13 Criminal Law

13
CRIMINAL LAW
Jyoti Dogra Sood*
I INTRODUCTION
MACAULAY WAS strongly of the opinion that the penal laws should be made by
a democratically elected legislature which should not abdicate such responsibility
either directly (by not legislating) or indirectly (by enacting open ended and vague
laws that will be dependent on judicial interpretation).1The legislature in India is
under a constitutional responsibility as per the separation of powers for setting
down the parameters of criminal law not only in defining the ingredients of an
offence but also the punishment. The role of the courts is then to interpret these
laws and apply them to the facts of the particular case. A fair amount of judicial
discretion is of course vested in the courts. This paper surveys the trend of the
courts in criminal cases of the year 2013.
II UNNATURAL OFFENCES
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation 2 must have posed an ethical and
a moral dilemma for the judges. The Delhi High Court judgment against which the
present appeal lay was hailed by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
community and many others as a progressive judgment keeping with the changing
perceptions. The high court had allowed the writ petition filed by the NGO NAZ
Foundation challenging the constitutional validity of section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC). The Union of India chose not to contest the constitutional validity
of the section (given the fact that every statute is presumed to be constitutional)
and that speaks for itself that the government was in sync with the Delhi High
Court judgment. The issue before the apex court was as regards the constitutional
validity of section 377 IPC.
The final judgment was criticised by the LGBT supporters and hailed by
many religious groups and many others. Leaving that debate aside what is most
* Assistant Professor (Senior Grade), Indian Law Institute, New Delhi.

1 Barry Wright and Stanley Yeo “Revitalizing Macaulay’s Indian Penal Code” in
Wing Cheong, Chan, Barry Wright and Stanley Yeo (eds.), Codification, Macaulay
and the Indian Penal Code3-17(2011).
2 (2014) 1 SCC 1.
416 Annual Survey of Indian Law [2013
disturbing in the judgement is the fact that the vast literature available in terms of
judicial decisions the world over was ignored by holding that “judgments of other
jurisdictions cannot be applied blindfolded for deciding the constitutionality of a
law enacted by the Indian legislature.”3 The apex court’s earlier judgments4 have
been replete with copious references from other jurisdictions and why was this
case singled out remains an enigma to the surveyor. The court further elaborates
thus:5
We have had occasion to point out the danger of such statements of

law enunciated and propounded for meeting the conditions existing
in the countries in which they are applicable from being blindly
followed in this country without a critical examination of those
principles and their applicability to the conditions, social norms and
attitudes existing in this country.
It is submitted that since the case involved rights of a marginalized and

vulnerable group whose rights are being intensely debated the world over and a
change of attitude and social norms is taking place so it was in the fitness of things
for the matter to be deliberated by a larger bench representing both Victorian
morality and liberal views to come to a conclusion.6Article 145(3) of the
Constitution also mandates thus:
The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of
deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any
reference under Article 143 shall be five: Provided that, where the
Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this chapter
other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the
course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the
appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation
of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the
disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion
to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of
deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of
the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion
3 Id. at 68.The court discusses the Jagmohan case where death penalty was debated
4 See for example PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433; Jolly George Verghese
v. Bank of Cochin, 1980(2) SCC 360; Javed Abidi v. Union of India (1999) 1 SCC
467; Dwarka Prasad Agarwala v. B.D. Agarwala (2003) 6 SCC 230; Visakha v.
Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 248; Anuj Garg v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 1; Vineet
Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226.
5 Supra note 2 at 81.
6 The instant case was decided by a two judge bench of G.S. Singhvi and S.J.
MukhopadhayaJJ.
Vol. XLIX] Criminal Law 417
The reviewer is reminded of Cardozo when talking about judges (including

himself) he observed “All their lives forces which they do not recognize and cannot
name, have been tugging at them – inherited instincts, traditional beliefs, acquired
convictions …. In this mental background every problem finds its settings. We
may try to see things as objectively as we please. None the less we can never see
them with any eyes except our own.”7 This dictum on judicial process rings true
for the Naz judgment and a larger bench would have atleast ensured that the judicial
process does not become a reflection of two judges’ ideology and prejudice.
III OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN
Dowry death
In Panchanand Mandal v. State of Jharkhand 8 there was conviction by the

trial court and the high court for dowry death on the basis of the dying declaration
and the allegations made by the mother and brother of the deceased. The Supreme
Court allowed the appeals as the police officer who had recorded the dying
declaration was not examined by the prosecution thereby casting a doubt on its
veracity and further, the demand of dowry was not proved “soon before her death”.
Krishna Iyer J’s words come ringing back when he asserts thus:9
Adversarial process is gladiatorial justice, the strong win the bout,

the weak lose with punched nose, bleeding face and broken head.
The (robed) umpire is uninterested in the justice of the cause but
forbids violation of the boxing rules (called law) and there ends his
duty.
The expression “soon before her death” needs to be interpreted liberally

ignoring the semantics. It does not mean immediately before but must be construed
according to its true import.10
India continues to have the dubious distinction of a sui generic crime that of
killing the woman of the house by burning her after pouring kerosene. Such
criminals must be given very harsh punishments. But the conditions in India are
such that criminals rule the roost. In Anjanappa v. State of Karnataka11 a woman
7 Benjamin N. Cardozo, “Introduction” in The Nature of Judicial Process 12-13 (Fifth

Indian Reprint 2004). Emphasis supplied.
8 (2013) 9 SCC 800. It is submitted that in cases of such deaths there should also be
an alternate charge under s. 302 IPC. See also Manoj v. State of Haryana (2013) 9
SCC 190.
9 Justice VR Krishna Iyer “Adversarial Praxis vis a vis Social Justice”, The Constitution
Corruption Pathological Casualties and Radical RemediesReformatories 40-
41(2014).
10 See also Tummala Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2014) 2 SCC 240.
11 (2014) 2 SCC 776. See also Bhupendra v. State of M.P. (2014) 2 SCC 106.
in her dying declaration nailed her husband as the culprit who had killed her over
dowry demand. The trial court acquitted the accused on a frivolous contention
that the dying declaration was not supported by a certificate by the doctor stating
that the declarant was in a fit state of mind. The doctor had deposed that she was
not under the spell of sedatives and her dying declaration could be relied upon. It
is not clear why the conviction was not under section 304-B and under section 304
Part II IPC. The judgment is not clear on the issue and simply states that the high
court has given reasons for the same. The facts of the instant case reveal that just
before her death there was a demand for transferring the property to the appellant’s
name and the dowry harassment has been there from the very beginning and the
latest demand was only an extension of it.
In Kallya v. State of M.P.12 the dying declaration of the deceased implicating

her mother-in-law could not be traced. Reliance was placed on the duplicate copy
of the dying declaration and there was conviction under section 302. There is no
discussion of intention, knowledge or imminently dangerous act. The court declared
that “she had died due to asphyxia, due to burn injuries, her death was homicidal”.
In Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab13 there was death by poison of a young

girl in her twenties and there were allegations of cruelty and the appellants were
charged under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. However, the prosecution could
not establish a demand for dowry but only for mental cruelty, hence the apex court
was of the view that the case attracted section 306 and not section 304-B. However,
the accused were not charged under section 306 but the court relying on K. Prema
S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao14 “altered the conviction from 304-B IPC to that
under section 306 IPC. The matter fell within the purview of sections 221(1) and
(2) Cr PC”. The court also was anguished by the way the trial was conducted
where repeated adjournments were given at the behest of the counsel. The criminal
justice administration of the country is under severe criticism from all quarters for
the huge pendency of cases and the court pontificated thus: “it needs no special
emphasis to state that dispensation of criminal justice is not only a concern of the
Bench but has to be the concern of the Bar.”
In Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab15 the post mortem report revealed presence
of aluminium phosphide (pesticide) in the stomach of the deceased and phosphine
in her liver, spleen, right kidney and right lung and the evidence was clinching
enough to prove that it was dowry death and there was conviction under sections
304-B and 498-A IPC.
12 (2013) 10 SCC 758. For more on dying declaration see also Kashi Vishwanath v.
State of Karnataka (2013) 7 SCC 162; Hiraman v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 12
SCC 586;Parbin Ali v. State of Assam (2013) 2 SCC 81 and Ashabai v. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC 224.
13 (2013) 7 SCC 108.
14 (2003) 1 SCC 217.
15 (2013) 4 SCC 177.
In cases of death by burning as in Bakshish Ram v. State of Punjab,16 where

conviction is reversed and the court believes it to be an accidental death, one thing
that doesn’t fail to amaze the surveyor is that how come only young brides die by
burning and never the in-laws?
In Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka,17 like in many other

dowry death cases, a very pedantic interpretation of the term dowry was taken.
There was a demand of Rs. 10,000/- for repaying society loan and the young bride
was asked to get it from her parents. The courts refused to see it as a dowry demand
and hence the charge of dowry death under section 304B could not sustain. The
courts must keep in mind the social milieu of India where women still continue to
have a subordinate position in the matrimonial houses.
Rape
The court in Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Jharkhand18 talked about the crime of
rape and its impact on the victim and a need for a nuanced approach to get the
victim out of the trauma so as to be able to lead a normal life and stated thus:19
Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed

as a crime involving aggression which leads to the domination of
the prosecutrix. In case of rape besides the psychological trauma,
there is also social stigma to the victim. Majority of rapes are not
sudden occurrences but are generally well planned …. Social stigma
has a devastating effect on rape victim. It is violation of her right of
privacy. Such victims need physical, mental, psychological and social
rehabilitation. Physically she must feel safe in the society, mentally
she needs help to restore her lost self-esteem, psychologically she
needs help to overcome her depression and socially, she needs to be
accepted back in the social fold. Rape is blatant violation of women’s
bodily integrity.
It is true that rape is one of the most heinous crimes known to mankind. And
since the victim is the woman it is the man who should be shamed. But in case
after case it is the woman who is shamed ultimately. To give an example, the apex
court in Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi)20 stated thus while justifying the
punishment of life imprisonment to the accused:21
16 (2013) 4 SCC 131.

