Legal Reference Library

In STATE OF U.P vs  SUNIL, settling a doubt which has troubled crime investigators for long, the Supreme Court has ruled that asking an accused to give finger or foot prints for investigation purposes did not violate his fundamental right to protect himself from becoming a witness against himself. The question before a bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman was "whether compelling an accused to provide his fingerprints or footprints etc would come within the purview of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, that is compelling an accused of an offence to be a 'witness' against himself"? This question arose in a case involving the murder of four persons of a family in Etawah in September 2000. The main accused died during the trial but his alleged associate, who had refused to give finger and foot prints to the investigating officer despite a direction from the trial court, was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. The HC ac...

Rejecting the plea of an accused facing trial to produce certain pages of police diary obtained by him through RTI for the purpose of contradicting the police officer, the Supreme Court in Balakram vs State of Uttarakhand, has reiterated that the accused cannot claim unfettered right to inspect the case diary. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra held that right of the accused to cross-examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent, and even that limited scope arises only when the court uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory. The High Court of Uttarakhand had allowed an accused’s plea to use the case diary to contradict the police. This application was filed by the accused after the completion of examination in the police officer. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/adding-additional-accused-s-319-crpc-strong-evidence-complicity-re...

In Pragti Devi Vs. State of U.P. the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, it is a fact that at the time of passing order on point of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is expected to consider as to whether prima facie evidence for summoning the accused are available or not. But this consideration has to be after application of judicial mind, and not blindly. Magistrate is not expected only to read the words uttered by witnesses under sections 200 or 202 CrPC, but he also is required to use its judicial mind before passing any order and not to act like a silent spectators of the words uttered by the witnesses, who were not going to be cross-examined at the stage of evidences under Chapter XV CrPC. Even in the aforesaid judgment of Km. Nisha case (supra), this court had cited certain verdicts of Hon’ble Apex Court, which are again reiterated.

The Supreme Court of India in U. SUBHADRAMMA VS. STATE OF A.P has observed that property of a person who was accused of an offence of misappropriation but who died during the pendency of the criminal trial cannot be attached in the hands of his legal representatives under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy, terming the order of District Judge ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘disturbing’, reiterated that criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guiltyand such proceedings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. The Court also observed that the finding of trial court that a person who died during the pendency of trial is alone responsible for the offences is completely vitiated as null and void because a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty. BACKGROUND Ramachandraiah, was accused of the of...

Directing lower courts to avoid the practice of summoning accused or issuing non-bailable arrest warrants (NBWs) unnecessarily, the Madras High Court Bench here has said: “Courts are entitled to compel the appearance of the accused in criminal cases but such insistence should not be for the mere pleasure of the accused being seen in the dock.” Justice S. Vimala made the observation while setting aside a NBW issued by a Judicial Magistrate at Peraiyur near here on May 24 against Felix Suresh Peter, Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Circle in Tirunelveli district. The warrant had been issued after dismissing a petition filed by him to condone the absence due to his preoccupation with law and order problems in Nanguneri. Pointing out that the Magistrate had allowed a similar condonation petition filed on the same day for the absence of the complainant V. Radhakrishnan, who had accused the Inspector of having assaulted him besides confining him wrongfully, the judge wond...

The Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) has discussed the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to answer the questions posed before it; (a) Whether taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to appear? (b) Whether the Magistrate, while considering the question of summoning an accused, is required to assign reasons for the same? While asnwering the aforesaid questions, the Supreme Court held as under; 5. The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are: (a) Whether taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to appear? (b) Whether the Magistrate, while considering the question of summoning an accused, is required to assign reasons for the same? 6. In this context, it is relevant to extract Sections 190 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which read as under: “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistr...

Supreme Court in Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana, has observed that while adding or altering a charge under Section 216 CrPC, the trial court has to keep in view, the test of prejudice to the accused. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said that it is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial. Background In this case, the Magistrate had allowed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a-wife for framing an additional charge under Section 406 IPC, holding that prima facie case for criminal breach of trust was made out. This order was assailed in revision and the Revisional court partly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order of framing of charge against the mother-in-law. The said order was upheld by the High Court. The husband then approached the Apex Court. Test of Prejudice Referring...