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

Allahabad HC Directs UP Govt, Its Authorities And Committees To Implement Witness Protection Scheme

Posted in: Criminal Law
Fri, Nov 19, 21, 10:51, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4173
Mithlesh Narayan Tiwari vs U.P directed quite forthrightly the Uttar Pradesh State Government and all its concerned authorities/committees to implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 forthwith.

It is really good to learn that in a most significant development, the Allahabad High Court has just recently on November 12, 2021 in a learned, latest, laudable and landmark judgment titled Mithlesh Narayan Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another in Writ – C No. – 18204 of 2021 directed quite forthrightly the Uttar Pradesh State Government and all its concerned authorities/committees to implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 forthwith. No doubt, the same must be done at the earliest! It must be apprised here that this direction came from the Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar of Allahabad High Court that was hearing the plea of a petitioner, Mithlesh Narayan Tiwari, who is a witness in a 2018 murder case, and his application for protection was rejected twice by the District Level Committee.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that:
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that according to the petitioner he is a witness in Case Crime No.0057 of 2018, dated 10.06.2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 302 IPC P.S. Holagarh, District – Prayagraj. Earlier by Order dated 21.08.2020, intimated the petitioner that there is no need for protection. Consequently, the petitioner filed the Writ C No.27614 of 2020 which was allowed and a direction was issued to the District Level Committee/Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj, to pass an order afresh in accordance with law in the light of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (2019) 14 SCC 615. Again the respondents passed almost identical order on 17.06.2021 refusing to grant protection to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 7 that:
We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties.

Most significantly, the Bench then postulates in para 8 that:
We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (Supra) approved the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 which is reproduced below :

Witness Protection Scheme, 2018
PREFACE

Aims & Objective:
The ability of a witness to give testimony in a judicial setting or to cooperate with law enforcement and investigations without fear of intimidation or reprisal is essential in maintaining the Rule of law. The objective of this Scheme is to ensure that the investigation, prosecution and trial of criminal offences is not prejudiced because witnesses are intimidated or frightened to give evidence without protection from violent or other criminal recrimination.

It aims to promote law enforcement by facilitating the protection of persons who are involved directly or indirectly in providing assistance to criminal law enforcement agencies and overall administration of Justice. Witnesses need to be given the confidence to come forward to assist law enforcement and Judicial Authorities with full assurance of safety. It is aimed to identify series of measures that may be adopted to safeguard witnesses and their family members from intimidation and threats against their lives, reputation and property.

Need and justification for the scheme:
Jeremy Bentham has said that Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. In cases involving influential people, witnesses turn hostile because of threat to life and property. Witnesses find that there is no legal obligation by the state for extending any security.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in State of Gujarat v. Anirudh Singh MANU/SC/0749/1997 : (1997) 6 SCC 514 that: It is the salutary duty of every witness who has the knowledge of the commission of the crime, to assist the State in giving evidence. Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003 said in its report that By giving evidence relating to the commission of an offence, he performs a sacred duty of assisting the court to discover the truth. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0322/2004 : 2004 (4) SCC 158 SC while defining Fair Trial said If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that also would not result in a fair trial.

First ever reference to Witness Protection in India came in 14th Report of the Law Commission of India in 1958. Further reference on the subject are found in 154th and 178th report of the Law Commission in India. 198th Report of the Law Commission of India titled as Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programmes, 2006 is dedicated to the subject.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in Zahira case supra, country can afford to expose its morally correct citizens to the peril of being harassed by antisocial elements like rapists and murderers. The 4th National Police Commission Report, 1980 noted 'prosecution witnesses are turning hostile because of pressure of Accused and there is need of Regulation to check manipulation of witnesses.'

The Legislature has introduced Section 195A Indian Penal Code in 2006 making Criminal Intimidation of Witnesses a criminal offence punishable with seven years of imprisonment. Likewise, in statues namely Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011, Protection of Children from Sexual Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 also provides for safeguarding witnesses again the threats. However no formal structured programme has been introduced as on date for addressing the issue of witness protection in a holistic manner.

