Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Is It Safe To Rely On The Testimony Of A Hostile Witness?

Posted in: Criminal Law
Sun, Oct 10, 21, 12:08, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5238
hostile means to be against something in particular. In court proceedings, a person is usually declared hostile by the Court who after having taken a stand on something turns hostile and retracts from the stand which he/she had taken earlier

Let me come straight to the point. First of all, we must know what exactly hostile means. In simple layman's language, hostile means to be against something in particular. In court proceedings, a person is usually declared hostile by the Court who after having taken a stand on something turns hostile and retracts from the stand which he/she had taken earlier!

Now coming to hostile witness, in legal parlance, it signifies that where a witness makes statement against the interest of the party who has called him/her under the expectation that he/she would depose in their favour but who turns hostile and takes a stand on any particular thing that is against the expectation of the party who is calling him/her to depose in their favour !

But let me make here one thing very clear:
It is the sole prerogative of the concerned Court to declare or not to declare any particular witness as hostile ! The Court must be fully satisfied that the witness has turned hostile before actually declaring him/her to be so.
Of course, this turning hostile of a witness necessitates the cross-examination by the very party who has called him/her so as to counter on all those points on which the witness has turned hostile. But this can be effected only with the permission of the Court and it is the sole prerogative of the Court whether to grant or not to grant that permission.

It is here that Section 154 comes into play and therefore whenever anyone talks about hostile witness, it is this Section 154 only which immediately strikes in the mind. But let me point out here that neither Section 154 nor any other Section in the Evidence Act expressly uses the term 'hostile witness' anywhere.
Before elaborating further, I feel it imperative to recall what exactly Section 154 is. Prior to Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, there were no sub-Sections. But this amendment divided the Section into two sub-Sections. Sub-Section (1) points out that:

The Court may, in its discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Sub-Section ( 2 ) which was added by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 states that:
Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section ( 1 ) to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness." Let me also bring out here that it was at the suggestion of the Law Commission of India in its 69th and 185th Reports that Section 154 has been amended as I have just mentioned above.

While craving my readers indulgence, let me tell them what I have myself learnt after reading many books on Evidence Act that the terms 'hostile', 'adverse' or 'unfavourable' witnesses are alien to the Indian Evidence Act. It has been rightly pointed out that the terms 'hostile witness', 'adverse witness', 'unfavourable witness', 'unwilling witness' are all terms which have been coined and put into practice by British law. It also needs to be pointed out here that the rules by which a party is not permitted to call a witness to cross-examine are relaxed under the common law by coining and evolving the terms which I have just mentioned above.

Phipson in his book on Evidence in 14th edition on page 281 very rightly points out that:
A witness who is not bound to adduce evidence but who chooses to give evidence can be treated as hostile witness. A witness is declared hostile when he bears a hostile animus to the party calling him and so does not give his evidence fairly and with a desire to tell the truth to the court." It is thus clear from the above narration that a hostile witness is one who turns against the very party who is calling him to give evidence in his favour and because of bearing a hostile animus towards the party who calls him does not give his evidence in a fair manner and intends to suppress the truth.

In Dahyabai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 at p 1569, the Supreme Court very rightly points out that:
Though Section 154 is generally taken to refer to 'hostile witness', neither that section nor any other provision of the Evidence Act uses that term. Simply put, a hostile witness is one who turns hostile to the party who called him while giving testimony in the Court. A clever witness can support the party calling him during examination-in-chief but give evidence adverse to that party in cross examination and in such a case he must be treated as hostile. Thus, Section 154 cannot be confined to any particular stage of examination of the witness."

For my readers benefit, let me point out here that who exactly a hostile witness is and when exactly can a witness be termed as 'hostile' has become the subject matter of various judicial pronouncements since a long time. In Coles v Coles, ( 1866 ) LR 1 P & D 70, Justice Wilde went on to describe a hostile witness as "a witness who from the manner in which he gives his evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth to the Court." It would be imperative to mention here that in Praphulla Kumar Sarkar v Emperor, ( 1931 ) ILR 58 Cal 1404 ( FB ), Chief Justice Rankin observed that:
This is not a very good definition of a hostile witness and the Indian Evidence Act is most careful in Section 154 not to restrict the right of 'cross-examination' even by committing itself to the word 'hostile'. In Panchanan Gagai v Emperor ( 1930 ) 57 Cal 1266, the Calcutta High Court also expressed the view that a hostile witness is one who from the manner in which he gives evidence shows that he is not desirous of telling the truth to the Court.