17 (2013) 4 SCC 551.
18 (2013) 14 SCC 481.
19 Id. at 485.
20 (2013) 7 SCC 77.
21 Id. at 88.(Emphasis added)
The eight year old girl, who was supposed to spend time in
cheerfulness, was dealt with animal passion and her dignity and purity
of physical frame was shattered. … The young girl, with efflux of
time, would grow with a traumatic experience, and unforgettable
shame … She may not be able to assert the honour of a woman for
no fault of hers.
It is submitted that the focus must be on the animal passion and the depravity
of the man who committed the crime rather than on shaming the victim!
The facts in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab22 are indeed shocking. A minor
girl was raped by her teachers while on a camp. FIR was belatedly registered as
the mother sent a telegram to the father who was away and only on his return could
they file it. The girl was repeatedly cross-examined for a period of two years and
she consistently maintained that she was raped though the accused persons tried
all delaying tactics in the case. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the case her
father, who was her pillar of support, died and the prosecutrix resiled on the last
date of cross-examination. The double disadvantage of being a woman and then
poor was too much for her to hold her ground and the appellants succeeded in
browbeating her. The Supreme Court rose to the occasion and castigated the trial
court for not taking steps to process the witnesses and for giving repeated
adjournments and held thus:23
Giving recognition to the principle of speedy trial, sub-section (1)

of Section 309 Cr PC, envisages that when the examination of
witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to
day, until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. Speedy
and expeditious trial and enquiry were envisaged under Section 309
Cr PC.
The teacher, who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher
responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/her character
and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and
such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher.
The question arises whether the conduct of the appellant is befitting
with such higher responsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed
the trust and forfeited the faith whether he would be entitled to the
full-fledged enquiry as demanded by him? The fallen standard of
the appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a
noble and learned profession; it is for each teacher and collectively
their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed
in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin.
22 (2013) 12 SCC 519.

23 Id. at 525, 27.
The court upheld the sentence of ten years under section 376(2)(b) & (g) IPC
though it lamented that the punishment should have been for life but since the
state had not appealed the question of enhancement did not arise.
The gruesome rape and then an equally gruesome murder of the woman and
her 13 months old daughter by pouring kerosene over them and setting them ablaze
is a case fit for the maximum punishment. In Kumar v. State of T.N 24 the trial court
and the high court gave life imprisonment (which is slightly surprising as generally
the trial courts give death penalty in such cases). The apex court concurring with
the courts below put in a word of caution saying that “in view of the gruesome act
of rape followed by double murder, we are of the view that the authorities having
the power of remission have to be conscious and cannot pass any such order of
remission lightly without adhering to various principles enunciated by this court.”
The court in this case did not out rightly exclude remission (which now has become
the trend), exhorted the authorities to employ caution while considering the same.
There have been concerted efforts to criminalize marital rape since bodily
autonomy and integrity are sacrosanct. Dignity rights get attached to a person the
moment he or she is born and marriage cannot ipso facto take them away. The
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW) Committee in February 2007 had recommended that India should
“remove the exception of marital rape from the definition of rape”. Subsequently
the Verma J Committee Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal
Law25 had recommended that “the exception for marital rape be removed” and
also specifically asked for “two finger test to be immediately stopped.” Given
such progressive thinking on the bodily autonomy it is indeed shocking that in
case after case the court talks of “two finger test” and each time it questions its
propriety but still it continues with it. If one goes with the report of this test in
Lillu v. State of Haryana26 it is repulsive to realize the kind of intrusive society vis
a vis women that we have. It is a serious violation of right to privacy when it is
blatantly discussed whether the woman (and in the instant case a minor 13 years 9
months and 2 days old to be precise) was habituated to sex or not. The Supreme
Court does only lip service and nothing more when it observes routinely in a
catena of cases that the rape survivors have a right “to privacy, physical and mental
integrity and dignity.” It is time that clear cut guidelines with stringent penalties
are put forth categorically by the apex court so that the victim is not ravished over
and over again even in courts.
Consent
The age of consent has been fixed at 18 years so as to protect vulnerable

children (who have not attained sufficient maturity to distinguish right form wrong).
24 (2013) 12 SCC 699.

25 Jan, 23, 2013 at 117.
26 (2013) 14 SCC 643.
In Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra27 facts reveal that the prosecutrix was 15

years old and was fond of singing. The accused convinced the gullible girl that he
would take her to Hyderabad and get her bhajans recorded. He even asked her to
bring ornaments so as to facilitate their travel to Hyderabad. They went to
Hyderabad and from there to Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh where the appellant
repeatedly had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. After that he got
her back since a complaint had been lodged against him. The trial court and high
court found him guilty under sections 363 and 376 IPC and the Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
In Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand 28 where the prosecution charge of rape

was not trustworthy it was contended that there were strong circumstances to arrive
at the conclusion that it was consensual sex. And since both were major there was
no question of rape. In rape cases the courts follow the rule that the version of the
prosecutrix needs no corroboration but in cases where there are reasons to doubt
the same then it is not safe to rely on the uncorroborated version of the alleged
victim of rape.29
Regarding the true import of consent the prosecution in Ganga Singh v. State
of M.P.,30 quoting State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal 31 clarified that “consent for the
purpose of section 375 IPC requires voluntary participation not only after the
exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and the moral
quality of the act as also after full exercise of choice between resistance and assent”.
Consent was again under the scanner in Karthi v. State.32 It was a case of
forcible sex followed by consensual sex on the false promise of marriage. The
Supreme Court in Uday v. State of Karnataka 33 and Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar34
has quite clearly stated that consent obtained on a promise of marriage with the
intention of not fulfilling it but just as a bait to elicit the assent for sex is not a true
consent and such intercourse needs to be treated as rape. The court in the instant
case also held that “obtaining the consent by exercising deceit, cannot be a
legitimate defence to exculpate an accused.”
27 (2013) 14 SCC 637. See also Kashi Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka (2013) 7
SCC 162.
28 (2013) 3 SCC 791.
29 Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala (2013) 9 SCC 13.
30 (2013) 7 SCC 228 at 282.
31 (2011) 2 SCC 550.
32 (2013) 12 SCC 710.
33 AIR 2003 SC 1639.
34 (2005) 1 SCC 88
This issue came up for consideration again in Deepak Gulati v. State of

Haryana.35 In the case of Karthi, the issue was that the accused gave a false promise
of marriage on the basis of which the girl consented to sexual intercourse. But in
the instant case the couple indulged in sexual intercourse (forcible according to
the facts) and the appellant convinced the girl to accompany him to Ambala where
they would get married. When they reached the bus stop the father of the girl with
the police was there as a complaint under sections 365 and 376 IPC was lodged
and the appellant was taken into custody. Medical examination of the girl was
conducted and her statement was recorded and charges under sections 365 and
376 IPC were framed against the accused by the sessions court. The court tried to
make a distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise as in the
circumstances of the case it was not clear whether he would have at all married her
or not. Since he was apprehended by the police it could not be said that he obtained
consent for sexual intercourse on a false promise of marriage rather it is a case of
breach of promise due to change in the circumstances. It is submitted that the
courts must be very careful as men should not be victimized in cases of consensual
sex since a girl above 18 years is supposed to have a mature mind with full
comprehension of her acts and when she voluntarily participates she should not be
allowed to take the plea of cheating or deception except in cases like Karthi. The
court in the instant case gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and discharged
him.
Female infanticide
Article 21 guarantees the right to life but in India some people are so obsessed
with having sons and believing in superstitions, sometimes end up killing the girl
child. This background forms the factual matrix in R. Kuppusamy v. State36 wherein
a girl child of about 10 months was considered unlucky for the family and was
thrown in the well by the father. Obviously, the hapless child died of drowning.
There was an extrajudicial confession supported by corroborative evidence. The
court dismissing the appeal upheld the life imprisonment on a charge of murder
under section 302.
Compoundable offence
P. Ramaswamy v. State of Andaman & Nicobar Islands37 allowed an offence

under section 354 IPC to be compounded. As per the law, the offence under this
section is compoundable by the woman assaulted or towards whom the criminal
force was used. The saving grace in this case was that the high court had dropped
the charge under section 3(1) (ix) of the SC/ST Act otherwise the compounding of
the offence would not have been allowed.
35 (2013) 7 SCC 675.