In recent year's extremism, terrorism and organized crimes have grown and are becoming stronger and more diverse. In the investigation becoming and prosecution of such crimes, it is essential that witnesses, have trust in criminal justice system. Witnesses need to have the confidence to come forward to assist law enforcement and prosecuting agencies. They need to be assured that they will receive support and protection from intimidation and the harm that criminal groups might seek to inflict upon them in order to discourage them from co-operating with the law enforcement agencies and deposing before the court of law. Hence, it is high time that a scheme is put in place for addressing the issues of witness protection uniformly in the country.

Scope of the Scheme:
Witness Protection may be as simple as providing a police escort to the witness up to the Courtroom or using modern communication technology (such as audio video means) for recording of testimony. In other more complex cases, involving organised criminal group, extraordinary measures are required to ensure the witness's safety viz. anonymity, offering temporary residence in a safe house, giving a new identity, and relocation of the witness at an undisclosed place. However, Witness protection needs of a witness may have to be viewed on case to case basis depending upon their vulnerability and threat perception.

1. Short Title And Commencement:

  1. The Scheme shall be called Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
  2. It shall come into force from the date of Notification.


Part I
2. Definitions:

  1. Code means the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974
  2. Concealment of Identity of Witness means and includes any condition prohibiting publication or revealing, in any manner, directly or indirectly, of the name, address and other particulars which may lead to the identification of the witness during investigation, trial and post-trial stage;
  3. Competent Authority means a Standing Committee in each District chaired by District and Sessions Judge with Head of the Police in the District as Member and Head of the Prosecution in the District as its Member Secretary.
  4. Family Member includes parents/guardian, spouse, live-in partner, siblings, children, grandchildren of the witness;
  5. Form means Witness Protection Application Form appended to this Scheme;..
  6. In Camera Proceedings means proceedings wherein the Competent Authority/Court allows only those persons who are necessary to be present while hearing and deciding the witness protection application or deposing in the court;
  7. Live Link means and include a live video link or other such arrangement whereby a witness, while not being physically present in the courtroom for deposing in the matter or interacting with the Competent Authority; (h) Witness Protection Measures means measures spelt out in Clause 7, Part-III, Part-IV and Part V of the Scheme.
  8. Offence means those offences which are punishable with death or life imprisonment or an imprisonment up to seven years and above and also offences punishable Under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D and 509 of Indian Penal Code.
  9. Threat Analysis Report means a detailed report prepared and submitted by the Head of the Police in the District Investigating the case with regard to the seriousness and credibility of the threat perception to the witness or his family members. It shall contain specific details about the nature of threats by the witness or his family to their life, reputation or property apart from analyzing the extent, the or persons making the threat, have the intent, motive and resources to implement the threats. It shall also categorize the threat perception apart from suggesting the specific witness protection measures which deserves to be taken in the matter;
  10. Witness means any person, who posses information or document about any offence;
  11. Witness Protection Application means an application moved by the witness in the prescribed form before a Competent Authority for seeking Witness Protection Order. It can be moved by the witness, his family member, his duly engaged counsel or IO/SHO/SDPO/Prison SP concerned and the same shall preferably be got forwarded through the Prosecutor concerned;
  12. Witness Protection Fund means the fund created for bearing the expenses incurred during the implementation of Witness Protection Order passed by the Competent Authority under this scheme;
  13. Witness Protection Order means an order passed by the Competent Authority detailing the witness protection measures to be taken;
  14. Witness Protection Cell means a dedicated Cell of State/UT Police or Central Police Agencies assigned the duty to implement the witness protection order.


Part II
3. Categories Of Witness As Per Threat Perception:
Category 'A': Where the threat extends to life of witness or his family members, during investigation/trial or thereafter.

