Tag: #IPC

All you need to know about Criminal Trial

Posted on

The present article is written by Muskan Harlalka, a 2nd-year law student from the School of Law, Mody University of Science and Technology, Lakshmangarh, Rajasthan.

Introduction

In common parlance, “trial” means the process by which a person is adjudicated as guilty or innocent. It starts with the framing of a charge and concludes with the acquittal or conviction. However, it is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973. The trial in which the accusations imposed on a person accused of a crime are resolved is called a criminal trial.

In India, penal laws are mainly regulated by three acts – 

  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
  2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

CrPC is a procedural law that describes the mechanism for conducting a criminal trial. It includes the method of collecting evidence, interrogation of accused, arrests, bail, witness examination, method of conviction, etc. IPC is the primary penal law in India and it applies to all offenses except the ones which are covered under any other law in India. The Indian Evidence Act governs the various aspects of evidence in a trial such as its evidentiary value, manner of production of evidence, etc. 

Phases OF Trial

According to CrPC, the mechanism of determining the criminal liability of an accused has three phases. The first phase is the pre-trial phase which includes reporting the offense to the police or filing a complaint before the Magistrate, investigation by the police, or cognizance and inquiry by the Magistrate.

The second is the trial phase. This is the most crucial phase as it consists of the trial of the accused before the court to determine whether he will be acquitted or convicted. 

The third and last phase is the post-trial phase which mainly includes appeal and review by either of the parties.

Types of Criminal Trials in the Indian Legal System

CrPC provides for different types of criminal trials depending upon the nature of criminal cases. The trial process for serious offenses is more detailed and complex, on the other hand, the process for less serious offenses is more straightforward. Depending upon the nature of the offense, the trial of an accused can be of four types:-

  1. The trial before a Sessions court (Sessions Trial)
  2. Trial of Warrant cases by Magistrates (Warrant Trial)
  3. Trial of Summons cases  by Magistrates (Summons Trial)
  4. Summary Trials

These types are discussed below:

  1. The trial before a Sessions court (Sessions Trial): Trials in Warrant cases are more detailed and serious in comparison to Summons cases. A warrant case can be tried either by the Magistrate’s court or the sessions’ court. If a Magistrate is of the view that a case should be tried by the sessions court then he sends it to the sessions court for trial. This process is “committing it to sessions court”. Trial of Warrant cases by a Sessions Court is covered under Sections 225-237 of CrPC.

The various steps in a criminal trial before a sessions court are:

  • According to Section 229 after the committing of the case to the sessions court, the court frames charges against the accused and if the accused pleads guilty for these charges, the court has the discretion to convict the accused at that point. 
  • But if the accused does not plead guilty, then the court advances with the trial and sets a date for the prosecution to present their evidence. 
  • If after examining the prosecution’s evidence and the accused, the Court is of the view that the accused has not committed any offense, the accused is acquitted. 
  • However, if the prosecution’s evidence justifies the framing of charges against the accused, he is then called upon to present his defense. 
  • The prosecution then summarizes his pleadings and the defense is given another chance to put forward evidence in support of his client (the accused).
  • In the end, after hearing both sides, the court passes a judgment of conviction or acquittal of the accused according to Section 235 of CrPC.
  1. Trial of Warrant cases by Magistrates (Warrant Trial): Trial of Warrant cases by Magistrates is covered under Sections 238-250 of CrPC. Offenses that are punishable with death, imprisonment of life, or imprisonment for a term of more than two years come under the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. A trial in a warrant case may start either by the filing of an FIR or by the filing of a complaint before a Magistrate. 

Steps in trial of Warrant cases by Magistrate when the case is instituted on a police report:

  • In such cases when the accused appears before the Court, the Magistrate should ensure that copies of all necessary and relevant documents such as FIR, Police Report, etc. have been provided to the accused.
  • Section 239 of CrPC provides that if upon examining all relevant documents, the Magistrate is of the view that the charges against the accused are not valid, then he can discharge the accused and state his reasons for the same.
  • If the Magistrate finds that grounds for accusation are valid, then he can proceed and frame the charges as per Section 240 of CrPC.
  • If after framing the charges, the accused pleads guilty then the Magistrate has the discretion under Section 241 to convict him.
  • However, if the accused does not plead guilty then the Court calls for the prosecution’s evidence. After the prosecution’s evidence has been presented, the defense gets the chance to do the same and their evidence is also recorded under Section 243.
  •  After that, the trial ends and the Court gives its verdict.