36 (2013) 3 SCC 322.
37 (2013) 14 SCC 577.
IV OFFENCES AGAINST THE BODY
Murder
Mritunjoy Biswas v. Pranab38 stressed on the fact that “the protection given
by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same
time; uniformed legitimisation of trivialities would end up making a mockery of
criminal justice administration”. In the instant case the high court gave too much
credence to non essentials and reversed the conviction verdict of the trial court on
a murder charge. The apex court restoring the trial court verdict made the above
observations.
In a murder case in a cargo ship,39 no eyewitnesses were there and there was
a botched up investigation wherein the alleged murder weapon was not examined
along with the post mortem which was conducted in Hong Kong since the ship
was sailing and after the murder came to a halt at Hong Kong. The clothes of the
appellant were not seized. The crime scene was washed and cleaned. Hence the
circumstantial chain was not complete which should have unerringly pointed
towards the guilt of the appellant. Since the circumstances were not conclusive
the appellant was acquitted.
Cases become difficult to crack when there are no eyewitnesses. Sucha Singh
v. State of Haryana40 was a case of homicide wherein the accused was nailed
based on the extra judicial confession. On the basis of the confession and the
information furnished by the appellant a Kassi, one Khese and bed sheet were
recovered which had large and small blood stains. All these pointed to the guilt of
the accused as recoveries were made based on the confession of the accused. The
court held that “there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the statement of the appellant and the recoveries made pursuant to
the statement of the appellant are of no evidentiary value”. The appeal was
dismissed.
In Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P.41 the conviction was on the testimony of a

single eye witness. There was an allegation that he did not volunteer information
till the dead body was identified. Upholding the conviction the court held that
there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a
single witness if his version is reliable and trustworthy. The court acknowledged
the fact that people react to situations in different ways. Having witnessed a ghastly
crime he may have got scared and so did not immediately come forth with the
truth.
38 (2013) 12 SCC 796.

39 Majenderan Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 192. See also
State of U.P. v. Gobardhan (2013) 14 SCC 751.
40 (2013) 4 SCC 552.
41 (2013) 12 SCC 680.
In the case of murder the “last seen together” theory shifts the burden of
proof onto the accused, requiring him to explain the incident. Failure to explain
the events raises a strong presumption of guilt against him. In Rohtash Kumar v.
State of Haryana42 the factual matrix revealed that a couple had applied for divorce
by mutual consent. The appellant went to meet the woman in her hostel and they
were last seen together before the dead body of the woman was discovered. In
cases of circumstantial evidence “motive” which otherwise is inconsequential may
assume importance. The investigation team recovered a suicide note and certain
other undelivered letters written to officials by the appellant alleging that the girl’s
family was harassing him over the divorce and had even extracted money from
him. These documents revealed that he felt harassed and provided him a motive to
commit the murder. Based on circumstantial evidence and motive for murder the
court upheld the conviction.
Contrast these cases with Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam.43 A small girl went
missing from a place where she was enjoying the festivities of Durga Puja along
with her elder sister. Around the same time the appellant who was present there
also vanished. The elder sister informed the parents and when confronted, the
appellant demanded Rs. 20. On being given that amount he pointed to a place
where the girl was found in a gunny bag gasping for breath with injury in her
vagina and various other parts the appellant tried to run away but was nabbed.
She eventually died. The trial court and the high court affirmed conviction under
sections 376(2) (f) and 302. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against
conviction and acquitted the appellant. It held that the only evidence against him
was that he was able to show the place where the deceased was lying. Extra judicial
confessions have no sanctity in law but they become relevant only when discovery
is made pursuant to that. Moreover, the court maintained that the blood stained
underwear which matched the blood of the victim was a circumstance which was
never put to the appellant when he was being examined under section 313 Cr PC.
Thus, the court felt that the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and
took a serious note of the lapse under section 313. The fact is, technical irregularities
like this both by the prosecution and by the investigation agencies often botch up
many cases. How long should the court allow them to continue with this?
However, in Ram Deo Prasad v. State of Bihar44 which was again a case of
brutal rape and murder of a 4 year old child, the examination under section 313 Cr
PC was just an eyewash. He was unrepresented in the trial court and did not file an
appeal in the high court against the death penalty awarded to him. The Supreme
Court was of the opinion that he did not have the financial resources and the
realization to understand the gravity of the situation. On these technical irregularities
it commuted his death penalty to imprisonment for 18 years! Thus in one case the
accused gets acquittal and in the other remission in sentence!
42 (2013) 4 SCC 434.
43 (2013) 12 SCC 406. See also Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC
722.
44 (2013) 7 SCC 725.
In Karan Singh v. State of Haryana45 the investigation was botched up by the

investigating officer since he was favourably inclined towards the accused. All
that was necessary in the circumstances of the case i.e. using the services of the
dog squad or crime team of the forensic science laboratory, taking photographs of
the place of residence of the deceased which had been broken into were not done.
Now, these were crucial issues. The trial court and the high court while lamenting
on the shoddy investigation nonetheless gave a verdict of guilt. The Supreme Court,
taking the administration of State of Haryana to task for not punishing the erring
official, rightly upheld the guilty verdict.
Yet another case of shoddy investigation was Sunil Kundu v. State of

Jharkhand.46 The court acknowledging that “it is true that acquitting the accused
merely on the ground of lapses or irregularities in the investigation of a case would
amount to putting premium on the deprecable conduct of an incompetent
investigation agency at the cost of the victims which may lead to encouraging
perpetrators of crime,”47 was still constrained to give the benefit of doubt to the
accused on the argument that a suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place
of proof. The point is that the courts laments have so far gone unheeded.48
In Soguru Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.49 though there was no direct evidence

of murder by the husband but the cumulative effect of the circumstances led to the
irresistible and inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the murder.
The conviction was upheld.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
In Mohd. Ishaque v. State of West Bengal 50 the conviction was converted

from section 302 to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section
304 Part I, because the murder was not premeditated but was a result of rivalry
between political parties.
In State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Savita 51 there was death by burning of a

woman in the matrimonial home. There was some sort of a relationship between
the woman and the brother-in-law and two dying declarations stated that the accused
brother-in-law poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. However, the details of
the incident are quite sketchy. Hence the court set aside the conviction under section
45 (2013) 12 SCC 592.

46 (2013) 4 SCC 422.
47 Id. at 434.
48 See also Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 8SCC 263; Gajoo v. State of
Uttarakhand (2012) 9 SCC 532.
49 (2013) 4 SCC 244.
50 (2013) 14 SCC 581.
51 (2013) 12 SCC 663.
302 IPC as it could not be satisfactorily proved that there was intention to kill, or
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or cause such injury as is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The court held that the
case did not fall in the ‘fourthly’ of section 300 IPC because the act was not so
imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. It is submitted
that no mathematical precision can be employed to distinguish between murder
and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sometimes, there is a very thin
line dividing the two as in the present case. But there has to be some rationale to
be employed by the judge and there is nothing in this judgment to show how to
distinguish between the two. There is also no discussion as to how the case got
covered under section 304 Part II IPC. Is it so much dependent on the subjective
satisfaction of the judge? The only way to infer intention is through the physical
conduct of the accused and section 300 fourthly reads thus “if the person committing
the act knows….” It means that it is a very subjective criteria when interpreted
literally. Otherwise section 300 fourthly is so encompassing that it may cover all
homicide cases. Leaving that discussion aside, it is little disturbing that the judgment
declares that “from the two dying declarations, it is also difficult to come to a
finding that the respondent committed the act knowing that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability, cause death of the accused”52 The court
justifying the alteration of the conviction from section 302IPC had placed little
faith in the dying declaration when it observed thus: “The two dying declarations
are very sketchy”.53 Since it was a sketchy account how did the court garner the
accused’s state of mind from it with so much conviction. The reasoning in such
cases should be very convincing as the range of conviction between the two varies
from the extreme of death penalty to a liberal punishment of just fine.
The court in Swarn Kaur v. Gurumukh Singh54 was of the opinion that though
the injury was on the head of the deceased (a vital organ of the body), the nature of
the injury was not such as to infer intention to cause death. The accused were
upset by the poor quality of food and assaulted him so there was no intention but
knowledge could be imputed and hence they were convicted under section 304
Part II IPC.
In Babu v. State of T.N,55 the medical evidence pointed to the fact that head
injury was caused to the deceased and she became unconscious. In order to make
it appear as a suicide, the appellant administered poison to her and before it could
reach the liver and kidney, she succumbed to her injury. The court reasoned that
since she had suffered only one head injury the conviction would be under 304
Part I IPC and not for offence punishable under section 302 IPC.
52 Id. at 673.
53 Id. at 673.
54 (2013) 12 SCC 732.
55 (2013) 8 SCC 60. Basdev v. State of Pepsu, 1956 SCR 363 drew a distinction between
motive, intention and knowledge and the court opined thus: “In many cases intention
and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and
In Kachar Dipu v. State of Gujarat,56 the trial court convicted the accused for
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 IPC but the high
court altered it to section 302 IPC, categorizing it as murder. Section 300 IPC
states that culpable homicide is not murder: (a) if committed without premeditation;
(b) if committed in the sudden fight in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel; (c)
without the offender having taken undue advantage; or (d) acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. In the instant case the man (since deceased) was going to the
field on his bicycle when the appellants hit him with their motorcycle. When he
fell his body was tied to the motor vehicle and was dragged. The trial court gave a
verdict of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The high court on
reappreciation convicted him under section 300 as the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.57 The same was upheld by the Supreme
Court.
In Som Raj v. State of H.P.58 the deceased was given a blow on the head by a
‘darat’ (an agricultural implement). It was contended by the appellant accused
that “even if a singular fatal blow is taken to be inflicted, he could only be punished
for an offence under section 304 Part II of the Penal Code, and not for the offence
of murder under section 302.” The court clarified that there is no justification for
the same and “the whole thing depends on the intention to cause death, and the
case may be covered by either clause “firstly or clause thirdly. The nature of
intention must be gathered from the kind of weapon used, the part of the body hit,
the amount of force employed and the circumstances attendant upon the death.”
And in the instant case, the blow was so imminently dangerous that it would in all
probability cause death and hence conviction under section 302 IPC was upheld.
Fake encounter
Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana59 is indeed a disturbing case of fake

