#Indian Penal Code

The Supreme Court set aside murder convictions of six accused, ruling that inconsistent eyewitness accounts and the absence of forensic proof failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt under the IPC. This underscores that corroborative evidence is essential for murder charges, affecting future prosecutions relying solely on eyewitnesses.

Gujarat High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 306 and 107 IPC, ruling that mere harassment without a proximate act or specific intent cannot constitute abetment of suicide. This narrows the scope of criminal liability for alleged harassers and safeguards individuals from frivolous suicide-abetment prosecutions.

The Supreme Court set aside a life-sentence conviction where the sole evidence was an uncorroborated child witness, reaffirming the double presumption of innocence. It held that independent corroboration is essential in serious criminal trials, reshaping how prosecutions rely on child testimony.

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that the evidence supports accidental drowning rather than intentional homicide, and therefore quashed the life sentences imposed under IPC 302, 34, 201 and 120B. This ruling underscores that a plausible drowning scenario defeats a murder conviction, impacting future cases involving similar factual circumstances.

The Supreme Court ruled that a lone eyewitness who is a close relative is not per se an interested witness and can alone satisfy the evidential burden for a Section 302 IPC murder conviction; a delayed FIR is not fatal if explained. This guides prosecutors and defence in homicide trials.

The Allahabad HC ruled that Section 34 IPC requires a functional link to the crime; mere presence or being armed is insufficient for common-intention liability. Accordingly, Harish Chandra was acquitted of murder. Prosecutors must now prove direct participation in joint offences.

The Supreme Court overturned the ten-year rigourous imprisonment, restoring the trial court’s acquittal because the medical and forensic reports failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. This underscores that rape prosecutions must be backed by conclusive forensic proof, affecting all pending Section 376 IPC cases.

The Patna High Court acquitted the appellant in a 1995 dowry death murder conviction, ruling the prosecution failed to establish homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt and that the non-examination of the investigating officer caused substantial prejudice. The decision underscores the necessity of proving each element of the offence in circumstantial evidence cases and the procedural safeguard of examining the investigating officer.

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside FIR 252/2021, ruling that the rent disagreement between Vision Public School trustees was a civil matter lacking the fraudulent intent essential for a Section 420 offence, thereby barring criminal prosecution and curbing abuse of process. This safeguards parties in commercial lease disputes from unwarranted criminal charges.

The Allahabad High Court reduced a dowry-death life sentence to ten years, insisting that any deviation from the statutory term must be supported by a reasoned assessment of mitigating factors. Other convictions stand, and the decision mandates explicit justification for reduced sentences under Sec 304B IPC.

The Allahabad High Court set aside the murder convictions of Munua Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh, holding that a child’s testimony never examined under Section 161 CrPC cannot meet the ‘sterling quality’ threshold required for evidence. This decision warns that unexamined child witnesses render convictions unsafe, impacting all pending cases that rely on such testimony.

The Delhi High Court set aside murder convictions where the prosecution could not prove a continuous chain of circumstantial evidence or correctly identify the accused, reducing some to culpable homicide. This ruling stresses that without an unbroken evidentiary link and reliable identification, a murder charge cannot be sustained, impacting pending murder appeals.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a proclamation under Section 174-A IPC cannot be issued against a person already in judicial custody, and therefore quashed the FIR as an abuse of process. The decision prevents authorities from pursuing proclamation proceedings against custodial prisoners, safeguarding their right to due process.

The Jharkhand High Court set aside FIRs under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, holding that without proof of dishonest intent at the moment the development agreement was executed, criminal liability cannot arise. Poor workmanship or later threats do not satisfy the deception element, shielding builders where intent is absent.

The Delhi High Court set aside two FIRs lodged for the same Independence Day procession, holding that successive FIRs for a single continuous transaction breach the test of sameness and double-jeopardy safeguards. The ruling prevents duplicate FIR filings on identical facts, protecting accused persons from multiple prosecutions.