Case laws in brief.

1. Gheesya and ors vs state of rajasthan – RLW 1988 (2) Raj 326
Already granted bail cannot be cancelled on addition of other offences during ongoing
investigation unless very grave subject to court’s understanding.

2. Gul singh vs state of mp – 2014 (10) SCJ 458

A competent child’s testimony reliable for conviction.

3. Leela ram(dead) through duli chand vs state of Haryana and anr – 1993 (3) ACR 2390 (SC)
Minor discrepancies in statements of 2 eye witnesses cannot be held unreliable evidence
unless they are very vital.
Eye witness even if interested can be relied on.

4. Raj singh and ors vs state of Haryana and ors – 2015 7 SCJ 206
No right of self defence without any immediate apprehension of danger.
Acts of self defence should be proportionate to danger.

5. Sita ram singh and anr vs state of bihar - 2002 2 BLJR 859
Already granted bail can be cancelled via addition of serious offence subject to court’s
understanding.

6. Hanuman singh and ors vs board of revenue and ors – RLW 2003 1 Raj 1
No entertainment of second petition if earlier petition withdrawn without reserving liberty
to file fresh petition if the subject matter is same except for habeas corpus.

7. Central bureau of investigation vs Maninder singh – 2016 1 SCC 389

Proceedings cannot be quashed just because economic offender returned the defaulted
money to the bank.
Offence  crime against society.

8. Prahlad singh bhati vs nct delhi and anr – 2001 4 SCC 280
 If after bail a graver offence is added then accused has to seek fresh bail.
For offences punishable with imprisonment for life or death, sessions court should not grant
bail.

9. Abdul gafoor vs state of rajasthan – MANU/RH/4012/2012

Already granted bail can be cancelled if graver offence added, need to seek fresh bail.

10. State vs chhotu ram – 2010 2 ILR (raj) 440

Appeals for offence under sec 376 IPC should be placed before single bench and not DB
directly.

11. Sompal singh vs sunil rathi and anr – AIR 2005 SC 1483
Involvement of bail applicant in other cases having serious offences can lead to
cancellation of bail.
SC is higher than HC and can interfere with orders granting or refusing bail.

12. Shankarlal gyarasilal dixit vs state of Maharashtra – AIR 1981 SC 765

In case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish guilt beyond the shadow
of doubt, specially in the cases of offences punishable with life imprisonment or death.

13. State of UP vs Satish – 2005 3 SCC 114

Delay in examination of witness not a killer blow to prosecution.
Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if passes the tests of touchstones of
law laid since 1952.

14. Sohan lal alias sohan singh vs state of Punjab – 2003 11 SCC 534
If eyewitnesses assert the stability of mental state of a person giving a dying declaration,
the medical opinion will not prevail.

15. Hanuman and anr vs state of rajasthan – 2014 3 WLC(raj) 561

 When any new evidence coming after decision of of the trial court has no evidentiary value,
it would be of no utility even if application under section 391 CrPC is allowed and evidence
is taken on record.

16. State of rajasthan vs thakur singh – 2014 7 SCJ 412

If certain facts are impossible to be known to anyone other than the accused, under section
106 of the evidence act, the burden of proving or disproving that fact is upon the accused.

17. State of assam vs ramen dowarah -- AIR 2016 SC 341

So called consensual sex caused due to coercion or threat amounts to rape under section
376 IPC even if the victim doesn’t expressly state forced entry during dying declaration.

18. Prempati and ors vs state of UP – MANU/UP/2254/2015

Lapses by IO doesn’t necessarily lead to rejection of the prosecution case.
Testimony of a natural eye witness if unfettered during cross examination cannot be held
tutored and is very reliable.

19. Krishna gope vs state of bihar – AIR 2003 SC 3114

Non -recovery of the weapon does not inure to benefit of the accused specially when other
evidences like a credible ocular evidence is suggesting otherwise.

20. Gurjant singh vs state of Punjab – MANU/SC/0943/2002

More or less same as above.

21. Lakshmi & anr v. St.of up - CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 619 of 2000
A charge of murder may stand established against an accused even in absence of
identification of body and cause of the death.