Steps involved in trial of Warrant cases by Magistrate when the case is instituted otherwise than on a police report:

  • Here the first step is the recording of the prosecution’s evidence. If upon examining the prosecution’s evidence the Magistrate concludes that the accusations against the accused are not valid, then he can discharge the accused.
  • But if the Magistrate is convinced that there are valid grounds for the accusation then he proceeds with the framing of charges.
  • The accused is then informed about the charges and if he pleads guilty for them, then the Magistrate has the discretion to convict him.
  • However, if the accused does not plead guilty, then the prosecution’s witnesses are called for cross-examination by the accused if he wants to do so.
  • The Magistrate then records the evidence for the defence and considers evidence of both the parties.
  • Then the Magistrate acquits or convicts the accused as per the provisions given in Section 248 of CrPC.
  1. Trial of Summons cases by Magistrates (Summons Trial): Summons cases are related to offenses that are punishable with imprisonment for a term of fewer than two years. Trial for summons cases is covered under Sections 251-259 of CrPC.

The process of criminal trial in summons cases by a Magistrate is as described below:

  • Instead of framing formal charges against the accused, he is issued a notice stating the accusation against him.
  • According to Section 251 of the Code, when the accused appears before the court, the Magistrate informs him about the particulars of the charges against him and asks him if he pleads guilty for the same. If he pleads guilty, then the court has the discretion to convict him.
  • Section 253 of CrPC provides for the plea of guilty in the absence of the accused in cases related to petty offences. This enables a pleader authorised by the accused to plead guilty on his behalf when the offence is punishable with fine only. In such cases, the Magistrate has the discretion of convicting the accused.
  • In case the accused does not plead guilty after the particulars of the accusation are stated to him, then as per Section 254 of the Code, the Magistrate proceeds with the evidence presented by both the parties and accordingly decides whether the accused is innocent or guilty.
  1. Summary Trials: Sections 260-265 of CrPC deal with Summary Trials. According to Section 262, sentences for imprisonment for a term exceeding three months cannot be passed in Summary trials. The main objective of summary trials is the speedy disposal of cases. If the accused does not plead guilty, then according to Section 264, the Magistrate will have to record a substance of the evidence and a judgment stating reasons for the same.

Since summary cases deal with petty offenses, the trial procedure is very simple. If a fine of not more than two hundred rupees has been imposed, then no appeal can be filed. But an application can be made to the High Court for revision.

Conclusion

A study of CrPC and its provisions related to stages of criminal trial makes it clear that every feature which is necessary for conducting a fair trial has been included. However, the process is very complex and the tendency of the code to protect the rights of the accused hinders the process of justice for the victim. Moreover, there is a huge backlog of cases that are pending. Thus, having a law that covers everything does not ensure justice, its effective implementation does.

Bibliography

  1. Process of Trial of Criminal cases in India, Lexology, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e8a100a-6593-414f-a2e3-b70fcd13b016.
  2. Sindhu A, What are the different kinds of trials in Criminal Procedure Code?, Law Times Journal (Mar. 15, 2020), https://lawtimesjournal.in/what-are-the-different-kinds–of-trials-in-criminal-procedure-code/. 
  3. Sugam Shine, Stages of Criminal Trial in India, Kith and Kin Attorneys, https://www.kithandkinattorneys.in/post/stages-of-criminal-trial-in-india.
  4. Types of Criminal Trials, Legal Formats India (Nov. 30, 2020), https://legalformatsindia.com/types-of-criminal-trials/.
  5. Vijay Pal Dalmia,  Process of Trial of Criminal Cases in India, Mondaq, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mondaq.com/pdf/clientts/318472.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjAqo3il6TxAhVYWysKHcgTB8AQFjAJegQlKhAC&usg=AOvVaw1llshhaxc4coHC8NhlabKF.
  6. Vivek Narayan Sharma, Know your rights: Criminal trials in India (Part-1), Times of India (Dec. 22, 2018), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/lawtics/know-your-rights-criminal-trials-in-india-part-1/.  

LATEST POSTS

ARCHIVES

Mathura Court Drops Charges of Breach of Peace Against Journalist Siddique Kappan and 3 Others 

Posted on

As the police failed to complete an inquiry within 6monThs of the prescribed period against the journalist Siddique Kappan & 3 others, who were accused of breaching the peace after their arrest on Oct 5/20. The Mathura local court decided to stop the proceedings against them.