I would like to submit here most humbly that it is not always the case that a hostile witness speaks lies. We have seen many such cases where a witness earlier had spoken lies on being propelled to do so by an interested party but later resiles after his conscious irks him to abandon falsehood and embrace truthhood or for any other reason decides to pursue the righteous path by speaking nothing else but the truth!

In most of the cases we see how a witness turns hostile after he/she is threatened with dire consequences by the opposite party especially when they are affluent, powerful and politically well connected. So, it is the bounden duty of the Court concerned to analyse properly the evidence of a hostile witness and not discard his/her evidence just because he/she is hostile and resiled from the position taken by them on any particular issue.

In fact, the concerned Court must not shy away from relying upon the testimony of a hostile witness if it is found to be otherwise reliable. It has also been observed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Shatrughan v Madhya Pradesh, 1993 CrLJ 120 ( MP ) that a hostile witness need not necessarily be a false witness. The Andhra Pradesh High Court too pointed out in High Court of Andhra Pradesh v Tummala Janardhana Rao, 1998 CrLJ 4450 that mere deviation from the previous statement does not make a witness hostile.

In Phanindar Nath v Bhola Nath, AIR 1982 Cal 397, the Calcutta High Court held that even where a witness appears, he cannot be regarded as hostile only because he gives inconsistent or contradictory answers. In this case, a postman refused to admit that he had endorsed a refusal on a letter, whereas the letter showed such endorsement. This fact being verifiable by comparing his handwriting, the Court did not consider it to be necessary that he should be regarded hostile.

On this subject, the picture was made further clear by the highest court of the land – Supreme Court which observed quite categorically in RK Dey v Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170 that:
A witness is not necessarily hostile if he is speaking the truth and his testimony goes against the interest of the party calling him. A witness's primary allegiance is to the truth and not to the party calling him. The test under Section 154 is not whether the witness is telling the truth now or earlier but whether he has made statements that are inimical to the case of the party calling him. He may or may not have made any earlier statement."

Also, in Alma v State of MP, AIR 1991 SC 1519, the Supreme Court held that reliance could be placed upon the hostile witness in reference to the accused about whom his testimony was truthful and natural.

In a recent decision of Gopal Ghosh v West Bengal, 2010 CrLJ 485, the Court observed that:
According to us the Court is not concerned with the attitude of hostility of a witness, but rather with his trustworthiness..... Therefore, any portion of the testimony of the witness declared hostile by the party calling is acceptable to the Court provided it has got relevancy in the matter."

Having said this, let me also not shy away from telling my readers that in most of the cases the Supreme Court which is the highest court of our country has mostly always treated the evidence of a hostile witness with circumspection and cautiousness and has also mostly refused to rely on it alone unless corroborated by some other evidence or in material particulars. As for instance, it was held in Koli Laxman Chana Bhai v State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 SC 210, the Supreme Court held that:
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as waste of records. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence."

In Govindaraju v State by Srirampuram PS, AIR 2012 SC 1292 at p 1303, it was held by the Apex Court that:
In case of evidence of a hostile witness, the Court has to act with greater degree of care and caution for ensuring that justice alone is done. The evidence so considered should unequivocally point towards the guilt of the accused."

Also, in Bala Sonba Shinde v State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 3137 at p 3141, it was held by the Supreme Court that while it is true declaration of a witness to be hostile does not ipso facto amount to rejection of his evidence – and it is now well-settled that the portion of evidence being advantageous to the parties may be taken advantage of – but the Court before whom such a reliance is placed shall have to be extremely cautious and circumspect in such acceptance.