encounter wherein a policeman killed a young man in cold blood in October 2008.
The police subsequently refused to file an FIR. It is due to the relentless effort of
the hapless father that the case reached the Supreme Court. It is painful to note
that inspite of clear cut guidelines by NHRC and the Supreme Court regarding
intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge
and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote
different things. See also, Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013)
6 SCC 770.
56 (2013) 4 SCC 322.
57 See also Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 1495.
58 (2013) 14 SCC 246.
59 (2013) 14 SCC 290.
investigation in cases of alleged fake encounters the same was blatantly ignored.
The court while admitting that it appears to be a fake encounter showed its
helplessness thus:60
Once we come to a conclusion that Sunil is killed in an encounter,

which appears to be fake, it is necessary to direct an independent
investigating agency to conduct the investigation so that those who
are found to be involved in the commission of crime can be tried
and convicted. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned amicus
curiae directing an investigation, at this distant point of time, will
be an exercise in futility. We are informed that witnesses would not
be available. It would be difficult to trace the record of the case
from the two police stations. Handing over investigation to an
independent agency and starting a fresh investigation would be of
no use at this stage.
And the court granted compensation of Rs.20 lakh. It is submitted that it is

little uncomfortable to believe that 2008 record is something which is difficult to
procure (as mentioned by the apex court). If this is the line of approach than the
right to information which is considered to be a potent weapon in the hands of
citizenry would be useless. The Act requires at least 20 years of record to be there.
A mere compensation without bringing the guilty to book is like the archaic practice
of giving blood money. The courts should have, at the least, ordered an inquiry
and should have overseen that officers responsible for the cover-up were
departmentally proceeded against and punishment imposed.
Corpus delicti
Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi)61 dealt with the anti Sikh riots of 1984
where large scale killings took place; the dead bodies of the victims were put in
gunny bags and disposed off. The court reiterated that “[d]iscovery of the dead
body of the victim has never been considered as the only mode of proving the
corpus delicti in murder”. The apex court upheld the conviction of the appellants
under sections 147/149/449/436/302,395/396 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous
imprisonment and fine.
The court in Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand,62 while admitting that corpus

delicti is not essential, made it amply clear that there must be clinching evidence
which proves that the victim has been done to death. In the instant case, there was
no evidence either direct or circumstantial, of a homicidal death.
60 Id. at 298.
61 (2013) 4 SCC 557 at 572.
62 (2013) 12 SCC 551.
Removal of evidence
In Tejinder Singh v. State of Punjab63 the court held that for a charge under
section 201 to succeed, mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record
cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to
lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused had
caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.
V GENERAL DEFENCES
Unsoundness of mind
The law gives a defence of insanity as a person is responsible only for the
acts which he does with the knowledge that what he is doing is wrong or contrary
to law, especially in offences inolving mens rea.
In Mariappan v. State of Tamil Nadu64 there was a homicidal death of a woman

over a property dispute. Evidence was led to prove that there had been a dispute
between the appellant and the deceased (who was the appellant’s paternal aunt)
over a portion of land. The appellant had threatened her a day prior to the murder
that if money in lieu of land was not paid, he would kill her and her husband. On
the fateful day he went to her house, locked the place from inside and gave her
repeated blows on the head and she died. The deceased woman’s grand-daughters
who were witness to the crime raised cries for help. The neighbours came and saw
the appellant running out of the house. The murder weapon was found and the
blood stains matched. The appellant took the plea of insanity – that he was suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of doing it and sought benefit of exception
under section 84 IPC.
The law is settled on the point that the onus to prove that the case falls under
the general exceptions is on the accused claiming the exception. The appellant
submitted reports from the doctor certifying that he had paranoid schizophrenia
and was under treatment from 11.7.2001 to 8.8.2009 and had also a termination
letter from IG Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi. However, the incident
occurred three months after the treatment period and around the same time he had
also requested his department to let him rejoin stating improvement in his health.
The language of the section is very clear that the insanity must be at that particular
time and in the instant case the accused could not discharge the burden of proving
the same and hence his appeal was dismissed and stood convicted under section
302 IPC.
Right to private defence
Gopal v. State of Rajasthan 65 was a case of double murder. The facts proved
that the complainant party was the aggressor. The accused party pleaded right to
63 (2013) 12 SCC 503.

64 (2013) 12 SCC 270.
65 (2013) 2 SCC 188.
private defence. However it is not clear from the facts if the aggressors were armed
unlike the accused party which used axe and lathis to kill. In the judgement there
is only a cursory discussion on right of private defence, and no discussion at all on
the point whether they exceeded their right. The reason could be that the second
murder did not fall under section 96 as that person (who was murdered
subsequently) had come to help and was running away from the scene when he
was killed. While the appellants could be held guilty under section 302 for the
second murder, the right of private defence in the first murder was just granted
without a serious thought and without proper appreciation of facts which, it is
submitted, is not a healthy practice. The judgement mentions that “where the right
of private defence is pleaded the defence must be a reasonable and probable one…
the burden stands discharged on showing a preponderance of probability.” But the
fact remains that the right of private defence “should not exceed” and the courts
have been wary of this excess. Moreover, as per section 31(1) Cr PC, consecutive
sentences may be awarded and so each murder needs to be separately dealt with
all seriousness.
VI INCHOATE OFFENCES
Attempt
The law of attempt defies Mill’s harm principle. In cases of attempt no harm
may result, but if the person has gone beyond preparation and entered the realm of
attempt, he would be guilty of the offence. Therefore, for conviction under section
307 IPC, in a case of gunshot, it is immaterial whether the injury is on a vital part
or not. What is important is that if the act was done with intention or knowledge
that it might cause death. In State of U.P. v. Mohan66 where the gunshot missed the
vital portion and resulted in a lacerated wound, conviction under section 307 was
upheld. The court reiterated that punishment should be commensurate with the
crime and deprecated the high court ruling of reducing the sentence as the injury
was not to a vital part.
Abetment
There was again an issue of birth of a girl child which led to suicide by the
mother along with the child in Atmaram v. State of Maharashtra.67 The court
seems to have accepted the fact that bigamy does exist in India. There is no
mention of the religion of the parties but the names suggest that they may be
Hindus and the woman who died was the second wife. She was specifically married
as the first wife could not bear children. Neither cruelty nor abetment could be
proved. The court, due to lack of evidence, was constrained to believe that the
woman was unhappy that she could not beget a son while the first wife delivered
one and that drove her to commit suicide so the guilty verdict under sections 306
and 498 A IPC was reversed.
66 (2013) 14 SCC 16.

67 (2013) 12 SCC 286.
The factual matrix in Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar v. State of Karnataka68 was

that a woman died after consuming poison. There were charges under sections
498A, 304B and 306. But since the dowry demand could not be proved the charge
of 304-B was dropped. As far as section 306 is concerned section 113A reads
thus:
113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

woman.—When the question is whether the commission of suicide
by a woman had been abetted by her husband … and it is shown that
she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her
husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having
regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
The evidence proved that the woman was beaten up before her death and
since the death occurred in the matrimonial home, it was clear that she was assaulted
in there. The trial court did not view the harassment and beating to be of any
consequence and the apex court was constrained to reprimand the sessions judge
for the insensitivity shown to a serious crime against a hapless woman. The order
is replete with such insensitivity like “giving one or two beatings is not cruelty to
drive the deceased to commit suicide.” The court while upholding the reversal of
acquittal by the high court observed thus:69
Our objection is to the tenor of the learned Sessions Judge’s

observations. We do not suggest that where there is no evidence the
court should go out of its way, ferret out evidence and convict the
accused in such cases. It is of course the duty of the court to see that
an innocent person is not convicted. But it is equally the duty of the
court to see that perpetrators of heinous crimes are brought to book.
The above quoted extracts add to the reasons why the learned
Sessions Judge’s judgment can be characterised as perverse. They
show a mindset which needs to change. There is a phenomenal rise
in crime against women and protection granted to women by the
Constitution of India and other laws can be meaningful only if those
who are entrusted with the job of doing justice are sensitised towards
women’s problems.
VII FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION
The question in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal70 related to

suppression of material information sought by the employer. An FIR had been
68 (2013) 3 SCC 462.

