10 Latest Supreme Court Judgments on Criminal Law January 2015




For the benefit of Vakilno1.com visitors, we have compiled a list of 10 Latest Supreme Court Judgments on Criminal law in January 2015 . The judgments given below are or CrPc, Indian Penal Code, Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Criminal Law- Rehabilitation of victim


Latest Supreme Court Judgments

  1. Sandeep Kumar v. Pooja [2015 STPL (Web) 1568 Del]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 482, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A, 406, 34- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 3 and 4- Matter arose out of matrimonial dispute and has been settled between the two parties- Less likelihood is there of prosecution succeeding in this matter- Held therefore, FIR quashed and proceedings emanating there from also quashed.

  1. Avinash v. State [2015 STPL (Web) 1566 DELHI (Del)]

Criminal Law- Anticipatory Bail- Cruelty- Indian Penal Code- Sections 498-A, 406, 34, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Section 438- In this present case bail was granted to husband along with condition to pay Rs. 50,000 to wife for meeting day to day expenses of the child- Question that arose was whether that this compensation to be paid as a condition to the bail can be termed as unreasonable which can have the effect of buying the bail- Held, that the complainant being lady, dependent on her parents- suggestion by court for making provisions for the immediate need of the child can not be described as buying the bail- Condition imposed.

  1. Ramki v. State of Tamil Nadu [2015 STPL (Web) 1565 MADRAS (MAD) ( DB)

Criminal Law- Preventive detention- non supply of copy order in translated language- T.N Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act (14 of 1982), Section 3- The Detenu provided with illegible copy of document due to which he failed to comprehend terms of detention order and could not comply with order of court – Court failed to provide translated copy of document – Held that preventive detention order quashed due to non supply of report in vernacular language ..

  1. Richpal Kharra V. State [2015 STPL (Web) 1578 Rajasthan (RAJ)

Criminal Law- Rape- DNA Test of accused mandatory in nature- Criminal procedure code, 1973, Section 53 A- DNA Test of accused- in this present case the complainant who alleged rape on her self told the police that she was not interested in pursuing the matter and that no offence of rape had taken place with her- Police filed negative report- Held that Section 53-A of CrPC is mandatory in nature. Accused was directed to provide sample for DNA testing to be sent by investigating officer to the FSL and then FSL to bring the report to the court and court may pursue the matter further , if necessary.

  1. Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajhasthan and Ors. [ Criminal Appeal no. 99 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 1491 or 2012]

Criminal Law- Rehabilitation of victim- Indian Penal Code, Section 323- In the present case the appeal was preferred against the order of the High Court for setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of the accused- the honorable Court has held that the accused has to pay compensation to the accused in addition to the imprisonment and it can be said to rehabilitate the victim- Stress was laid on the reparation of Human Rights of the victim- Held the accused to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 and in case of failure to pay he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

  1. Mansoor Alam v. State of Utar Pradesh & ANR [ Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL) no. 9247 or 2013]

Criminal Law- Grant of Bail– Indian Penal Code Section 302, 34 and 120 B- In instant case accused shot a bullet and killed another, the High court granted bail to accused on the ground that there were only two fatal injuries and the rest were injuries on non-vital parts of the body- Held, that order of high curt is set aside and accused to remain in prison.- Bail refused.

  1. Ahmed Shah & ANR. v. State of Rajhasthan [ Criminal Appeal no. 17/2009]

Criminal Case- Conviction under Section 302/ 34 of IPC or Section 304– In the present case the accused being 7 in number formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons to take possession of the fields of the claimant- on spot due to a scuffle they caused injuries on complainant and his partners- 2 died as a result of those injuries- Court held that the conviction would be under Section 304 instead of Section 302 because this case fell within the fourth exception of Section 300 of murder, which states murder in case of sudden fight, which is to be without premeditation, sudden in nature, without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner, the fight must have been with the persons killed- The accused inflicted injuries on the neck etc, knowing it would cause death rest they fell within the fourth exception of Section 300- Held – no reason to interfere with the order of the High of conviction only the sections were changed.

  1. Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana [ Criminal appeal no. 1401 of 2008]

Criminal Law- Kidnapping of a 3 year old– Indian Penal Code , sections 363, 109, 364-A- The present case is that Vinod Kumar (the accused) worked as a domestic help in the house of Jagbir Singh, and kidnapped their 3 years old son, left a letter addressed to the father of Jagbir Singh for a ransom of Rs. 1 Lakh- Trial court acquitted the accused and said the witness were not independent and were interested witnesses- High court reversed the ruling of the trial court and said that the evidence on record and the statement of the witnesses corroborated and hence accused was guilty- Accused also admitted face of writing the letter for ransom – Accused could not explain how the boy reached Delhi railway station from where he was recovered – Held, no reason to interfere with the decision of the High court and appeal dismissed.

  1. Darga Ram v. State of Rajhasthan [ Criminal Appeal no. 513 of 2008]

Criminal Law- Rape and murder of 7 year old child by a juvenile– In the instant case the accused who was deaf and dumb and a juvenile at the time of the occurrence of the incident, raped one child who was attending a jagran and killed her brutally by crushing her head with a stone- the heinous crime attracted conviction by the trial and High Court alike- After considering the evidence, age of the accused the accused was decided to be a juvenile at the time of commission of offence and had been in jail for the last 14 years- the appeal succeeded in part and the conviction under Section 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence awarded to him is set aside.

  1. Dilip Kumar vs. State of West Bengal [ Criminal Appeal no. 82 of 2015 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9447/2012

Criminal Law- Sentence of Life imprisonment is reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment– In the instant case the accused attacked the complainant and others while they were working in the paddy field and caused the death of one- court held in this case that it would fall under the fourth exception of Section 300 of sudden fight without any premeditation and without taking any undue advantage of the situation- held that the accused’s conviction under 302/34 of IPC is modified to 304 and hence the sentence reduced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment


  1. under Section 307/34 ipc for defense of accused ” one family is contested and stated that accused 1 to 3 are beaten and head injured and identified accused 1 to 3. my defense is no eye witness,no collaboration statement of complaint and victim, no MO’s as per the victim.

  2. I am impressed with this kind of support by you people. I want to know the interpretation of term Non Existent. What are the main ingredients of term Non Existent?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.