Every faulty investigation or padding in investigation cannot by itself lead to total

demolition of prosecution case if it can otherwise stand ignoring these fallacies.
22. St, govt. of NCT of Delhi v. sunil & Anr. : CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1119-1120 1998
Whatever be the reason, no court could afford to ignore the report of the doctor who
conducted the autopsy with meticulous precision about all the features noticed, merely on
the strength of what another doctor had scribbled in the MLC at the initial stage.
The mere absence of independent witness when the statements are recorded and an
evidence was recovered pursuant to the said statement, is not a sufficient ground to discard
the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

23. govindaraju@govinda v. st. by srirampuram P.S. & anr. : (2012) 4 SCC 722
An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against
conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the
appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal,
but otherwise such interference is not called for.
There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one
hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that
there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal
against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps
in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been
fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and
the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the
acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by
the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is
obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference
is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial
conscience.
Where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution
and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence
otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must
essentially fit into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the
prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eye-witness, then such evidence has to be
wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be
 doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may
not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. The
same is the case with police officers.
The mere absence of independent witness when the statements are recorded and an
evidence was recovered pursuant to the said statement, is not a sufficient ground to discard
the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Similar would be the situation where
the attesting witnesses turn hostile, but where the statement of the Police Officer itself is
unreliable then it may be difficult for the Court to accept the recovery as lawful and legally
admissible.

24. hamida v. rashid@rasheed & ors. (2008) 1 SCC 474 :

Bail- after conversion of an offence respondents could apply for fresh bail under section
439 of Cr.P.C.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in rare cases and
that too when miscarriage of justice is done.

25. Satyadhyan ghosal & ors. V. deorajin Debi & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 941:
An interlocutory order which did not terminate the proceedings and which
had not been appealed from either because no appeal lay or even though an appeal
lay an appeal was not taken, could be challenged in an appeal from the final
decree or order.

26. Sabasthi nadar v. savurimuthu nadar & Anr.- AIR 1999 Mad. 71
Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code gives power to the Court to implead
parties at any stage of the proceedings in a partition suit. The proceedings do not come to
an end till the passing of the final decree and therefore at the stage of final decree
proceedings also, parties can be impleaded.

27. Raj mal v. prem narain & Ors.- AIR 2005 Raj 129
whether the tenant encroaching upon others land can claim title by adverse possession and
the answer was in negative.
 28. Smt. Krishna Prakash & Anr. v. Dilip harel mitra chenoy- AIR 2004 Delhi 105
The non-applicants/respondents continued under liability to pay mesne profits at the
aforesaid rate even during the period the interim order staying execution of the decree in
relation to possession remained in force and the applicant/respondent accepted the amount
of mesne profits at that rate before the possession of the suit premises was eventually
handed over to him. Thus it is not a case where the applicant/respondent went
uncompensated for the period of stay though not to his expected extent.

29. bhaiya ramanuj pratap deo v. lalu maheshanuj pratap deo & anr.- 1981 AIR 1937
A holder of an impartible estate can alienate the estate by gift intervivos or even by will, though
the family is undivided, the only limitation on this power would flow from a family custom to the
contrary or from the condition of the tenure which has the same effect.
It must be taken to be well settled that the estate which is impartible by custom cannot be said
to be the separate or exclusive property of the holder of the estate. If the holder has got the estate
as an ancestral estate and he has succeeded by primogeniture, it will be a part of the joint estate of
the undivided family.

30. Bhagirath agarwal v. M/S simplex concrete & piles (I)pvt. Ltd.- CIVIL APPEAL
NOS.7544-7546 OF 2008
Once the arrears are permitted to be paid in installments, there is no discretion available as
it is not a discretionary relief; it is the statutory right and entitlement of the landlord to get
interest.

31. Satpal & anr. v. state of Punjab & anr.- 2011(1) R.C.R. (criminal)281
When statutes, which create an offence provide for a procedure, the courts or the authorities
cannot ignore the same.

32. Lalit panwar v. st. of raj. & anr.- 2013(1)W.L.N.419

 Section 155 of Cr.P.C. clearly states that no police officer shall investigate a non-
cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit
the case for trial.

33. Pintu dey v. st. of Raj.& anr.- 2015(2)W.L.N.404

The expression “imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3 yrs” would not come
within the expression “imprisonment for 3 yrs and upwards”. Therefore, the offence
punishable under sections 63 and 68A of the act of 1957 cannot be considered as cognizable
offence.
Section 155 of Cr.P.C. clearly states that no police officer shall investigate a non-
cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit
the case for trial.