Let me reveal here that Peter R Hibbert in his famous book 'Civil Evidence For Practitioners' classically explained the procedure for dealing with hostile evidence which has to be effected in the following manner:

  1. The advocate who has called the witness should ask the judge to declare the witness to be hostile;
  2. The advocate can then "contradict him by the evidence". This means that the advocate can cross-examine his or her own witness on the facts; for instance, by putting the client's version of the events to the witness;
  3. With leave of the judge, the advocate can go further and ask the witness whether or not he or she made an earlier statement which is consistent with the witness's present oral testimony;
  4. If the witness denies making the earlier statement, the advocate can produce evidence of that statement. As the statement is likely to be in writing, the advocate can adduce the written statement to the judge a copy of it should already be in the trial bundle as presumably it has already been disclosed prior to trial under the exchange of witness statement rules. In short, in order to declare a witness hostile the party calling him may file an application before the trial judge with a prayer to express his willingness to cross-examine his own witness and the judge after considering the attitude, temper, demeanour of the witness and materials on record either grant such permission or reject it.

Let me also tell my readers here what I have said time and again that just because a witness is hostile, that alone cannot form a ground for acquittal or for declaring that his/her evidence be rejected or excluded completely from consideration.

To illustrate my point, let me state here that in Bhola Nath Kushwala v State of MP, AIR 2001 SC 229, it was held by the Apex Court that an independent witness turning hostile is not a ground for acquittal. Also, in Gura Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330, it was held by the Supreme Court that it is misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile, his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration.

Further, in a recent case:
Mrinal Das v State of Tripura, 2011 ( 4 ) Crimes 106, it is rightly pointed out by the Supreme Court in paragraph 67 of the judgment that:
It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile furnishes no justification for rejecting en block the evidence of the witness. However, the Court has to be very careful, as prima-facie the witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for the truth as deposition must be examined more casually to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution."

What the Supreme Court had said in the last line which I have just mentioned is the main reason why the witness of hostile witness is treated with a lot of suspicion and not easily believed without sufficient corroboration. Making different statements at different times greatly diminishes the credibility of the witness and is given the label of 'hostile witness'. This alone explains why Courts adopt a very cautious approach before accepting the testimony of a hostile witness and very rightly so.

In Govindaraju v State, AIR 2012 SC 1292, the Supreme Court held that:
The Court has to act with great caution and accept such evidence with great degree of care in order to ensure that purposes of justice are sub-served."

It is well within the discretion of the Court concerned to accept the evidence of a hostile witness if it is found to be acceptable and as I said earlier its credibility goes really high if it is duly corroborated by any other reliable evidence which fully or to a large extent authenticates what the hostile witness says before the Court. It would be imperative that to illustrate my point here I mention a recent and relevant case law concerned with this subject matter.

In Himanshu @ Chintu v NCT of Delhi, 2011 ( 2 ) SCC 36, the Supreme Court has held that the evidence of a hostile witness remains the admissible evidence and it is open to the Court to rely upon the dependable part of that evidence which is found to be acceptable and duly corroborated by some other reliable evidence available on record. Apart from this, there have been a host of case laws like Narayan Nathu Naik v Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 1656, Sat Paul v Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294, Bhagwan Singh v Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202, Khujje v Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853, Uttar Pradesh v Ramesh Prasad Misra, AIR 1996 SC 2766, Gujarat v Anirudh Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2780, Anil Rai v Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3173 and Podyami Sukada v MP, AIR 2010 SC 2977where the Supreme Court has held very categorically that the testimony of a hostile witness need not be thrown out lock, stock and barrel, and that it can be relied upon if it was found credible and corroborated by other evidence.

I wish to again emphasise here that it is well within the discretion of the Court to act on that part of the statement of a hostile witness which appears reliable while rejecting the other part which does not appear to be so reliable. Let me quote here some relevant case laws to further substantiate my point. In Gulshan Kumar v State, 1993 CrLJ 1525, it was held by the Supreme Court that the court is not precluded from taking into account the statement of a hostile witness altogether and it is not necessary to discard the same in toto. Similarly, it was held by the Apex Court in State of UP v Ramesh Prasad Misra, AIR 1996 SC 2766, that:
It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted."

In Gurpreet Singh v State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3217, the Supreme Court relied on the observations passed in an earlier case in both of which similar facts were involved and which I now cite here:
Incidentally, it is now well-settled that in the event of a portion of evidence not being consistent with the statements given under Section 161, CrPC, and the witness stands declared hostile that does not mean and imply total rejection of the evidence. The portion which stands in favour of the prosecution or the accused may be accepted but the same shall be subjected to close scrutiny.