69 Id. at 471.
70 (2013) 9 SCC 363.
lodged against the appellant and subsequently there was a closure report which
was accepted by the magistrate. The effect was that no case was made against the
appellant. In his form for employment he did not mention (where it was specifically
asked) the registration of FIR against him and his services were terminated when
the fraud was detected. The court upholding his termination observed thus: 71
The case pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude
but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral turpitude.
Cheating
In Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P.,72 the court analysing the offence of cheating
held that in the definition of cheating there are two separate classes of acts which
the persons deceived may be induced to do.”In the first place he may be induced
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second
class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which
the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the
first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second
class of acts the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest.” The
court stressed that there is a fine distinction between breach of contract and cheating.
The factual matrix, in the instant case, as was noted by the sessions judge, revealed
that there was intention to deceive right from the beginning so it was not a question
of breach of contract but cheating which the high court could not appreciate and
quashed the proceeding. The apex court set aside the order of the high court and
directed the magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.
VIII OBSCENITY
In Gita Ram v. State of H.P.,73 there was a raid on a video parlour and the
appellants were caught showing a blue film to about 15 viewers which included
young men. The trial court sentenced the appellants to undergo 6 months simple
imprisonment under section 292/34 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 under
section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The sessions court upholding the guilt
reduced the sentence to one month showing leniency towards these first time
offenders. The high court saw no perversity in the judgment and dismissed the
revision. The counsel for the appellants argued for the benefit of Probation of
Offenders Act and pleaded for the sentence to be modified to fine alone. However
a perusal of section 292 IPC makes it clear that it deals with first time offenders
with lighter punishment and aggravated in case of repeat offenders. Hence, the
court saw no reason to modify the sentence any further.
71 Id. at 368.
72 (2013) 2 SCC 801.
73 (2013) 2 SCC 694.
IX INTENTIONAL INSULT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE
Religion is a very sensitive issue in India and religious insults have historically
been responsible for escalating tensions among groups. Hence, the courts take
such matters quite seriously. In Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra74 the
idols of the “Kulu devta” were dislodged and the court held that there was a prima
facie case to initiate proceedings under section 504 IPC.
X JOINT LIABILITY
Common intention
The conditions precedent which are essential to attract section 34 of the IPC
are that the act must have been done by more than one person and the said persons
must have shared a common intention either by omission or commission in
effectuating the act. A separate act by each of the accused is not necessary.75The
court in Syed Yousuf Hussain v. State of A.P.76clarified the same thus:77
Section 34 IPC is intended to cover a situation wherein the accused

persons have done something with common intention to constitute
a criminal act. To get Section 34 attracted, certain conditions
precedent are to be satisfied. The act must have been done by more
than one person and they must have shared a common intention
either by omission or commission in effectuating the crime. It is
always not necessary that every accused must do a separate act to
be responsible for the ultimate criminal act. What is required is that
an accused person must share the common intention to commit the
act.
In Goudappa v. State of Karnataka78 the ingredients of section 34 were once

again scrutinized and the court held thus:79
[H]ow to gather common intention? The common intention is

gathered from the manner in which the crime has been committed,
the conduct of the accused soon before and after the occurrence, the
determination and concern with which the crime was committed,
the weapon carried by the accused and from the nature of the injury
caused by one or some of them. Therefore, for arriving at a
74 (2013) 14 SCC 24.

75 Birendra Das v. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 236.
76 (2013) 4 SCC 517.
77 Id. at 521.
78 (2013) 3 SCC 675.
79 Id. at 682.
conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit

an offence of which they could be convicted, the totality of
circumstances must be taken into consideration.
So, there must be a common intention for convicting a person under section
34 IPC and most importantly there must be participation by the accused persons
in furtherance of the common intention. It may not be necessary that the acts of the
several persons charged with the commission of an offence jointly must be the
same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must be
arising out of the same common intention.80 No prejudice can be claimed by the
accused merely because charge was framed under section 302 IPC simpliciter and
not with the help of section 34 IPC.81
Unlawful assembly
In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan82 the trial court recorded a conviction

under section 302 read with section 149 IPC. But the high court noting that the
prosecution has not revealed the genesis of the incident abruptly reached the
conclusion that as there had been no meeting of minds just prior to the incident, or
even at the time of the incident, the respondents were responsible for their individual
acts. The Supreme Court reminded the scope of constructive liability stating thus:83
The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its

foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its
application. … It is not necessary that for common object there
should be a prior concert as the common object may be formed on
the spur of the moment. Common object would mean the purpose
or design shared by all members of such assembly and it may be
formed at any stage. Even if the offence committed is not in direct
prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it may
yet fall under the second part of Section 149 IPC if it is established
that the offence was such, as the members knew, was likely to be
committed. … However, it may be relevant to determine whether
the assembly consists of some persons which were merely passive
witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity
without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.
The apex court restored the order of the trial court.
80 State of Rajasthan v. Shobha Ram (2013) 14 SCC 732. See Emperor v. Barendra
Kumar Ghosh(1925) 27 Bom LR 148. wherein it was held that “Even if the appellant
did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in
other things ‘they also serve who only stand and wait.’
81 Chinnam Kameswara Rao v. State of A.P. (2013) 12 689.
82 (2013)12 SCC 76.
83 Id. at 82.
In the case of Manga v. State of Uttarakhand 84 one of the issues deliberated

was the interpretation of section 141 “third” vis a vis section 149 IPC. The court
after citing authorities on statutory interpretation scrutinized the submission of
the senior counsel that “under section 141 ‘Third’, the expression ‘other offence’
used therein for the purpose of ascertaining the common object of a person in an
unlawful assembly, would only be relatable to offences similar to those such as,
mischief or criminal trespass, referred to in the said class”. The court entered into
an examination of sections 141, 147 and 149 and held thus:85
Section 141 “Third”, clearly mentions that an assembly of five or

more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly if the common
object of the persons composing that assembly as among other
offences, namely, mischief or criminal trespass or commission of
other offence. A literal interpretation, therefore, only means that
apart from the offence of mischief and criminal trespass, all other
offences would fall within the said clause “Third” mentioned in
Section 141. Other related sections falling under the said Chapter
VIII are up to Section 160. Reading Section 141 “Third” along with
Section 149, if the commission of any other offence apart from
mischief or criminal trespass and such commission of offence was
by a member of an unlawful assembly, the prescription of common
object will automatically get satisfied.
”Mere presence in an assembly does not make such a person a member of an

unlawful assembly unless it is shown that he had done something or omitted to do
something which would make him a member of an unlawful assembly or unless
the case falls under section 142 of the Penal Code.”86 In cases where allegations
are against large number of persons the courts have to carefully examine if the
offence is committed in direct prosecution of the common object or such as the
members knew was likely to be committed. In Rattiram the twin test failed and
there were doubts as regards the appellant accused person’s presence on the spot
and so conviction under section 149 was not called for.
The constructive liability should not be stretched to an extent that innocent

bystanders get wrongly implicated. This warning becomes all the more relevant
while invoking section 149 as large numbers of people may be involved and it
may sometimes happen that some people may seem to be a part of the unlawful
assembly without actually being a part just by being there out of sheer curiosity.
Commission of an overt act by such a person would be one of the tests to prove
that he shared the common object, but it is not the sole test, as the mere membership
of the assembly has the potential to implicate the person.
84 (2013) 7 SCC 629.

85 Id. at 649.
86 Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2013) 12 SCC 316 quoting Baladin v. State of U.P. 1956
CriLJ 345.
In Subal Ghoral v. State of W.B.87 there was an altercation involving a goat

belonging to the deceased damaging the paddy and being beaten by a juvenile
delinquent Gopal and his mother. The deceased detained Gopal for some time.
This infuriated the accused persons and they came armed. There was evidence
that they assembled on the sounding of a conch shell and proceeded towards the
place of commission of crime which resulted in three gruesome murders. The
court reiterated that the most important ingredient of an unlawful assembly is the
common object. It can be formed at the spur of the moment. Course of conduct
adopted by the members of common assembly is a relevant factor. It is irrelevant
whether the person did something or not once the case fell within the ingredients
of section 149 IPC. So if a large crowd assaults some persons and a few among
them do not take part in the assault, and their weapons are not used but that will
not absolve them of liability.
Section 149 IPC is a substantive offence and section 34 IPC is only a rule of
evidence. Occasions may arise where the court realizes that due to acquittals the
strength of the assembly is insufficient to constitute an “unlawful assembly.” But
once it is established that the other persons who participated in the crime share a
common intention with the perpetrators of the crime, the court can invoke section
34 IPC even though they may not have been specifically charged.88
XI OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
Dacoity with murder
The question before the court in Manoj Giri v. State of Chhattisgarh 89 was
whether conviction of less than five persons or even one for dacoity can stand.
The factual matrix was that the prsoecutrix along with her husband and father-in-
law were returning home on bicycles when they were waylaid by a gang of five
persons. They were beaten up and she was gang raped. Her father-in- law ultimately
succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The trial court considered the evidence
and concluded that the appellant was guilty under section 395, 396, 397, 398 and
376(2) (g) IPC. However, evidence against the others was wanting and they were
acquitted. The contention of the appellant was that since the other four had been
acquitted it would not be legal to convict him alone for an offence of which the
basic ingredient is 5 or more persons. The apex court held that there is no infirmity
in the decision since there was no doubt that the murder was committed during the
conjoint commission of dacoity. For want of proper evidence the others have been
acquitted but conviction of even one can stand.
87 (2013) 4 SCC 607.

88 See Babu v. State (2013) 4 SCC 448.
89 (2013) 5 SCC 798.
Robbery with murder
Palwinder Singh v. State of Punjab90 was a case of robbery which ended in

murder. The eyewitnesses had fled from the scene of crime which happened at
around 10 p.m. at night on a public road and they came to report to the police only
at around 8 in the morning. Reliance was placed on their testimony by both the
trial court and the high court. The apex court also reasoned thus: 91
…[B]ecause he did not make any attempt to go to the rescue of

the deceased cannot be put against the witness, inasmuch as when
four persons were assaulting the deceased with dangerous
weapons that too in the night hour in the present day set-up, one
cannot expect an unarmed person to get himself entangled and
suffer unnecessary harm to himself. Moreover, the occurrence
took place late in the night at around 9 p.m. and, therefore,
prudence might have dawned upon him not to fall a cheap prey at
the hands of such criminals who were already assaulting a person
with a dagger and other weapons. Equally, his conduct in having
come back to the place of occurrence in the early morning at
around 7.30 a.m. along with PW 4 only shows his earnestness in
disclosing what he witnessed on the previous night to the police.
XII SENTENCING
“The most relevant determinative factor of sentencing is proportionality

between crime and punishment keeping in mind the social interest and
consciousness of the society. It is a mockery of the criminal justice system to take
a lenient view showing misplaced sympathy to the accused on any consideration
whatsoever including the delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings.” 92
State of M.P. v. Najab Khan93 raises important issues of sentencing and

compoundability. The case involved conviction under sections 326/34 IPC for
causing grievous injuries to the victim. As per the doctor’s opinion the injuries
were serious in nature and could have posed a threat to the victim’s life. The trial
court sentenced the accused persons to three years imprisonment and a fine. On
appeal to the high court for reduction of sentence it reduced the punishment to the
14 days imprisonment already undergone! The fact that the parties had amicably
resolved the issue is also mentioned in the judgment though it is not clear whether
the high court was moved into reducing the sentence because of this factor.
However, what is shocking is that the high court blatantly ignored the written law
90 (2013) 5 SCC 715.

