criminal law and human rights

103 Pages·2013·1.12 MB·English

Contribution of the High Court of Delhi
to the Development of Law in 2012

CRIMINAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Compiled by:

S. Muralidhar and J. R. Midha
Judges, High Court of Delhi
With the Assistance of a Team of Law Researchers
PREFATORYNOTE
This is acompilation of the summaries ofselected decisions rendered bythejudges of
theDelhiHighCourtinthebranchofCriminalandHumanRightsfortheperiodfrom1st
Januarytill31stDecember2012.
Thesummarieswerepreparedbylawresearchers, internsandstudentsoftheNational
LawUniversity,DwarkaandtheIndian LawInstitute,Delhiunderthesupervisionof
thejudges.
Itispossiblethatintheperiodsubsequenttotheirpronouncementsomeofthedecisions
mayhavebeenaffirmed,overruledormodifiedinappeal.
Wewishtothankthelawresearchers,interns and studentswhohavecontributedtheir
effortsinbringingaboutthis compilation. Wewelcomesuggestionsforitsimprovement.
II
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
AD - ApexDecisions
CriLJ - CriminalLawJournal
D.B. - DivisionBench
DE - Delhi
DLT - DelhiLawTimes
DRJ - DelhiReportedJudgments
F.B. - FullBench
MANU - Manupatra
S.B. - SingleBench
III
SUBJECT INDEX