Kappan who is a Kerala-based Journalist was arrested with his associates when they were on the way to meet the family of a Dalit girl involved in Hathras case who was raped, murdered, and cremated by UP police in secrecy. They are also activists of the Popular Front of India (PFI), which is a Kerala-based Islamic organization, they were charged with threats to peace by UP police and further booked under sedition, violation of UAPA and IT Act. This year, in April, a charge sheet against 8 of them including Kappan was filed in a local court in Mathura, sub-division Magistrate.

Maant, Ram Datt on Tuesday discharged accused Atikurrahman, Aalam, Kappan, and Masood. They have been discharged from charges under Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) Sections 151 (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences), 107 (Security for keeping the peace in other cases), and 116 (Inquiry as to the truth of information). They were in jail since October 7/20 under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 295A (outraging religious feelings), 124A (sedition), 120B (conspiracy) of IPC, 17/18 of UAPA (raising funds for the terrorist act), and under the IT Act.

Kappan’s family and the Kerala Union of Working Journalists (KUWJ) said that the accusations were false and frivolous. This year in April, the family moved to the Supreme Court pleading that he was being mistreated in a hospital in UP where he was admitted due to Covid-19.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

Speedy Trial In Rape Cases: Its Importance and Prevalent Loopholes

Posted on

The present article has been written by Prateek Chandgothia, pursuing BA. LL.B. (1st year) from the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab.

India witnessed one of the gravest rape cases in December 2012 which shook the national capital and subsequently the whole of India. Wide-spread protests broke out through the country demanding the justice of the rape victim, who was designated with the title of Nirbhaya for the level of mental toughness and endurance portrayed by her. Various legislations were passed in the aftermath of the incident as the four accused were awarded the death penalty and were hanged to death on 20th March 2020. The 8-year long wait for justice paints a disturbing picture of the Indian criminal justice system and indicates the necessity of speedy trials in rape cases.

Legislative Analysis of Rape Laws

The Indian Penal Code criminalizes rape as a sexual offense under Section 375-377. Rape is defined under Section 375 of the IPC as “sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud or at a time when she has been intoxicated or duped or is of unsound mental health and in any case if she is under 18 years of age.” The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act was enacted in 1983 which marked a paradigm shift like the rape laws in India by strengthening the position of women in such cases. Section 114A was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 which stated that it must be presumed that there is the absence of consent in certain prosecutions of rape if the victim says so. Furthermore, Section 228A was introduced in the IPC which makes it punishable to disclose the identity of the victim of certain offenses including rape. 

In the aftermath of the Nirbhaya Rape Case, The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 was enacted. It expanded the scope of rape by including offenses like the use of criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe, voyeurism, stalking, use of unwelcome physical contact, words or gestures, demands, or requests for sexual favors, showing pornography against the will of a woman, or making sexual remarks. Along with the extension of the scope of rape, the punishments were also increased significantly through this amendment. The act increased jail terms in most sexual assault cases and also provided for the death penalty in rape cases that cause the death of the victim or leaves her in a vegetative state. The punishment of gang rape was increased to 20 years to life imprisonment from 10 years to life imprisonment. The punishment of stalking was set at imprisonment for 3 years and punishment for the acid attack was set at 10 years of imprisonment. The amendments were not confined to the Indian Penal Code as the 172nd Law Commission report led to amendments in the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Act of 2002 which further strengthened the position of women in rape cases. The new provision barred putting questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to her general ‘immoral character’ in rape or attempt to rape cases. However, the effect of these legislations has been negligible in terms of statistics as according to the National Crime Record Bureau, a woman is raped every 16 minutes and 88 rape cases are recorded daily. In 2019 alone, 32,033 rape cases were recorded. Therefore, these legislations have not deterred the occurrence of rape cases in India.

Fast Track Courts: A Reality Check

Fast Courts have been a part of the Indian legal system since 2000 which gained significance after the Nirbhaya Rape Case in 2012. The main objective of these courts was to deal with the crime against women, child trafficking under POCSO Act, crime against senior citizens, crime against the disabled, and other heinous crimes. As quoted by the 11th Finance Commission of 2000, the fast-track courts are recommended: “to substantially bring down, if not eliminate, pendency in the district and subordinate courts over the next five years”.