91 Id. at 720.
92 State of M.P. v. Babulal (2013) 12 SCC 308.
93 (2013) 9 SCC 509.
and dealt with such a serious case, which could have resulted in a murder, in a
casual manner. The punishment must adhere to the principle of “just deserts” and
the apex court was right in restoring the sentence passed by the trial court. It
defies logic that the final court of evidence i.e., the high court had no scruples on
not following the rule book and giving punishments not commensurate with the
gravity of the crime.
State of Haryana v. Janak Singh 94 is a rape case and a reading of the judgment
reveals that the societal abhorrence of rape and the increase in crime against women
and children and its demand for deterrent punishment are of not much concern to
some of the high courts. It reduced the sentence of eight years given by the trial
court to two years rigorous imprisonment already undergone for “just and
expedient” reasons. It reminds us of the Phul Singh 95 judgment of Krishna Iyer J.
However, there is a discussion as to the probable consent of the prosecutrix but
the judgment reflects that the case had been handled in a very shoddy manner. As
such, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the high court for disposal.
Sentencing policy has to turn a blind eye to hypothetical situations. The

punishment must be commensurate with the crime situation. The courts cannot
hypothecate the possible consequences which may follow a conviction. Hazara
Singh v. Raj Kumar96 was a case of attempted murder which resulted in grievous
injuries to the victims. The trial court on a principle of just deserts awarded a
punishment of 5 years and 3 years rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The IPC
not only specifies the offence but prescribes the punishment to be awarded. The
high court reduced the punishment on a frivolous justification of revival of enmity
in the village following a harsh punishment. The Supreme Court, deprecating the
approach of the high court observed thus:97
[I]n operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the

corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix…
Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more
harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in
the efficacy of law.
In Bhaikon v. State of Assam98 the court asserted that the case did not fall
under the “rarest of rare” category and hence gave life imprisonment in a case of
rape and murder though the trial court had given the death penalty. The court
rightfully did not enter the domain of the executive and the legislature and stuck to
94 (2013) 9 SCC 413.

95 Phul Singh v. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 413.Though the reasoning was different
in that case.
96 (2013) 9 SCC 516.
97 Id. at 523.
98 (2013) 9 SCC 769.
its position of life imprisonment. It also followed the rule book and negatived the
contention of the senior counsel that incarceration of 14 years was sufficient.
The year saw a very important judgement as far as sentencing is concerned,

Sangeet v. State of Haryana.99 The court was sitting in appeal over the death
penalty and used the opportunity to deliberate on the sentencing policy vis a vis
death penalty and discerned three phases of the same. In the first phase the focus
was on crime and the court was principally concerned with the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances with the “particular crime under inquiry”. This was the
Jagmohan100 dictum and related to the pre Cr PC 1973 phase. Bachan Singh101
opened the second phase since there was a little legislative change with the coming
into force of Cr PC 1973 which under section 354(3) made life imprisonment the
rule and death penalty the exception, since special reasons had to be given for
imposing death penalty (the earlier position was that death penalty and life
imprisonment were alternate punishments). And the focus in this phase shifted
from crime to crime and criminal – the dubious “rarest of rare” category. However,
Machhi Singh102 “revived the balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances
through a balance sheet theory”. In doing so, it sought to compare aggravating
circumstances pertaining to a crime with mitigating circumstance pertaining to the
criminal. The Sangeet court cautioned that “It hardly needs to be stated that these
are completely distinct and different elements and cannot be compared with each
other.” In Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2)103 the rarest of rare
category was denounced for not being “followed universally or consistently”. And
this case started the third phase where remission power of the government came to
be circumvented. The court in Sangeet case showed concern for “judge-centric
sentencing”104 and suggested that aggravating and mitigating circumstances need
a fresh look and “policy needs to be examined.” The judgment held that “the tests
that have to be applied while awarding the death sentence are ‘crime test’, ‘criminal
test’ and the ‘R-R test’ and not the “balancing act”.
It has been pointed out by the present author in the earlier surveys also that
the sentencing jurisprudence has become very messy. To add to the chaos the
Criminal Amendment Act, 2013 under section 376(2) qualifies the term life
imprisonment to mean “for the rest of that person’s natural life” suggesting thereby
that the life imprisonment in other sections of the Code means something other
than the convict’s natural life !. The confusion arises since the life imprisonment
as mentioned in section 53 just says “imprisonment for life”. So is it a distinct
99 (2013) 2 SCC 452. See also Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 2 SCC 713.
100 Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 20.
101 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.
102 Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470.
103 (2008) 13 SCC 767.
104 See Jyoti Dogra Sood, “Criminal Law” XLVII ASIL 300 (2011); “Criminal Law”
XLVIII ASIL 303,306 (2012).
category of life imprisonment for the purposes of section 376A or it just reiterates
what section 53 actually means. Some clarity is the need of the hour.
Though the Sangeet judgement cautions against the artificial construct of 20

years and 14 years and categorically asserts that life imprisonment is indeterminate
and means the natural life of the convict and the court observed: “if the law is
applied as we understand it, meaning thereby that life imprisonment is imprisonment
for the life span of the convict, with procedural and substantive checks laid down
in the Cr PC for his early release we would reach a legally satisfactory result on
the issue of remissions.”
The much revered “rarest of rare” category which was so vague is finally
being given a decent burial or so it seems. Lokur J made a very telling observation
in Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra105 thus:106
It is difficult to practically apply the “rarest of rare principle since

there is a lack of empirical data for making the two fold comparison
between murder (not attracting death penalty) and murder (attracting
death penalty). It is this inability to make a comprehensive evaluation
and due to a lack of information and any detailed study that the
application of the rarest of rare principle becomes extremely delicate
thereby making the awarding of a death sentence subjective.
The court in Shankar Kisanrao Khade wanted to give a harsher punishment

but not death penalty; so instead of encroaching on the executive domain found a
way out by giving sentences for individual offence to run consecutively. The court
made very interesting observations which need to be taken seriously:107
It does prima facie appear that two important organs of the State,
that is, the judiciary and the executive are treating the life of convicts
convicted of an offence punishable with death with different
standards. While the standard applied by the judiciary is that of the
rarest of rare principle (however subjective or Judge-centric it may
be in its application), the standard applied by the executive in
granting commutation is not known. Therefore, it could happen (and
might well have happened) that in a given case the Sessions Judge,
the High Court and the Supreme Court are unanimous in their view
in awarding the death penalty to a convict, any other option being
unquestionably foreclosed, but the executive has taken a
diametrically opposite opinion and has commuted the death penalty.
This may also need to be considered by the Law Commission of
India.
105 (2013) 5 SCC 546.

106 Id. at 584.
107 Id. at 614.
Sahib Hussain v. State of Rajasthan108 is a commentary on the sentencing

jurisprudence evolved post Shraddanand wherein the remission powers of the
state have been fettered. The court, taking note of the objections raised in
Sangeet109case wherein it was categorically mentioned that the “appropriate
Government cannot be told that it is prohibited from granting remission of a
sentencing” held that other judgments have evolved a sentencing policy over a
decade in matters of cases where death penalty has been commuted to life
imprisonment and it finds no infirmity in fettering the executive power in such
cases. It is submitted that the courts commute the death penalty because the
particular bench feels that it doesn’t fall in the “rarest of rare” category. However,
it cannot impose conditions other than what is contemplated in the criminal codes.
Sangeet is a two judge bench decision and Sharaddananda is a three judge bench
decision and hence gains legitimacy due to the strength. However, it is submitted
that the bench cannot be allowed to adopt such a callous attitude and the matter
must be resolved by a constitution bench. Further, without going into the merits
of the “rarest of rare” category one thing is clear that the criminal jurisprudence
regarding the death penalty post Cr PC 1973 means that it is not an alternate
punishment under section 302 but murder has been categorized into two – murder
which is harmful to the society and so to be punished with life imprisonment and
a heinous murder which shocks the collective conscience of the society with death
penalty. Various judgements have given various circumstances wherein such
occasions may arise. Hence, to say that the court commuted death penalty to life
imprisonment may not be the right thing to do.
In State of Rajasthan v. Jamil Khan110 the accused was given life imprisonment
for murder and another term of life imprisonment for rape under section 376.
Generally the sentences run concurrently but the court, in the instant case, ordered
the sentences to run consecutively. This was done to counter the liberal approach
adopted by the governments which resorts to commutation and remission of
sentences. Since it was a ghastly crime the court was ensuring that the convict
remains behind bars for a considerable period of his life.111
Joseph Kurien J pontificates in Sunil Damodar Gaikwad v. State of

Maharashtra112 that “judges should not be blood thirsty. Hanging of murderers
has never been too good for them.” The judge also observes that the “scope and
concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a liberal
and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the sentencing policy writ
large in section 354(3).” A comparison of this view with his own assertions in
108 (2013) 9 SCC 778.

