What are the impairment Indian Penal Law SC Landmark cases 2020-2021?
1. Murali v State rep. by the Inspector of Police (SC) 05-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 324 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 320 -- Attempt to murder – Conviction of appellants -- Compromise between parties – Reduction in quantum of sentence -- There can be no doubt that Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not encapsulate Section 324 and 307 IPC under its list of compoundable offences – Held, fact of amicable settlement can be a relevant factor for the purpose of reduction in the quantum of sentence – Appeal partly allowed, sentence of both the appellants reduced to the period already undergone by them.
2. Sabir Khan @ Gandhi v State of Haryana (P&H) 04-01-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Unlawful assembly – Regular bail -- Petitioner alongwith co-accused while armed with deadly weapons formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of said assembly committed murder – Petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2019 and he is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation purpose -- Challan has already been presented in Court -- Testimonies of material witnesses complainant and eyewitness have already been recorded and since trial of the case would take sufficient time to conclude – Petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
3. Gurjant Singh and others v State of Punjab and another (P&H) 23-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 452, 323, 148 & 149 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- House trespass – Compromise quashing of FIR – Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court, after recording the statements of the parties qua the execution and veracity of the alleged compromise furnished the report – FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.
4. Jagjeet Singh @ Jeeta v State of Punjab (P&H) 18-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379-B, 411 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Snatching of mobile phone – Regular bail – Submission that it remained unexplained as to from which sources, the complainant came to know about the names of the persons, who had allegedly snatched his mobile phone – Petitioners remained behind bars for about 3 months – Challan already stands presented – Interim directions pertaining to grant of interim bail made absolute.
5. Mandeep Kaur v State of Punjab (P&H) 15-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 201, 120-B, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail – Petitioner in judicial custody since November, 2018 -- Case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the co-accused of the petitioner is on bail -- Out of total fifteen prosecution witnesses, no witness has been examined so far -- Trial is likely to consume considerable time to conclude in the wake of outbreak of pandemic-COVID-19 – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.
6. Jaspreet Kaur @ Pettu Kaur v State of Punjab (P&H) 15-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 458, 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 (Sections 325/326 IPC added later on) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 -- Attempt to murder – Lalkara -- Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner is attributed a 'lalkara' only although the other co-accused are alleged to have caused injuries – Interim bail given, petitioner has joined the investigation to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and even challan has been presented to Court – Interim order made absolute.
7. Vicky @ Sanna v State of Haryana (P&H) 14-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 306 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Abatement to suicide – Compromise between parties – Regular bail -- Allegation that deceased committed suicide on receiving threats by petitioner -- Considering the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.01.2020; he is not involved in any other case; the trial is not proceeding due to Covid-19 situation and also in view of the fact that matter stands compromised between the complainant and petitioner, the petition allowed -- Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail.
8. Ravisher Singh v State of Punjab (P&H) 11-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34 -- Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Sections 25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Petitioner has been in custody for more than two months -- Trial is likely to take a long time to conclude -- Injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non vital part -- Thus, it is a debatable question as to whether the said injury would entail the offence u/s 307 IPC, and the same can only be determined on the basis of evidence during trial -- Petition allowed.
9. Mohit and another v State of Haryana (P&H) 11-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail -- Injury attracting the mischief of Section 307 IPC has not been attributed to either of the petitioners – Fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioners, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19 -- Petition allowed.
10. Sanjay Singh v State of Haryana (P&H) 11-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 307, 34, 365, 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Attempt to murder – Regular bail – As many as 13 injuries were found on the person of the injured -- However, all the said injuries are virtually on non-vital parts inasmuch as the receipt of the said injuries are either on shoulders, arms, legs, knees or hands -- Even the three injuries classified as ‘grievous’ injuries are on non-vital parts -- Nothing to suggest that any of the injuries had been caused by running over the car on the injured -- Petitioners have been behind bars since the last about 6 months and 5 months respectively and challan already stands presented -- Petitioners ordered to be released on regular bail.
11. Saksham (minor) and another v State of Haryana and others (P&H) 10-12-2020
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-D, 506 – Stalking -- Compromise quashing of FIR -- Parties had appeared before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and got recorded their statements regarding compromise -- Petition allowed -- FIR along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, quashed qua the petitioners.
12. Rohtas & Anr. v State of Haryana (SC) 10-12-2020
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 149 -- Vicarious criminal liability – Difference between Section 34 and 149 IPC – Common intention – Common object -- Section 34 requires active participation and a prior meeting of minds, Section 149 IPC assigns liability merely by membership of the unlawful assembly -- In reality, such ‘common intention’ is usually indirectly inferred from conduct of the individuals and only seldom it is done through direct evidence.
B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder -- Seven injuries, some of which were deep cuts on vital parts of the body including on the head (above the ear); but the appellants broke all the bones in the complainant’s feet below the knee -- Most appallingly, the injuries have led to amputation of an entire limb, leaving the complainant permanently disabled -- This by itself shows the very likely possibility of the complainant dying if not for the timely intervention and appropriate medical care by PGIMS – No rhyme or reason for either the complainant or his brother to falsely implicate the appellants and allow the actual culprits to go scot-free – Conviction u/s 307 upheld.
C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder -- Independence of witnesses -- It is always ideal that independent witnesses come forward to substantiate the prosecution case -- Crime took place in a private agriculture field and not in the middle of a busy public place -- Defence has not claimed that other farmers also gathered at the scene and yet have not been examined – Appellants earlier in the trial they had tried to discredit the ocular testimony of witness by claiming that he might not have been able to witness the incident owing to standing crops in the field -- Nonetheless, they expect Court to believe that there could have been others who witnessed the incident but have deliberately been suppressed by the prosecution -- Conviction u/s 307 upheld.