S. No SUBJECT Pg No.
17
1. CRIMINAL LAW

79
2. HUMAN RIGHTS
TABLE OF CASES
S.No CASE Subject Page no.
1. Abdul Baki Mandal v. State Section 20 of the Unlawful 80
Activities (Prevention) Act,
MANU/DE/1175/2012
1967- Those who join an
organization but do not share
(S.B.)
its unlawful purposes and who
do not participate in its
unlawful activities cannot be
incriminated merely on the
basis of their membership.
2. Maneesh Goomer v. State First Information Report for 19
offence punishable under
2012 (1) JCC 465
Section 174-A Indian Penal
Code, 1860 is an independent
(S.B.)
cause of action and cannot be
quashed.
3. S.B. Yadav v. State Criminal proceedings under 20
Section 340 of the Code of
2012 I AD (Delhi) 941
Criminal Procedure, 1973-
Preliminary enquiry and
(S.B.)
finding thereof with respect to
the offence, is a condition
precedent for initiating
proceedings under Section
340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
Page 5 of 103
4. Surender Kumar Jain v. State High Court did enjoy inherent 26
power under Section 482 of
2012 V AD (Delhi) 267
the Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as to
(S.B.)
entertain petitions where
Section 397 (3) CrPC laid a
statutory bar on second
revision petition.
Section 468 CrPC, 1973- The
date of the complaint and not
the date on which the
cognizance was taken was the
relevant date for the purpose
of computing the period of
limitation.
5. Swiss Timing Ltd. v. CBI The issuance of notification as 36
under Section 105 of the Code
2012 III AD (Delhi) 521
of Criminal Procedure, 1973
was not a mandatory
(S.B.)
procedure and could not
negate the binding nature of
the exchange of letters
between two letters.
6. Minnie Khadim Ali Kuhn v. State For offences punishable 52
NCT of Delhi under Section 21 and 22 of
the Narcotic Drugs and
MANU/DE/2592/2012
Psychotropic Substances
Act,1985, the suspect/
(D.B.)
accused was entitled to bail
and if he or she was prepared
to give, had to be granted
bail, in terms of Section 436
of the CrPC; without the
necessity of his or her seeking
it in the court.
7. Minni v. High Court of Delhi Permission of the High Court 57
was not mandatory for
proceeding with a complaint
Page 6 of 103
2012 IV AD (Delhi) 685 case disclosing commission of
cognizable or non- cognizable
(D.B.)
offence, except for, if a
complaint was against a
Judicial Officer.
8. Ashok Narang v. State Testimony of a single witness 22
in a criminal trial- when
2012 II AD (Delhi) 481
acceptable- The evidence
must be free of any blemish or
(S.B.)
suspicion, must impress the
Court as wholly truthful, and
must appear to be natural and
so convincing that the Court
has no hesitation in recording
a conviction solely on the
basis of the testimony of a
single witness.
54
9. Tahra Begum v. State of Delhi A Muslim girl could marry
without the consent of her
parents once she attained the
MANU/DE/2154/2012
age of puberty, also had the
right to reside with her
(D.B.)
husband. Such a marriage
would not be a void marriage.
44
10. Satnam Singh @ Harjeet Singh v. The testimony of eye
State witnesses, when their
presence is doubtful or when
(D.B.)
their conduct is highly
unnatural, cannot be relied
upon without independent
corroboration
45
11. Seema v. State (NCT) of Delhi Section 302 Indian Penal
Code, 1860- The weapon
2012 IV AD (Delhi) 548
used, size of the weapon,
place where the assault took
Page 7 of 103
place, background facts
(D.B.)
leading to the assault, part of
the body where the blow was
given were held to be the
relevant factors to be
considered
30
12. Rakesh Kanojia v. State Govt. of Section 353, Code of Criminal
NCT of Delhi Procedure, 1973- The
judgment having been
pronounced, the trial comes
2012 IV AD (Delhi) 690
to an end and the Trial Court
becomes functus officio.
(S.B.)
The Trial Court could not
have passed order on the
application under Section 319
CrPC after pronouncing the
judgement.
38
13. Sikander Mohd. Sahfi v. State The State is expected to
NCT of Delhi exercise its power of
remission keeping in view any
such benefit to be construed
2012 III AD (Delhi) 205
liberally in favour of the
convict.
(S.B.)
55
14. State of NCT of Delhi v. Abu The power of seeking
Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari withdrawal of the prosecution
was essentially an executive
function and the Special
192 (2012) DLT 687
Public Prosecutor, unlike a
Judge, was supposed to
(S.B.)
receive a request seeking
withdrawal of the prosecution
from the Executive
Page 8 of 103
32
15. Attro Devi v. State If premeditation or previous
enmity between the Accused
and the deceased is not
187 (2012) DLT 487
established, the offence of
causing such bodily injuries
as were likely to cause death,
(D.B.)
shall come under the ambit of
Exception 4, Section 300,
Indian Penal Code, 1860
71
16. Amrit Sharma v. State The evidence of child witness
cannot be rejected out-rightly.
It should be evaluated more
194 (2012) DLT 388
carefully and with greater
circumspection because a
(D.B.)
child was susceptible to be
swayed by others and could
be tutored.
62
17. Ashok Singh v. State Case when rested purely on
circumstantial evidence, such
evidence should satisfy three
MANU/DE/3150/2012
tests. Firstly, the
circumstances from which an
(D.B.)
inference of guilt was sought
to be proved should be
cogently and firmly
established. Secondly, the
circumstances should be of a
definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of
the accused. Thirdly, the
circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a
chain so complete that there
was no escape from the
conclusion that within all
human probability the crime
was committed by the accused
Page 9 of 103
and no one else.
43
18. Bimal Barthwal v. State through Section 190, Code of Criminal
CBI Procedure, 1973 - The
Magistrate only takes
2012 V AD (Delhi) 436
cognizance of an offence and
not the offender at the stage of
(S.B.)
taking cognizance.

65
19. Court on its Own Motion (Lajja The marriage contracted with
Devi) v. State a female of less than 18 years
or a male of less than 21
years would not be a void
2012 (6) AD (Delhi) 465
marriage but voidable one.
(D.B.)
18
20. Idu Khan v. Union of India Section 67 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances
2012 II AD (Delhi) 741
Act, 1985- A retraction
(D.B.) statement made on behalf of
the Accused has to be brought
to the notice of the Court as
well as the detaining authority
24
21. Jamal Mirza v. State Totality of evidence on record
and its credibility eventually
2012 II AD (Delhi) 366
determine whether the
prosecution has proved the
(D.B.) charge against the Appellants
or not.
49
22. Jameel v. State Section 222 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - When a
2012 IV AD (Delhi) 127
person is charged for a major
offence, but not found guilty
(S.B.)
thereunder, he may be
convicted for an attempt to
Page 10 of 103