109 Supra note 99.
110 (2013) 10 SCC 721. See also Deepak Rai v. State of Bihar (2013) 10 SCC 421.
111 The 2013 Criminal Law Amendment does provide non remittable punishment in
case of rape and murder (Also see ed. note).
112 (2014) 1 SCC 129.
State of Rajasthan v. Jamil Khan113 would show that he was forced to clarify his
stand in Gaikwad’s case wherein he qualified his earlier stance and cautioned
“poverty shall not be understood and applied as disjunct from the factual position…
poverty or socio-economic /psychic or undeserved adversities in life shall be
considered as mitigating factors only if those factors have a compelling or advancing
role to play in the commission of the crime or otherwise influencing the criminal.”
The word “influencing the criminal” is not just a play with semantics but could be
interpreted in a way to loosen the noose around the neck in many a crime situation.
In this ultimate analysis, it is a very subjective opinion of a judge. If the latter
judgment had not come, Kurian J seems too much of an abolitionist. It is submitted
that there have been problems interpreting ‘rarest of rare’ concept and one of the
safeguards could be that a larger bench be constituted in an appropriate case to
discuss the issue threadbare and give an authoritative judgement thereon. Moreover,
the Supreme Court was never envisaged to sit in benches of two judges and decide
matters as grave as life and death.
In Ramesh Kumar v. State of H.P114 the court held thus:115
…[I]t may be pertinent to point out that the High Court had taken
an unwarranted lenient view while imposing the punishment less
than the minimum sentence provided by the statute for the offence
of gang rape which is 10 years’ RI, though the appellants had
been awarded 7 years’ RI. The consideration which prevailed
with the High Court for imposing lesser punishment had been as
under:
“The children of the respondent convicts are stated to be minor. Convict

Ramesh has one leg short and is thus handicapped. The incident in question had
taken place in the year 1998. We see these adequate and special reasons to pass a
sentence of less than 10 years.”
We are of the considered opinion that none of the said grounds are relevant
for this purpose and there was no justification for the High Court to impose the
punishment of less than 10 years’ RI. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, we do not want to interfere with the said order.
Only the mandatory minimum sentence was awarded in Ranjit Singh v. State
of Punjab116 in a case of dowry death on the plea that the appellant had got a
married second time and from his second wife he has three children, out of which
one is handicapped and his mother (who was also implicated) is also paralysed”.
Is it the case of divine retribution which courts are taking cognizance of? Perhaps
113 (2013) 10 SCC 721.

114 (2013) 14 SCC 110
115 Id. at 116.
116 (2013) 12 SCC 333.
in sentencing, what needs to be taken into account is the circumstances under

which the offence was commited and circumstances at the time of commission of
the offence and not instances of the convicts’ later life.
Sanaullah Khan v. State of Bihar117 is a case of three murders. The guilt was
proved and the issue was of sentencing. The trial court awarded death sentence for
gruesome murders. The apex court, while unable to decide the case to be of extreme
culpability warranting a death sentence, invoked section 31(1) Cr PC which
provides thus:118
When a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences, the

court may, subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), sentence him for such offences, to the
several punishments prescribed therefor which such court is
competent to inflict; such punishments when consisting of
imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other
in such order as the court may direct, unless the court directs that
such punishments shall run concurrently.
The court imposed life imprisonment for each murder and the sentence to run
consecutively and not concurrently. In the interest of justice and how sentencing is
being treated this pattern of sentencing is perhaps laudable.
The sentence of life imprisonment has been comprehensively debated in

Bangal v. B.K. Srivastava119 which was a contempt petition filed by one of the
convicts alleging that since he had already completed 20 years of imprisonment
he as per the remission rules should have been released. The court examined a
catena of cases including the Constitution Bench decision in Gopal Vinayak
Godse120 wherein it was held that the sentence of imprisonment for life is not for
any definite period and the imprisonment for life must, prima facie, be treated as
imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s
natural life. It categorically stated that section 57 is applicable for the purpose of
remission when the matter is considered by the government under the appropriate
provisions. Quoting from the Privy Council decision in Kishori Lal v. King Emperor
121
it held that “the prison rules are made under the Prisons Act and by the Prisons
Act by itself does not confer any authority or power to commute or remit sentence.
It only provides for the regulation of the prisons and the terms of prisoners confined
therein.” It is submitted that the legislature should step in to clear the confusion
117 (2013) 3 SCC 52.

118 See s. 31(1) Cr PC.
119 (2013) 3 SCC 425.
120 AIR 1961 SC 600; (1961) Cri LJ 736.
121 AIR 1945 PC 64.
since post Shraddhananda122 cases after cases, the apex court has been handing
down qualified life imprisonments.123
Proportionality in sentencing is a hallmark of the rule of law. Hence in

Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P.124 where the disciplinary authority imposed a
lighter sentence on one accused and harsher punishment on the co-accused the
court ordered that harsher punishment on one and not to the other cannot be
permitted as it violates article 14 of the Constitution
In Sunder v. State where there was a murder and kidnapping for ransom,
death sentence was confirmed. It is reiterated by the present author that while the
retentionist judge gives weightage to aggravating circumstances, the abolitionist
judge gives weightage to mitigating circumstances which could even be as frivolous
as being married and having a child. The Sangeet judgment did point out the
loopholes in the sentencing policy. So till the time it is in the statute book it is
imperative that a bench of 5 judges must consider the matter so that some balancing
is done. It may be noted that this judgement is of February 2013 and in the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 which will be effective from 19.08.14. Order VI (3) and (4)
states thus:
Every cause, appeal or other proceedings arising out of a case in

which death sentence has been confirmed or awarded by the High
Court shall be heard by a bench consisting of not less than three
judges.
If a Bench a less than three judges, hearing a cause, appeal or matter is of the
opinion that the accused should be sentenced to death it shall refer the matter to
the Chief Justice who shall thereupon Constitute a Bench of not less than three
judges for hearing it.
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab125 was a case of murder of the wife and a
girl child and that also at a time when the appellant was on parole as he was
undergoing rigorous imprisonment for 12 years for committing incest on his minor
daughters. These diabolic murders resulted in death penalty being given by the
trial court which was confirmed by the high court. The apex court mentions two
mitigating circumstances viz: (a) his age at the time of the commission of crime
i.e., 41 years, and (b) that the accused is a poor man, who has no livelihood.
It hastily added that these two circumstances will not suffice for commutation
of death sentence. The court then rakes up the entire case law on “rarest of rare”
122 See supra note 103.

123 For example, State of U.P. v. Sanjay Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 537; Sandeep v. State of
U.P. (2012) 6 SCC 107; Neel Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 5 SCC 766.
124 (2013) 3 SCC 73.
125 (2013) 3 SCC 294.
cases. One gets the feeling that the judges had already made up their mind (were
probably abolitionists) not to give death penalty and are building up a weak case.
The judgment then clarifies that “life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to
imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 30 years, rather it always means the
whole natural life”. The judgement even mentions the affidavit of the appellant’s
sister and goes on to advocate that “his family has not totally renounced him.
Hence, there is possibility for reformation in the present appellant.” And so
Sathasivam J did not deem it a fit case for death penalty. The judgement is
supplemented by Ibrahim Kalifulla J. where he gives gory details of the crime in
paras 38 and 39 and then concurs with his brother judge applying the various
principles culled out right from the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh126
to the more recent case of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab127 to hold that it is not a fit
case for death penalty but life imprisonment subject, however, to remission (unlike
other cases where when death penalty was not given they put fetters on life
imprisonment).
The sentencing policy was a subject of lamented discussion in Maheboobkhan

Azamkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra128 which states thus:129
Despite the changes in the criminologist thought and movement and

the extent of clemency in penal laws, it has not been possible to put
to rest the conflicting views on the sentencing policy. The sentencing
policy, as a significant and inseparable facet of criminal
jurisprudence, continues to remain a great subject of social and
judicial discussion and it is neither possible nor prudent to state a
“straitjacket” formula which would be applicable to the cases where
capital punishment has been prescribed. The court, therefore, has to
consider the factors to the sentencing calculus such as the gravity of
the offence, the provocative and aggravating circumstances at the
time of the commission of the crime, the possibility of the convict
being reformed or rehabilitated, the adequacy of the sentence of life
imprisonment and other attendant circumstances.
In Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab130 where there was conviction of the

husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law for a dowry death, it was contended
that the father- in- law was about 80 years old and his legs have been amputated
because of severe diabetes and the mother-in- law was 78 years old and had to
look after her husband so a sympathetic view should be taken. Madan Lokur J
gave considerable thought to the submission but since the law prescribes a minimum
126 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.