D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307 – Attempt to murder -- Sentencing and Leniency -- Appellants and their deceased co-accused were all armed with deadly weapons -- They surrounded the complainant and in a brutal attack caused him gruesome injuries and disabled him for life -- Appellants have not undergone even half of their sentence period -- Having enjoyed the more productive part of their lives outside jail cannot be, per se, taken as a mitigating factor -- Any misplaced sympathy with the appellants is likely to cause injustice to the victim of the crime – Court did not find justification to show leniency and reduce the sentence.
13. Titty Alias George Kurian v The Deputy Range Forest Officer (SC) 09-12-2020
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), Section 2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A, 51, Schedule I, II, III, IV -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Offence under Wildlife Protection Act – Quashing of complaint by High Court – Challenge to – In case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act, 1972 -- Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).” -- Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I -- Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure – Held, High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences -- No good ground to interfere with the order of the High Court by which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. Balkar Singh v State of Punjab (P&H) 04-12-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Murder case – Regular bail – It will be debatable as to whether it is a case of suicide or murder – In any case, since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last more than 1 year and happens to be a cousin of husband of the deceased and maintaining a separate house and mess, though in adjacent premises, and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose – Petition accepted.
15. Jayant Etc. v The State of Madhya Pradesh (SC) 03-12-2020
A. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Registration of FIR – Cognizance of offence -- Court concluded:
i) that the learned Magistrate can in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of the Code order/direct the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to lodge/register crime case/FIR even for the offences under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and at this stage the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall not be attracted;
ii) the bar under Section 22 of the MMDR Act shall be attracted only when the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and orders issuance of process/summons for the offences under the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder;
iii) for commission of the offence under the IPC, on receipt of the police report, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take cognizance of the said offence without awaiting the receipt of complaint that may be filed by the authorised officer for taking cognizance in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder; and
iv) that in respect of violation of various provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder, when a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) of the Code and directs the concerned In-charge/SHO of the police station to register/lodge the crime case/FIR in respect of the violation of various provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and thereafter after investigation the concerned In-charge of the police station/investigating officer submits a report, the same can be sent to the concerned Magistrate as well as to the concerned authorised officer as mentioned in Section 22 of the MMDR Act and thereafter the concerned authorised officer may file the complaint before the learned Magistrate along with the report submitted by the concerned investigating officer and thereafter it will be open for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after following due procedure, issue process/summons in respect of the violations of the various provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules made thereunder and at that stage it can be said that cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate.
B. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Section 4, 21, 22, 23-A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 379, 414 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) – Section 22 – Offence under Mines Act and IPC -- Compounding of offence – Effect of -- In a case where the violator is permitted to compound the offences on payment of penalty as per sub-section1 of Section 23A, considering sub-section 2 of Section 23A of the MMDR Act, there shall not be any proceedings or further proceedings against the offender in respect of the offences punishable under the MMDR Act or any rule made thereunder so compounded -- However, the bar under sub-section 2 of Section 23A shall not affect any proceedings for the offences under the IPC, such as, Sections 379 and 414 IPC and the same shall be proceeded with further.
16. Navjot Singh v State of Punjab (P&H) 23-11-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 395 – Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Section 25 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 – Dacoity case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR and he was later on, nominated in the case on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused – Petitioner has undergone the custody of 04 months and 15 days -- Considering the fact that challan stands presented; the petitioner is not involved in any other case; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and the conclusion of the trial will take some time due to COVID-19 situation, petition allowed.
17. Sucha Singh v State of Punjab (P&H) 23-11-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 353, 186, 324, 326, 332, 333 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438 – Grievous hurt – Anticipatory bail -- Petitioner was arrested and then released on regular bail -- Subsequently, offences under Section 326, 333 IPC had been added -- It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner has misused the concession of regular bail in any way -- Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required -- Petition accepted.
18. Mohammad Munir v State of Punjab and others (P&H) 23-11-2020
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-B, 498-A -- Dowry death case -- Summoning of additional accused -- Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved after commencement of the trial -- Four witnesses already stood examined, thus the application was filed at the proper stage -- Evidence has been tested by way of cross-examination -- Persons were named in the FIR -- Only relevant question to be examined was regarding the 'degree of satisfaction' -- Death was caused due to asphyxia which was caused due to strangulation and throttling -- Thus, employment of external force in the death cannot be ruled out -- Harassment of deceased started on account of dowry immediately after the marriage -- PW-2 has attributed a specific role to father-in-law i.e. that of handing over gold jewellery of the deceased to him before she was rehabilitated on one occasion -- Thus, there exists more than prima facie case against father-in-law and the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. -- Charges have been framed u/s 498-A IPC as well and there was no requirement of proving anything beyond harassment for dowry for summoning the additional accused.
19. Omanakkuttan & Ors. v State of Kerala (SC) 20-11-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 326, 308, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 357 -- Incident of 2002 – Sentenced reduced to already undergone -- Considering the fact that the incident occurred on 13.01.2002 and the appellant has already served more than two years of sentence, while maintaining the conviction for the offence u/s 308/ 34 IPC and u/s 326 IPC, Court reduced the sentence for the period already undergone -- Compensation awarded for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC reduced to Rs.5,000/- and for offence u/s 326 IPC also reduced to Rs.5,000/-.
20. Anita v State of Haryana (P&H) 19-11-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 147, 149, 323, 302, 506, 188, 216 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Murder case – Regular bail -- Petitioner is not named in the FIR wherein several persons have been named, she is stated to be armed with 'danda' and present at the place of occurrence, no specific injury has been attributed to her, she is 37 year old lady with two minor children, is in custody for almost 05 months, is not involved in any other criminal case -- Covid 19 pandemic and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time – Court deemed it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
No comments