It is also worth mentioning here that in Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v State, AIR 2005 SC 2804, it was held by the Supreme Court that the accused can rely on the evidence of hostile witness when such witness did not support the genesis of the prosecution story. This decision makes it very clear that even the accused can bank upon the testimony of a hostile witness to save himself/herself from being convicted. This is more so when the hostile witness does not support the version advanced by the prosecution on which it relies and very rightly so.

It merits no reiteration that time and again we have seen how witnesses openly turn hostile at the drop of a hat after being threatened of being killed or any other threat by the adverse party who wields muscle and money clout as I had pointed above. To stop this cancerous menace, it is imperative that immediately serious and concrete steps are taken to protect witnesses from being harmed or threatened in any manner. It is no secret that witnesses are most vulnerable and soft targets who get murdered if they dare to give evidence against someone especially in a murder case and the offender is powerful and affluent. In many cases they are lured by money and bought over to give evidence in their favour.

That is why we see witnesses turning hostile so frequently.

It deserves mentioning here that in Anjanappa v State of Karnataka, 2013 (4) Crimes 552 (SC), the Supreme Court too held that the problem of witnesses turning hostile needs to be addressed. It also held in para 15 of this judgment that:
It is sad that even parents did not stand by their daughter. We do not understand how a woman, particularly a mother, turned her back on the daughter. Possibly these witnesses were bought over by the appellant. Such conduct displays greed and lack of compassion. If they were threatened by the appellant and were forced to deposed in his favour it is a sad reflection on our system which leaves witnesses unprotected. The reason why witnesses so frequently turn hostile need to be ascertained. There is no witness protection plan in place. Unless the witnesses are protected the rise in unmerited acquittals cannot be checked. It is important that this important issue has not received necessary attention."

Be it noted, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v State of Gujarat [ (2006) 3 SCC 374 ], the Supreme Court again emphasized the importance of witnesses and their protection.

It held that:
Witnesses" as Bentham said : are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence, the importance and primacy of the quality of trial process. If the witness himself is incapacitated from acting as eyes and ears of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and it no longer can constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several factors, like the witness being not in a position for reasons beyond control to speak the truth in the court or due to negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion. Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by the courts on account of frequent turning of witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingeniously adopted to smother and stifle the truth and realities coming out to surface rendering truth and justice, to become ultimate casualties.

Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of the State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness.

Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that the ultimate truth is presented before the court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to a mockery. The State has a definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As a protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in the court the witness could safely depose the truth without any fear of being haunted by those against whom he had deposed...."

As we see, the Law Commission of India in its 14th Report in 1958 had referred to witness protection but that was in a limited sense. That pertained to only proper arrangements being provided in the Courthouse, the scales of travelling allowance, their daily allowance etc. The Law Commission in its 154th Report of 1998 also made a reference to the need for improving the facilities for the witnesses and also emphasized that the "witnesses should be protected from the wrath of the accused in any eventuality".

It is also worth recalling here that the Law Commission in its 178th Report on Recommendations for Amending Various Enactments, both Civil and Criminal, of 2001 proposed various measures to ensure that 'a criminal trial does not end in a fiasco on account of the eye witnesses or the material witnesses, as the case may be, turning hostile at the trial'. Let me also add here that the 198th Report of the Law Commission on Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programme submitted in 2006 also dwelt exhaustively on how to protect witnesses and how their identity should be protected.

However, it is most unfortunate that the said recommendations of the Law Commission have not yet been implemented by the Parliament and they are still gathering dust in the office of the Law Commission ! It is however heartening to note that Section 195A of IPC has been added by amendment in 2005 by which any one who threatens another to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced !

All said and done, the evidence of a hostile witness can be acted upon if it appears reliable and it is entirely in the hands of the Court on whether to act on such evidence or not. Even though it may not be rated very high but can be acted upon especially when it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. It is imperative that Centre now must implement the invaluable recommendations made by the Law Commission time and again as I have already pointed out above because unless this is done, the serious menace of witnesses turning hostile at the drop of a hat will keep making a mockery of our entire criminal justice system and this can never be good neither for our nation nor for our people for whom the entire criminal justice system functions !

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

 

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top