However, various statistics indicate an entirely contrasting situation. According to the NCRB data, trials in fast-track courts take longer than trials in regular courts. It is reported that out of more than 28,000 trials completed in India’s fast-track courts in 2018, only 22% took less than a year to complete. This is the lowest percentage among all kinds of courts including SC/ ST courts, Additional Session Judge Courts, District/ Session Judge Courts, POCSO Court, Sub-Judge Courts, Special Courts, and Special Judicial Magistrates. Furthermore, around 42% of the total trials took more than 3 years to complete, while 17% took more than five years to complete. These statistics indicate that the fast-track courts have failed in achieving the very objective for which they were established.

It is essential to note that the mere establishment of fast-track courts is not sufficient in countering the inadvertent delays in the trial of the rape cases. Various inefficiencies have infested the working and establishment of the fast-track courts. Fast-track courts have been established under the centrally sponsored scheme of allocation of funds which is overseen by the Department of Justice. The scheme was established in 1993 stating that 60% of the funds must come from the center and 40% of the funds must come from the states. In 2020-21, Rs. 767 crores were approved for the construction of 1,023 fast-track courts under The POCSO act, 2012 based on the centrally sponsored scheme. The particular scheme leads to disparity in fund distribution among states which was evident when the Maharashtra Government sanctioned the construction of 138 courts with the expected cost of Rs. 100 crores. This extracts Rs. 60 crores as the share from the center leaving only on an average, a sum of Rs. 26 crores for the other states. 

Various veterans in the field of criminal law have pointed out various flaws in the mechanism of fast-track courts indicating that they are similar to the regular courts, if not worse. It is stated that the nomenclature of ‘fast-track’ courts exists just in the name and not in the functioning of the courts as the judges and the procedure are identical in nature. Various procedural inefficiencies have been pointed out like the witnesses not coming on time, lawyers not turning up and while the judges don’t have the power to discipline them, the bar councils don’t take any action against them. Recording of evidence is a major stage in a trial that concerns grave violations and plays a significant role in the delay in the delivery of judgment. The longer duration of trials in special fast-tracked courts has been justified by the serious and complicated nature of the cases they deal with as they require recording of more evidence than regular cases.

Effective legal assistance is an important factor missing from the remedies provided to sexual assault victims. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines for medico-legal care for survivors of sexual violence intending to standardize healthcare professionals’ examination and treatment of sexual assault survivors. The guidelines provide scientific medical information and processes that aid in correcting pervasive myths. However, under the federal structure of India, health is a state subject and therefore, the states are not bound to follow the said guidelines. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a 1994 case ruled that police should provide sexual assault victims legal assistance and keep a list of legal aid options which do often not conform to. 

Moreover, victimization of the aggrieved is still prevalent at great lengths in the Indian Legal system and the social fabric of the country. The delay in judgment delivery often leads to the promotion of speculations which encourage issues like victim-blaming, dilution of passion towards a goal, increased mental agony for the victim and their family. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to recognize these flaws and implement corrective measures to ensure speedy trials in rape cases.

Conclusion 

Despite the progressive development in legislations and specialized fast-track courts, the main objective, which is a speedy trial, remains unachieved to this day. Various state and center initiatives have fallen through mainly because of the lack of monitoring mechanisms and frameworks. In view of this article, in order to ensure the implementation of speedy trials in rape cases can be a reality only if an efficient mechanism that involves suitable procedural laws and specialized judges, is implemented.  

Latest Posts

Archives

Supreme Court Dismissed the Bail Application of Former IGP Zahur Haider Zaidi

Posted on

The Supreme Court dismissed the bail application filed by suspended IGP Zahur Haidar Zaidi on Tuesday i.e. on 15 of June 2021, related to the custodial death of an accused in the case of gang rape and murder of a 16-year-old schoolgirl in Shimla in 2017. The Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the bail application of former IGP Zaidi.

Advocate appearing on behalf of the former IGP submitted that there is no case of murder made out against the accused. Only a case of the disappearance of evidence of offence under section 201 IPC is made against him.

The case is related to the custodial death of an accused, who was arrested in a case of alleged gang rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Shimla in 2017. Haider Zaidi was arrested on 29th August 2017, after CBI probe into the investigation.