Category 'B': Where the threat extends to safety, reputation or property of the witness or his family members, during the investigation/trial or thereafter. Category 'C': Where the threat is moderate and extends to harassment or intimidation of the witness or his family member's, reputation or property, during the investigation/trial or thereafter.

4. State Witness Protection Fund:

  1. There shall be a Fund, namely, the Witness Protection Fund from which the expenses incurred during the implementation of Witness Protection Order passed by the Competent Authority and other related expenditure, shall be met.
  2. The Witness Protection Fund shall comprise the following:
    1. Budgetary allocation made in the Annual Budget by the State Government
    2. Receipt of amount of costs imposed/ordered to be deposited by the courts/tribunals in the Witness Protection Fund;
    3. Donations/contributions from Charitable Institutions/Organizations and individuals permitted by Central/State Governments.
    4. Funds contributed under Corporate Social Responsibility.
  3. The said Fund shall be operated by the Department/Ministry of Home under State/UT Government.


5. Filing Of Application Before Competent Authority:
The application for seeking protection order under this scheme can be filed in the prescribed form before the Competent Authority of the concerned District where the offence is committed, through its Member Secretary along with supporting documents, if any.

6. Procedure For Processing The Application:

  1. As and when an application is received by the Member Secretary of the Competent Authority, in the prescribed form, it shall forthwith pass an order for calling for the Threat Analysis Report from the ACP/DSP in charge of the concerned Police Sub-Division.
  2. Depending upon the urgency in the matter owing to imminent threat, the Competent Authority can pass orders for interim protection of the witness or his family members during the pendency of the application.
  3. The Threat Analysis Report shall be prepared expeditiously while maintaining full confidentiality and it shall reach the Competent Authority within five working days of receipt of the order.
  4. The Threat Analysis Report shall categorize the threat perception and also include suggestive protection measures for providing adequate protection to the witness or his family.
  5. While processing the application for witness protection, the Competent Authority shall also interact preferably in person and if not possible through electronic means with the witness and/or his family members/employers or any other person deemed fit so as to ascertain the witness protection needs of the witness.
  6. All the hearings on Witness Protection Application shall be held in-camera by the Competent Authority while maintaining full confidentiality.
  7. An application shall be disposed of within five working days of receipt of Threat Analysis Report from the Police authorities.
  8. The Witness Protection Order passed by the Competent Authority shall be implemented by the Witness Protection Cell of the State/UT or the Trial Court, as the case may be. Overall responsibility of implementation of all witness protection orders passed by the Competent Authority shall lie on the Head of the Police in the State/UT. However the Witness Protection Order passed by the Competent Authority for change of identity and/or relocation shall be implemented by the Department of Home of the concerned State/UT.
  9. Upon passing of a Witness Protection Order, the Witness Protection Cell shall file a monthly follow-up report before the Competent Authority.
  10. In case, the Competent Authority finds that there is a need to revise the Witness Protection Order or an application is moved in this regard, and upon completion of trial, a fresh Threat Analysis Report shall be called from the ACP/DSP in charge of the police sub-division concerned.


7. Types Of Protection Measures:

The witness protection measures ordered shall be proportionate to the threat and shall be for a specific duration not exceeding three months at a time.
They may include:

  1. Ensuring that witness and Accused do not come face to face during investigation or trial;
  2. Monitoring of mail and telephone calls;
  3. Arrangement with the telephone company to change the witness's telephone number or assign him or her an unlisted telephone number;
  4. Installation of security devices in the witness's home such as security doors, CCTV, alarms, fencing etc
  5. Concealment of identity of the witness by referring to him/her with the changed name or alphabet;
  6. Emergency contact persons for the witness;
  7. Close protection, regular patrolling around the witness's house
  8. Temporary change of residence to a relative's house or a nearby town;
  9. Escort to and from the court and provision of Government vehicle or a State funded conveyance for the date of hearing;
  10. Holding of in-camera trials;
  11. Allowing a support person to remain present during recording of statement and deposition;
  12. Usage of specially designed vulnerable witness court rooms which have special arrangements like live video links, one way mirrors and screens apart from separate passages for witnesses and Accused, with option to modify the image of face of the witness and to modify the audio feed of the witness' voice, so that he/she is not identifiable;
  13. Ensuring expeditious recording of deposition during trial on day to day basis without adjournments;
  14. Awarding time to time periodical financial aids/grants to the witness from Witness Protection Fund for the purpose of re-location, sustenance or starting a new vocation/profession, if desired;
  15. Any other form of protection measures considered necessary.


