration – Dying declaration found reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court not suffering from manifest error warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6–13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Dying declaration -- Generally speaking, these declarations enjoy a special position given the timing and the nature thereof -- This position rests on a philosophical understanding that when a person is about to meet his maker or in other words the oncoming of death and its finality is imminent, considerations which may force a person to speak other than the truth pale into insignificance and what does fall from them would, therefore, be only the truth – It is exception to the rule of hearsay and, if a Court finds it consistent, believable and free of tutoring, can convict the person named therein.

(Para 9)

42. (SC) 24-03-2026

***

Scheduled Caste status -- Conversion to Christianity -- Person openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor ceases to be member of Scheduled Caste within meaning of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 -- Statutory protections and benefits under SC/ST Act not available.

***

Scheduled Caste -- Conversion and reconversion -- Mere birth in Scheduled Caste not sufficient once person professes Christianity -- Reconversion claim must be established by proof of bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community.

***

Quashing of proceedings -- SC/ST Act and IPC offences -- High Court justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where foundational requirement of Scheduled Caste status absent and evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose ingredients of offences alleged.

***

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Constitution of India, Articles 341 and 342 -- Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Appellant openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor for more than ten years -- Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order categorically excludes persons professing religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism from Scheduled Caste status -- Upon conversion to Christianity, appellant ceased to be Scheduled Caste in law and could not invoke protections of SC/ST Act.

(Paras 35 to 61)

B. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Expression “professes” -- Meaning and scope -- “Profess” means open declaration and public practice of religion -- Person publicly preaching and conducting Christian religious services as Pastor clearly professes Christianity -- Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin, he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

(Paras 36 to 44)

C. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Reconversion -- Conditions precedent -- Claimant seeking restoration of Scheduled Caste status must establish original caste status, bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community -- Mere possession of caste certificate insufficient unless in consonance with Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

(Paras 55, 58)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conversion to Christianity – Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Quashing of proceedings -- Allegations of assault, restraint and intimidation unsupported by independent witnesses -- Statements of material witnesses inconsistent and lacking specific attribution against accused -- Evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose essential ingredients of offences alleged -- Continuation of proceedings held abuse of process -- Appellant ceased to be member of Scheduled Caste -- High Court justified in quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Paras 60 to 69)

45. (SC) 20-03-2026

Summoning of accused – Since summoning in a criminal case is a serious matter, the Magistrate must scrutinize the evidence on record, and satisfy himself that a prima facie offence is made out before issuing process; mere production of a two witnesses by the complainant is not sufficient to set criminal law in motion.

Quashing of FIR/complaint – Criminal proceedings are alleged to be manifestly frivolous, vexatious and malicious -- High Court must examine the matter with greater care and may consider not only the averments in the FIR/complaint but also the overall circumstances.

Quashing of complaint/summoning order – Complaint contains only bald and unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement, witnesses fail to identify any similarity between the works, and expert body (SWA) has already found no similarity – Complaint/ Summoning order quashed.

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Summoning of accused – Procedure – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – It is not sufficient that the complainant merely produces two witnesses to support the allegations in the complaint to set the criminal law in motion – Order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect due application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out – Magistrate may also put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and then examine whether any offence is prima facie committed by any of the accused.

(Para 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of Complaint/ FIR – Inherent powers of High Court -- When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care -- It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not -- In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63, 65, 65A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order --  Complaint only contains a bald and unsubstantiated allegations -- Statement of the complainant and witnesses (brother of the complainant) and (cousin of the complainant), do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied -- Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint -- Complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court -- No material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script – Summoning order held to be passed in mechanical manner and suffers from vice of non-application of mind -- Summoning order and complaint quashed.

(Para 16-20)

46. (SC) 19-03-2026

Cheating – Quashing -- Offence is made out only when dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive exists at the time of making the promise or inducement; mere subsequent failure to fulfil the promise does not by itself establish cheating -- High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers may quash the criminal proceedings and relegate the parties to civil remedies

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Intention to deceive – Inducement -- In order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence when the inducement was made -- It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise -- Mere failure to keep the promise subsequently cannot be the sole basis to presume that dishonest intention existed from the very beginning.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Cheating – Quashing -- Inherent powers of High Court -- High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under the Code, or under Article 226 of the Constitution, upon consideration of the attending circumstances, take a decision whether the dishonest intention existed or not at the time of making the promise -- And, if it comes to the conclusion that the alleged conduct of the parties does not reflect a dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning, it may quash the criminal complaint/ proceedings and relegate the aggrieved party to civil remedies.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Cheating -- Breach of contract -- Money invested for making a movie on promise of sharing profits – Failure to pay returns/profits – No allegations that the movie earned profits and the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of transaction – Mere non-fulfilment of promise or breach of contractual obligation does not constitute cheating – By issuance of post-dated cheques, the de facto complainant was led to vacate his objection to movie’s release, even then an offence of cheating would not be made out for two reasons; First, those cheques were post-dated therefore, did not carry a representation of sufficient funds in the bank account at the time of its issuance, Second, initial agreement, as per the allegations, was to share profit on release of the movie – Allegations only disclosed a civil cause of action and the High Court fell in error in not quashing the criminal proceedings -- Impugned criminal proceedings u/s 420 IPC quashed.

(Para 16-21)

47. (SC) 18-03-2026

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Punishment for minor offence compare to charged offence -- Section 364 IPC cannot be treated as minor/cognate offence of Section 302 IPC -- Accused charged under Section 302 IPC cannot be convicted under Section 364 IPC in absence of specific charge.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Minor offence not determined merely by lesser punishment -- Where two offences are cognate offences and main ingredients are common, offence carrying lesser sentence can be treated as minor offence vis-a-vis other offence.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Conviction for offence not charged -- Minor offence -- Scope – Murder / Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder -- Accused charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC -- Trial Court acquitting accused of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicting under Section 364 IPC on finding that accused had taken deceased with him on pretext of watching movie -- Validity -- Offence under Section 364 IPC is separate and distinct offence and cannot be construed as minor/ cognate offence vis-a-vis Section 302 IPC -- Ingredients of both offences not common -- In absence of specific charge under Section 364 IPC, conviction thereunder caused prejudice to accused and violated fair trial norms -- No evidence of forceful taking away or abduction of deceased by accused -- High Court justified in setting aside conviction -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 8 to 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 222 -- Minor offence -- Interpretation -- Expression “minor offence” found in Section 222 is not defined under the Code, it can be discerned from the context which is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence -- If the two offences are cognate offences and the main ingredients are common, the offence punishable with lesser sentence can be considered as a minor offence with reference to the other offence.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 304B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Murder – Dowry death -- Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

(Para 10)

48. (H.P. HC) 17-03-2026

***

Quashing of FIR -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Proceedings can be quashed where they are manifestly mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or private grudge, to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.

***

Quashing of FIR -- Election speech -- Allegations of abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India -- Ingredients of Sections 125 of Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC not made out -- FIR and proceedings quashed.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Quashing of FIR -- Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

(Para 11)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 504 -- Quashing of FIR -- Allegations that petitioner made abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India during election speech and violated Model Code of Conduct -- Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. contains vague and omnibus allegations without specific particulars of words used -- Held, ingredients of Section 125 R.P.C. Act not satisfied as there is no material showing promotion of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language -- Further held, essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC missing as no material to show intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke breach of public peace -- Complainant not the person allegedly provoked, allegations vague and unsupported by material evidence -- Powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice -- FIR and consequential proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law and quashed.

(Paras 18 to 24)