-Report by Muskan Chanda

Supreme Court Maintains the Trial Court’s Order and Dismisses the Appeal

Posted on

-Report by Anuj Dhar

On 28th May, the Supreme Court of India maintained the Trial Court and the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal of the appellants in the impugned judgment of 28th May 2021. A bench of CJI NV Ramana and Justice Aniruddha Bose found the appellant guilty under Section 304 B but stated that Section 306 could not be proved.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Satbir Singh, the deceased, and appellant no.1 got married on 1st July 1994.
  • On 31st July 1995, Satbir was found dead after sustaining burn injuries.
  • The prosecution claims that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of bringing less dowry by both the appellants.
  • On 11th December 1997, the appellants were convicted by the Trial Court under offence punishable under Section 304B and 306, IPC.
  • On June 11th, 2008, the High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

Contentions of the Appellants

The legal counsel of the appellants approached the Supreme Court and submitted that the possibility of accidental fire has not been ruled out in the case. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand for dowry. The protection has failed to prove that the demand for dowry if there was one, was made before the death of the deceased victim.

Contentions of the Respondents

The legal counsel of the state submitted that there was no additional material that the appellants showed which would merit the interference of the Supreme Court in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Emphasized upon the fact that the death of the deceased occurred within almost a year of marriage. Witnesses have consistently stated specific instances of the demand for dowry.

The Decision of The Supreme Court

The two issues at hand which required the perusal of the Supreme Court were:

  • If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 304B, IPC?
  • If the courts below were correct in convicting the appellants on the charge of Section 306, IPC?

The court stated that since the death of the victim was due to burn injuries and was within 7 years of marriage, it satisfies the first two ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC. The aforementioned witnesses were also found consistent and reliable and on that basis, it was held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death.
A perusal of the provisions under Section 306 indicates that presumptions shall be attracted only if the fact of suicide has been established. The prosecution must also prove that the accused has played an active role in the commission of suicide. This being said, the court further stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove the factum of suicide beyond doubt.

The Supreme Court of India held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 304B, IPC but set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306, IPC.

Relevant Sections

  • Section 304B, Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 306, Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 113A, Evidence Act.
  • Section 113B, Evidence Act.
  • Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986.

In fisherman Killing Case Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceeding

Posted on

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

The Supreme Court had ordered closure in the fisherman killing case against two Italian marines who were accused of killing the fisherman.

Facts

On 15 February 2012, two Indian fishermen Salvatore Girone and Massimiliano were killed off on the coast of Kerala, India. It was alleged that the two Italian marines aboard the Italian-flagged commercial oil tanker MB Enrics Lexie killed the fishermen. Italian said that they opened fire on the fisherman thinking they were pirates. After the incident, the Indian Navy detained the two Italian marines. There was diplomatic tension between the two nations. When it was found that there are no formal charges for detention, the two Italian marines were released after two and four years.

Petitioner’s Contention

On 23 February 2012, a petition was filed by the Italian Consul General and the two accused Marines to stay in Kerala High Court. The petition submitted that Kerala police had no authority to conduct an investigation in the case and that courts in India had no jurisdiction as the incident had occurred beyond Indian territorial waters. So petitioners were seeking to quash court proceedings.

Judgment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed against all the FIRs two Italian Marines. The bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and M.R Shah said the killing was accidental, as there was an understanding that they considered fishermen as pirates. The beach also, observed that the State of Kerala, the heirs of the deceased as well as the owner of the boat has agreed to accept the compensation amount offered by the Italian government. So, the order that the amount of will is transferred from Supreme Court registry to Kerala High Court. The amount of Rs. 4 crores to be given to each victim’s family and Rs. 2 crores to the owner of the boat.

Key Highlight

  • The case was taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2015. Where Italy’s said that Indians could not try the marines as a crime. In July 2020, Netherland had ruled that Indians could proceed with it as a crime.

What charges were remanded to judicial custody?

Two Italian corps marines, one class Massimiliano Latoree and another Salvatore Girone, were remanded to judicial custody for interrogation on homicide under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

How much compensation is given by the Italian government?

The compensation provided by the Italian government is 10 crores.

Who was included on the bench?

The bench included Justice Indira Banerjee and M.R Sha.

Common Intention And Common Objective

Posted on

The present article has been written by Aanya Gupta pursuing BBA LLB  from Vivekananda Institute of professional studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi.