8. Monitoring and review:
Once the protection order is passed, the Competent Authority would monitor its implementation and can review the same in terms of follow-up reports received in the matter. However, the Competent Authority shall review the Witness Protection Order on a quarterly basis based on the monthly follow-up report submitted by the Witness Protection Cell.

Part III
9. Protection Of Identity:

During the course of investigation or trial of any offence, an application for seeking identity protection can be filed in the prescribed form before the Competent Authority through its Member Secretary.

Upon receipt of the application, the Member Secretary of the Competent Authority shall call for the Threat Analysis Report. The Competent Authority shall examine the witness or his family members or any other person it deem fit to ascertain whether there is necessity to pass an identity protection order.

During the course of hearing of the application, the identity of the witness shall not be revealed to any other person, which is likely to lead to the witness identification. The Competent Authority can thereafter, dispose of the application as per material available on record.

Once, an order for protection of identity of witness is passed by the Competent Authority, it shall be the responsibility of Witness Protection Cell to ensure that identity of such witness/his or her family members including name/parentage/occupation/address/digital footprints are fully protected.

As long as identity of any witness is protected under an order of the Competent Authority, the Witness Protection Cell shall provide details of persons who can be contacted by the witness in case of emergency.

Part IV
10. Change Of Identity:
In appropriate cases, where there is a request from the witness for change of identity and based on the Threat Analysis Report, a decision can be taken for conferring a new identity to the witness by the Competent Authority.

Conferring new identities includes new name/profession/parentage and providing supporting documents acceptable by the Government Agencies. The new identities should not deprive the witness from existing educational/professional/property rights.

Part V
11. Relocation Of Witness:
In appropriate cases, where there is a request from the witness for relocation and based on the Threat Analysis Report, a decision can be taken for relocation of the witness by the Competent Authority.

The Competent Authority may pass an order for witness relocation to a safer place within the State/UT or territory of the Indian Union keeping in view the safety, welfare and wellbeing of the witness. The expenses shall be borne by the Witness Protection Fund.

Part VI
12. Witnesses To Be Apprised Of The Scheme:
Every state shall give wide publicity to this Scheme. The IO and the Court shall inform witnesses about the existence of Witness Protection Scheme and its salient features.

13. Confidentiality And Preservation Of Records:
All stakeholders including the Police, the Prosecution Department, Court Staff, Lawyers from both sides shall maintain full confidentiality and shall ensure that under no circumstance, any record, document or information in relation to the proceedings under this scheme shall be shared with any person in any manner except with the Trial Court/Appellate Court and that too, on a written order.

All the records pertaining to proceedings under this scheme shall be preserved till such time the related trial or appeal thereof is pending before a Court of Law. After one year of disposal of the last Court proceedings, the hard copy of the records can be weeded out by the Competent Authority after preserving the scanned soft copies of the same.

14. Recovery Of Expenses:
In case the witness has lodged a false complaint, the Home Department of the concerned Government can initiate proceedings for recovery of the expenditure incurred from the Witness Protection Fund.

15. Review:
In case the witness or the police authorities are aggrieved by the decisions of the Competent Authority, a review application may be filed within 15 days of passing of the orders by the Competent Authority.