34. Praveen kumar & anr. v. the st. of raj. Through PP & ors.
Section 155 of Cr.P.C. clearly states that no police officer shall investigate a non-
cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit
the case for trial.

35. Mahaveer prasad v. the st. of raj. – D.B. Criminal Appeal no. 1140/2008
The document available on record and significant for establishing the identity of the
accused-appellant and examination of the person who prepared it would not tantamount to
filling up the lacuna of the case.

The conventional concept of the court is that it should not permit lacuna in
prosecution evidence to be filled up. A lacuna in prosecution case is not to be equated
with the fall out of an oversight committed by the public prosecutor during trial, either
in producing relevant evidence or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses.

36. State of rajasthan v. ved Prakash- D.B. criminal death

reference no.2/2016 connected with D.B. criminal appeal no.
931/2016
 The provisions of sections 383 and 391 of the Cr.P.C. have to
be harmoniously construed to enable the appeal to be
considered and disposed of also in the light of the additional
evidence as well.
A lacuna in prosecution case is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight
committed by the public prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant evidence
or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses.

37. Sahadev Sarkar v. state if west Bengal- 1990lawsuit(cal) 345

The interpretation of each word, phrase of sentence to be construed in the light of
the purpose of the act. In the present case, the purpose and mode of disposal of
application according to central act is priority and the scope of rule 7 of west Bengal
minor mineral rules cannot stand against the ratio of the aforesaid decision.
The amending act cannot alter the cannot challenge the and/or alter the principal
statute. The rules of 1973 cannot be permitted to destroy the priority yardstick of the
earlier rules.

38. Bappa@bapu v. st. of mah.- (2004)6 SCC 485

S.307 makes a distinction between the act of the accused and the and its result, if any.
It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof. Not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted.

39. Hari mohan mandal v. st. of Jharkhand- (2004) 12 SCC 220

Same as above.

40. Prakash Chandra Yadav v. st. of Bihar & ors.- (2007) 13 SCC 134
Same as above.
Also distinguished between 307 part 1 and part 2. To convict
under part 1 there is no requirement of injury to be done but
if the injury has been done it would attract part 2 of the
same section.

41. St.of M.P. v. kashiram & ors.- (2009) 4 SCC 26

The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should
conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has
 been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it
should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal".

42. Chaganti Satyanarayana v. st. of A.P.- 1986 AIR (SC) 2130

As per section 167 of Cr.P.C. detention by a judicial magistrate can be authorized only
from the time of order of remand is passed and not from the time of arrest.

43. Uday mohan acharya v. st. of mah.- 2001 (5) SCC 453
The right to seek bail under sec. 167 (2) expires after the charge-sheet had been filed
and it was so done before the application for bail was there before court to be
considered.

44. CBI, spcl investigation, CELL-1, New Delhi v. Anupam Kulkarni- 1992 AIR 1768
The Judicial Magistrate can in the first instance authorise the detention of the accused
in such custody i.e. either police or judicial from time to time but the total period of
detention cannot exceed fifteen day in the whole. Within this period of first fifteen
days there can be more than one order changing the nature of such custody either
from police to judicial or vice-versa.
After the expiry of the first period of fifteen days the further remand during the period
of investigation can only be in judicial custody.
There cannot be any detention in the police custody after the expiry of first fifteen
days even in a case where some more offences either serious or otherwise committed
by him in the same transaction come to light at a later stage.
This bar does not apply if the same arrested accused is involved in a different case
arising out of a different transaction.

45. UOI v. Nirala Yadav @ raja ram Yadav @ Deepak Yadav- 2014 (9)SCC 457
Accused has an indefeasible right to be released on bail under s. 167(2) once the statutory period
has expired without charge-sheet having been filed, and court must dispose of bail application of
accused on the same day itself.
Application for extension for the period of custody without charge-sheet, for filling charge-sheet
by prosecution ( when such extension is permissible ) cannot be entertained by court after expiry
of the prior prescribed period, while keeping the bail application pending.

46. Jayendra v. st. of U.P. – 1982 AIR (SC) 685

Gave benefit of doubt in favour of child to mean that he was below 16 at the time of commission of
offence.

47. st. of M.P. v. Rustam- 1995 lawsuit(SC) 168

One of the days on either side has to be excluded in computing the prescribed period of 90 days
for custody.
Court is require the examine the availability of right of compulsive bail on date it is considering
question of bail and not barely on date of presentation for bail.

48.