127 (2012) 9 SCC 1.
128 (2013) 14 SCC 214.
129 Id. at 217.
130 (2013) 4 SCC 177.
of seven years imprisonment for an offence under section 304-B IPC and only the
minimum was given and so could not accept the plea. It is submitted that this is the
right approach as each one must get his or her ‘just deserts’ without distinction as
to sex, age, health and the like. And most importantly, as the judge said,
“sympathising with an accused person or a convict does not entitle us to ignore the
feelings of the victim or the immediate family of the victim.”131
Execution of death sentence
When a death penalty attains finality by being upheld by the highest court of
the land, it does not immediately get executed. The convict has a chance to seek
mercy from the President. If the mercy plea is rejected, he has to face the gallows
and if accepted he is spared the noose. No time limit is prescribed within which
the President is expected to decide the same. In Mahendra Nath Dass v. Union of
India132 the question before the court was that there had been a long gap of 12
years between the submission under article 22 of the Constitution and rejection
thereof. Hence, the special leave to appeal where the appellant contended that
inordinate delay must result in commutation of death sentence. It may be pertinent
to note that the President Abdul Kalam had accepted the mercy petition in 2005.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs prepared a 6 page note in which the
crime details were reiterated along with the observations of the court. The
recommendations were approved by the President Mrs. Pratibha Patil in 2011.
The court cited Triveniben133 and a catena of other cases. It declared the rejection
illegal and quashed the sentence of death and commuted it into life imprisonment.
It is submitted that apart from the delay aspect another important issue which is to
be noted is that the mercy petition is a plea for forgiveness from the Constitutional
head as the guilt and its “rarest of rare” category has already been adjudicated
(and reached finality) by the highest court of the land. Hence, a note from the
ministry highlighting the depravity in the crime is uncalled for. The President acts
on the aid and advice of the ministers but in the case of mercy petition, once
having submitted the case files along with their noting, the government must
distance itself from its acceptance or rejection as it is an act imploring the President’s
benevolence and is not a policy issue with which the government needs to engage
with.
In Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT of Delhi)134 the court was again
vexed with the question of commuting death penalty because of delay in disposing
of the mercy petition. The court entered into a lengthy debate on the issue of death
penalty and judgments upholding the validity of the same. It then dealt with the
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 TADA 1987 and
131 Id. at 185.

132 (2013) 6 SCC 253.
133 Triveniben v. State of Gujarat 1989 SCR (1) 509.
134 (2013) 6 SCC 195.
its validity. The first 16 paras are devoted to these two aspects. Only after that the
factual situation is discussed. It was pleaded before the court that a delay of eight
years should be treated as sufficient for commutation of death sentence into life
imprisonment. The amicus curiae also was of the opinion that the indifference or
callousness or other extraneous reasons should always be treated as sufficient for
the commutation of the death sentence into life imprisonment and that the “power
reposed in the President under Article 72 and the Governor under Article 161 of
the Constitution is not a matter of grace or mercy but is a constitutional duty of
great significance and has to be exercised with great care and circumspection
keeping in view the larger public interest.” The court in its final analysis tried to
distinguish between IPC Crimes and TADA crimes and held that the “rule
enunciated in Sher Singh case,135 Triveniben case136and some other judgements
that long delay may be one of the grounds for commutation of the sentence of
death into life imprisonment cannot be invoked in cases where a person is convicted
for offence under TADA or similar statutes”! It is submitted that such a distinction
was uncalled for given the fact that death penalty cases are heinous cases and
terrorist acts fall in the category of heinous and rarest of rare cases and so need not
be treated as a sui generis crime. At the end of the day the power of mercy and
grace that is conferred on the executive by the Constitution is to be exercised for
the benefit of the people. Terrorists continue to be human beings and need to be
treated so. The only good part of the judgement is that it ends with concern for the
delay in mercy petitions and gives a chart at the end which hopefully would serve
as a wakeup call to the executive because these are not merely policy decisions
which can wait but relate to matters of life and death of human beings!
XIII VICTIMOLOGY
Victim was a forgotten entity ever since the state took upon itself to book the
criminal. However, of late there has been a change and victimology is being
examined with due seriousness. The Malimath Committee also made important
recommendations regarding victims of crime. The court in Ankush Shivaji Gaekwad
v. State of Maharashtra137examined the compensation aspect in conviction under
section 304 Part II IPC. The court held that it has to be given depending upon the
facts and circumstances of each case, the nature of the crime, the justness of the
claim and the capacity of the accused to pay. The court after spending considerable
space tracing to the history of compensation laments the fact that the trial court
and the high courts remain oblivious of the provisions of section 357.138 It feels
constrained about the time lag between the offence and the final disposition of the
case and ended with an advice to the courts to be careful in future. The lengthy
discussion when remedy was not available defies logic.
135 (1983) 2 SCC 344 Sher Singh v. State of Punjab.

136 (1989) 1 SCC 678 Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678.
137 (2013) 6 SCC 770.
138 Id. at 797.
In Mohd. Ishaque v. State of W.B.139 50% of the money recovered as fine was
to be paid to the wife of the deceased. But the fine amount was itself a meagre
Rs.5000!
XIV CONCLUSION
Constitutionalism has led to striking down of some provisions like section

303 IPC and perhaps some of us were expecting decriminalisation of homosexuality
as well but the apex court maintained the status quo. In India the legislature has
been lax in reviewing the IPC though the legislature must, keeping in mind the
changed values, contemporary views on criminal responsibility and privacy etc.,
step forward to update it140 but the Indian legislature has been found wanting and
it falls on the courts to decide and sometimes two judges sit and decide the matter
involving questions of constitutional morality.
The cases regarding offences against women are on the rise and courts have
been dealing with the offenders sternly in most of the cases. However, it is submitted
that in rape cases such narrative should not be used which in a way suggests that
the girl has lost her dignity and honour which she can never regain as mentioned
in Shyam Narain case.141 The dignity and honour of a woman is not a commodity
which can be taken away by anyone! The society must change this mindset and the
judiciary must refrain from making such sweeping statements as regards honour
of a woman.
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder is another tricky area. And it is

perhaps imperative that clear cut reasoning be provided as to how the offence gets
covered in the first part or the second part of section 304. The reason being that
the first part has a mandatory punishment of imprisonment ranging from
“imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine…” whereas the second part
which has the ingredient of knowledge stipulates a punishment of “imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extended to ten years or fine or both.”
Given the wide difference in the quantum of sentences the courts must clearly
state the reasons for bracketing the case in the former part or the latter part. It must
always be kept in mind by the courts that on the question of facts the high court is
the final court of appeal.
Sentencing continues to be a contentious issue in case of conviction under

section 302. Sangeet 142 case did try to throw light on the issue surrounding
139 (2013) 14 SCC 581.

140 The code continues with morality of the bygone era and adultery law is a perfect
example.
141 Supra note 20.
142 Supra note 99.
sentencing but the judgement is by a two judge bench and is being held per incuriam
in some cases143as Shraddananda144judgement is a three judge bench decision. It
is in the fitness of things that the judiciary restrains itself from interfering in the
domain of the executive. And given the varied patterns of sentencing the legislature
may initiate legislative reforms and revisit sentencing and other sections of the
Code which may be in need of some revitalisation.
143 See for example, Sahib Hussain v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 9 SCC 778; Gurvail
Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 631.
144 Supra note 103.

13 Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Criminal Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13

* Assistant Professor (Senior Grade), Indian Law Institute, New Delhi.

We have had occasion to point out the danger of such statements of

It is submitted that since the case involved rights of a marginalized and

The reviewer is reminded of Cardozo when talking about judges (including

III OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN

In Panchanand Mandal v. State of Jharkhand 8 there was conviction by the

Adversarial process is gladiatorial justice, the strong win the bout,

The expression “soon before her death” needs to be interpreted liberally

7 Benjamin N. Cardozo, “Introduction” in The Nature of Judicial Process 12-13 (Fifth

In Kallya v. State of M.P.12 the dying declaration of the deceased implicating

In Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab13 there was death by poison of a young

In cases of death by burning as in Bakshish Ram v. State of Punjab,16 where

In Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar v. State of Karnataka,17 like in many other

Rape cannot be treated only as a sexual crime but it should be viewed

16 (2013) 4 SCC 131.

Giving recognition to the principle of speedy trial, sub-section (1)

22 (2013) 12 SCC 519.

The age of consent has been fixed at 18 years so as to protect vulnerable

24 (2013) 12 SCC 699.

In Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra27 facts reveal that the prosecutrix was 15

In Rajesh Patel v. State of Jharkhand 28 where the prosecution charge of rape

This issue came up for consideration again in Deepak Gulati v. State of

P. Ramaswamy v. State of Andaman & Nicobar Islands37 allowed an offence

35 (2013) 7 SCC 675.

IV OFFENCES AGAINST THE BODY

In Kusti Mallaiah v. State of A.P.41 the conviction was on the testimony of a

38 (2013) 12 SCC 796.

In Karan Singh v. State of Haryana45 the investigation was botched up by the

Yet another case of shoddy investigation was Sunil Kundu v. State of

In Soguru Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.49 though there was no direct evidence

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

In Mohd. Ishaque v. State of West Bengal 50 the conviction was converted

In State of Rajasthan v. Santosh Savita 51 there was death by burning of a

45 (2013) 12 SCC 592.

Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana59 is indeed a disturbing case of fake

Once we come to a conclusion that Sunil is killed in an encounter,

And the court granted compensation of Rs.20 lakh. It is submitted that it is

The court in Rishipal v. State of Uttarakhand,62 while admitting that corpus

In Mariappan v. State of Tamil Nadu64 there was a homicidal death of a woman

Right to private defence

63 (2013) 12 SCC 503.

66 (2013) 14 SCC 16.

The factual matrix in Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar v. State of Karnataka68 was

113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

Our objection is to the tenor of the learned Sessions Judge’s

VII FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION

The question in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal70 related to

68 (2013) 3 SCC 462.

IX INTENTIONAL INSULT TO PROVOKE BREACH OF PEACE

Section 34 IPC is intended to cover a situation wherein the accused

In Goudappa v. State of Karnataka78 the ingredients of section 34 were once

[H]ow to gather common intention? The common intention is

74 (2013) 14 SCC 24.

conclusion whether the accused had the common intention to commit

In State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Charan82 the trial court recorded a conviction

The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its

The apex court restored the order of the trial court.

In the case of Manga v. State of Uttarakhand 84 one of the issues deliberated