No less significant is what is then envisaged succinctly in para 9 that:
After reproducing the afore-quoted Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (Supra) further observed/directed as under :

27. As is clear from its reading, the essential features of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 include identifying categories of threat perceptions, preparation of a Threat Analysis Report by the Head of the Police, types of protection measures like ensuring that the witness and accused do not come face to face during investigation, etc. protection of identity, change of identity, relocation of witness, witnesses to be apprised of the scheme, confidentiality and preservation of records, recovery of expenses, etc.

28. Since it is beneficial and benevolent scheme which is aimed at strengthening the criminal justice system in this country, which shall in turn ensure not only access to justice but also advance the cause of justice itself, all the States and Union Territories also accepted that suitable directions can be passed by the Court to enforce the said scheme as a mandate of the Court till the enactment of a statute by the legislatures.

29. It is clear from the aforesaid events that the Scheme is the outcome of the efforts put in by the Central Government with due assistance not only from the State Governments as well as Union Territories but other stakeholders including police personnel, NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities, High Courts and even civil society. There is no reason not to accede to the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General and other respondents.

35. One thing which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that there is a paramount need to have witness protection regime, in a statutory form, which all the stakeholders and all the players in the criminal justice system concede. At the same time no such legislation has been brought about. These are the considerations which had influenced this Court to have a holistic regime of witness protection which should be considered as law under Article 141 of the Constitution till a suitable law is framed.

36. We, accordingly, direct that:

 

  1. This Court has given its imprimatur to the Scheme prepared by Respondent 1 which is approved hereby. It comes into effect forthwith.
  2. The Union of India as well as the States and the Union Territories shall enforce the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in letter and spirit.
  3. It shall be the law under Articles 141/142 if the Constitution, till the enactment of suitable parliamentary and/or State legislations on the subject.
  4. In line with the aforesaid provisions contained in the Scheme, in all the district courts in India, Vulnerable Witness Deposition Complexes shall be set up by the States and Union Territories. This should be achieved within a period of one year i.e. by the end of the year 2019. The Central Government should also support this endeavour of the States/Union Territories by helping them financially and otherwise.


As we see, the Bench then points out in para 10 that:
In paragraph 8 of his personal affidavit the Secretary (Home) has stated that Standing Committee consisting of District and Sessions Judge (Chairman), District Magistrate (Member Secretary) and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police (Member) has been constituted in each District of Uttar Pradesh. A Chart containing the description of Constitution of standing committee in each district has been filed as Annexure 5 to the personal affidavit.

Quite significantly, the Bench then enunciates in para 11 that:
However, from perusal of the personal affidavit, it appears that merely letters have been issued by the State Government and its top officials to the District Level Officers and the Standing Committees have been constituted but the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is not being implemented in letter and spirit which fact is further evident from the facts of the present case itself that the petitioner (witness) to get protection under the aforesaid scheme has to approach this court twice and concerned authorities have passed the orders without any sense of responsibility. Despite the orders of this Court dated 10.06.2020 and 19.03.2021, passed in Writ C No.8925 of 2020 and Writ C No.27614 of 2020 respectively the State respondents repeatedly passed the same order. It is only after the present writ petition was filed and an order dated 05.10.2021 was passed, only then the State respondents have given protection to the petitioner by passing the order dated 30.10.2021. This instance itself is sufficient to discern the truth that various circulars or letters being issued by the State Government are merely an eye wash and in truth the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 is not being properly implemented by the State respondents.

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 12 that:
In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition with the directions to the State Government and all its concerned authorities/committees to implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 forthwith as well as the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (Supra) forthwith.

In conclusion, what Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Vikas Budhwar of Allahabad High Court have held so rightly, rationally and robustly in this leading case must be now implemented forthwith by the UP Government, its authorities and committees to whom it is directed. This is the crying need of the hour also as witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice and so that must be protected at all costs and under all circumstances. There cannot be any compromise on this in any manner on any ground whatsoever! It brooks no more delay anymore now! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in the interest of the victim, in the interest of the witness and in the interest of the justice also!

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