INTRODUCTION

Sections 34 and 149 of the IPC represent implied liability rules, which means that one person is responsible for the effects of other people’s amendments, but sections 34 and 149 should not be mixed. In Section 34 and Section 149, the law of common intention is by no means synonymous but has its distinguishing characteristics. Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code deals with Section 141 to 160 of “Crimes against Public Peace”. The crime of disturbing public order is also called “collective crime”. Section 141 defines an “illegal assembly”, which means that there must be 5 or more people present, and it must target all of them. In the common intention, there must be a previous thought and unity, just as there must be an obvious behaviour in the progress of the common intention of all; on the other hand, the common object can develop without a mindless initial meeting. The common purpose of the illegal gathering may be one, but the purpose is different.

DEFINITION OF COMMON INTENTION

Common intention refers to a predetermined plan and a concerted action to execute the plan. The common intention occurred before the crime occurred, but the time interval between the two should not be too long. It can happen suddenly. As stated in section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, when two or more persons agree to perform an act with a common intention, the co-convict has the right to take equal criminal responsibility. In this case, each member must be held accountable for the behavior, in the way they did individually. In the case of Amrik Singh, it is further believed that although a common intention may develop during battle, there must be clear and irreproachable evidence to prove that the inference is correct. In the case of Pandurang v.Hyderabad, the Supreme Court emphasized this point. The previous concert may not always be long before the incident, but it may have occurred under the stimulation of the scene. At this time. Section 34 of the IPC incorporates the principle of joint and several liabilities in the commission of criminal acts, the key of which is the existence of a common intention. Its applicability is due to the crime involved. This is one of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which aims to expand the responsibilities of others.

OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 34


Section 34 is designed to address a situation where it may be difficult to distinguish the common intentions of criminal acts of individual party members in favor of all, or it is difficult to prove precisely which parties each participated in. In this case, the reason everyone is found guilty is that the existence of accomplices provides encouragement, help, security, and confidence to people who engage in illegal acts. Therefore, every person who commits a crime is responsible for their participation in the act committed, even if the specific activity involved was not carried out by any member of the group.

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 34

Criminal acts of several people: The aforementioned criminal acts must be carried out by several people. If the criminal act is a completely new and independent act outside of their minds, other people will not be held responsible just because they deliberately participated in another criminal act when the criminal act occurred. Different associates may have different behaviors in criminal activity, but all must participate and participate in criminal activity in some way.

Common intention: The core of joint responsibility under section 34 lies in the existence of a common intention to commit criminal acts to support the common objective of all members of the group. The term “common intention” refers to the previous concert, that is, the opinions and participation of all the members of the group in the implementation of the plan. The behaviors performed by each participant may vary from one personality to another but must be performed with the same common intention.

DEFINITION OF COMMON OBJECTIVE

Chapter 8 of the IPC deals with crimes that endanger the public peace. Section 141 defines illegal assembly and specifies that the members of the assembly have the common goal of implementing an act of enlistment. Therefore, the existence of the common object is a key factor in determining the crimes provided for in Chapter VIII of the Indian penal code. Specifically, when considering the concept of a common objective, Section 149 of the IPC establishes that if any criminal act is committed to achieving the common objective of an illegal assembly, it must be respected. The reason for considering Section 149 is that if the offense is to act by a common goal, then this article punishes the common goal.

In the case of Roy Fernandes v. Goa State the Supreme Court held that to determine the existence of a common object, the court must verify the circumstances of the incident and the illegal gathering of the members, including the criminal weapon used by the accused of the crime. Furthermore, in the case of Ramachandran v. Kerala State, the Supreme Court clarified that in the sense of meeting with members of an illegal assembly, a common goal may have been temporarily formed and no prior agreement is necessary.

INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 149 IPC


Section 149 of the IPC, 1860 is defined as Every member of an illegal assembly commits a crime by pursuing a common object. This section can easily be understood as if any member of an illegal assembly commits an offense while pursuing the common purpose of the assembly, or if the member of the assembly knows that they may commit an offense while prosecuting to that end, any person who is a member of the same council at the time the crime was committed is the crime.
In Bhudeo Mandal v. Bihar, the Supreme Court ruled that, with the help of Section 149, before convicting any individual, the test must not only establish the common object but also prove that the common object is illegal. The penalty under Section 149 is the same as the crime committed in an illegal assembly. If the prosecution wants to prove that it is an individual under section 149 of the IPC, it must prove that the person is on the scene and participating in an illegal assembly. This chapter creates positive or indirect responsibility for the illegal acts committed by members of the illegal assembly in the persecution common clause

INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 149


A) Prosecution of common goals: “Prosecution of common goals” does not mean “persuasion of the common goal of the assembly.” The term “common objectives in the prosecution” indicates that the crime committed is common to the assembly in which the accused participated. The objective is directly related. The behavior must be a way to achieve the common purpose imputable to the members of the illegal assembly. “Suing for the common purpose” should be interpreted strictly as “to achieve the common purpose.”

(B) Members know that it is possible: -The second part refers to crimes that members of parliament know that they are likely to commit when prosecuting a common goal. An issue can only happen when it can happen or is likely to happen. When committing a crime, the word “knowing” refers to a state of mind, not the latter. Knowledge must be tested. The word “may” means strong evidence that such knowledge can be obtained by illegal assemblies. The prosecution must prove that the defendant not only knew that the crime was likely to occur, but that it was probably committed in pursuit of the common goal of the assembly.

(C) Five or more people—To apply this section, it must be demonstrated that the common object is shared by at least five people. Although some of them may be identified or their identities are doubtful, the existence of five or more people must be proven beyond doubt. In some cases, even fewer than five people can be convicted. However, if it is suspected that there are at least five persons under this article, it is impossible to convict.

CONCLUSION

Modifying the responsibility of correction Section 34 or Section 149 depends on the methods taken to provide crimes. “Common intentions” and “common objects” of the “general explanation” of the IPC are each of the “crimes” for public varicose veins, respectively. Sometimes it is difficult to prove to try if they are sharing a common intention. However, these ambiguities were eliminated by the Supreme Court in several cases after determining the facts and circumstances of each case.

Latest post

Archives

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court Rejects the Bail Application of MLA Vijay Mishra

Posted on

Allahabad HC’s Justice Om Prakash VII on Friday rejected the bail application of Bhadohi MLA Vijay Mishra alias Vijay Kumar Mishra, accused of several cases under several sections of Indian Penal Code and IT Act of Gopiganj Police Station in Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi dist.)

On August 4, 2020, an FIR was lodged by informant Krishan Mohan Tiwari against Ramlali Mishra and Vishnu Mishra, mentioning that applicant is a relative of the informant. After winning the election of block pramukh, he became active in politics. And since 2001, the applicant is alleged to be residing in the informant’s house and is busy with politics and his business without the complete consent of the applicant. He was forcibly residing and threatening and torturing them as he is a relative and presently the elected member of the Legislative assembly from Gyanpur.

The informants’ contractual work was also overtaken by the applicant and started doing all the work along with depositing the money from transactions in the account of his firm and his wife and son. He took possession of all the documents by forcibly getting signed on the cheques and using net banking in the name of the informant. The informant was unaware of all these acts.

The family and informant were threatened with dire consequences as the applicant is a dreaded criminal and the informant was in no position to file a complaint due to threats. The applicant is not only vacating the forcibly occupied house but is also pressuring the informant to execute the will in the name of the applicant’s son. On refusal, threats were extended. Informants’ apprehensions we’re shown in FIR as the applicant is a muscleman. The informant may become landless if the applicant is successful in his acts. A prayer was made to take legal action for securing the life and property of the informant and his family members and was submitted to Chaturvedi, Senior advocate, appearing for the applicant, that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The applicant is a reputed person in the Society and was elected four times as MLA. He was also Block Pramukh and President of Zila Panchayat of District Sant Ravidas Nagar.

Referring to the contents of the FIR, it was further submitted that offence under section 449 IPC is not attracted in this matter. Informant himself has admitted in the FIR that the applicant was residing in the said house with the consent of the informant.

It was further argued that if such was the position, offence of criminal trespass cannot be constituted in this matter. Simply it was a dispute of partnership business which is pure of civil nature. Efficacious remedies will be available to the parties in civil suits/arbitration cases. An appeal against the order passed in the arbitration matter is also pending before the Court. Referring to the copy of the Will deed annexed with the application, it was further argued that there was no occasion to obtain a Will deed in favor of Vishnu Mishra, the son of the applicant. The said Will has not been executed. This fact also shows that offences leveled in the matter are not attracted against the applicant.

A Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the statement of the witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and further argued that the applicant is suffering from several diseases. He is in jail since August 14, 2020, and further argued that in all the previous criminal cases against the applicant, they are either withdrawn or the applicant is acquitted. The pending cases are not heinous and some may be due to political rivalry. Also, the disputed property belongs to the applicant exclusively and the said transactions made were done with the complainant’s consent. The applicant should not be kept behind the bars on the grounds of no of cases lodged against him. As a law-abiding person, he was granted bail in 2013 against a criminal trial going considering the entire criminal cases pending against the applicant up to the year 2013.

But as per Additional Advocate General appearing for State and counsel for the informant, the applicant is an influential person and no one dares to lodge an FIR against him and he’s a participant in several heinous cases. The counsel for the informant also argued that no one dares to provide evidence against the applicant hence he was acquitted. The no of cases was withdrawn due to pressure or influence by the govt. Also, the will feed was being executed in the name of Vishnu Mishra, the applicant’s son, only because of pressure created over the informant, but since he left the Registry office, the deed was not executed. Referring to the counter affidavit, it was further argued that a criminal case for the offence under section 376 IPC is also pending against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will put pressure upon the witnesses. Thus, prayer was made for the rejection of bail.

Thus, having considered the submissions raised across the bar and going through the entire record, and also looking to the nature of allegations leveled against the applicant, the apprehension shown by the informant in the F.I.R. cannot be denied particularly because of criminal antecedents of the applicant.

The Court believes that prayer made for bail in the application is not liable to be allowed and is hereby rejected”, the Court ordered.

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

Hon’ble Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to the Journalists Accused of Destroying the Ballot Box During the U.P Panchayat Polls

Posted on

A Journalist and others, accused of destroying ballot boxes and firing during gram panchayat elections in UP were granted anticipatory bail by Allahabad HC. This was granted by a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh on June 9, while hearing a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application filed by Shiv Prasad Harijan and another on behalf of the applicants in a case registered under relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code, Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Peoples Representation Act at Police Station Kandhai in district Pratapgarh of Uttar Pradesh.

Shiv Prasad, as a reporter of Hindi newspaper Pratap Kiran, reported that On April 19, 2021, the election of gram panchayat was scheduled and he was covering the news at polling booth (village Utrash), wherein he reported about the irregularities on the polling both by authorities and influential people via Twitter. The annoyed authorities and police beat up the voters on the spot. On objecting, an FIR was lodged and the villagers and applicants along with their families were dragged into this, because of the coverage of mismanagement of authorities

The applicant’s counsel opposed the allegations of firing and destruction of ballot boxes by the villagers as the police intended to arrest them due to the reporting and coverage on Twitter. He also states that the applicants are entitled to get anticipatory bail instead of their cooperation in the investigation. Whereas the Additional Government Advocate opposed the anticipatory bail by stating the instructions of the FIR.

The Court ordered that till the next date of listing, Shiv Prasad and Ramdhari in the aforesaid case shall be released forthwith by the Station House Officer of the police station concerned, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs 50,000 with the following conditions:

  • The applicant shall show up for interrogations as and when required.
  • The applicant in no way shall tamper with facts so as mislead the facts to court or police
  • The applicants cannot leave the district without courts prior permission.

The next hearing date is on 7 July 2021

-Report by Saksham Srivastava

Supreme Court Rescinds the Case Against Famous Journalist Vinod Dua

Posted on

-Report by Anuj Dhar

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday quashed the case against Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show. A bench consisting of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran decided to rescind FIR No.0053 and free the petitioner of charges.

Key Highlights

  • Vinod Dua, the petitioner, is an Indian journalist and also has a show on YouTube namely The Vinod Dua show.
  • On 30th March 2020, the petitioner made hurtful allegations against the government and stated unfounded facts against the Prime Minister of India.
  • On 6th May 2020, FIR No.0053 was filed by a BJP leader against the petitioner which pointedly referred to two segments in the talk show and generally dealt with the number of allegations made by the petitioner in said talk show to submit that the actions on part of the petitioner amounted to offences punishable under penal provisions referred to in the FIR.
  • After the review of the FIR, it was decided that the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the present crime. However, the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the Police force through Video Conferencing or Online mode.
  • On June 14th, 2020, the Supreme Court held a special sitting to take up a writ petition by Vinod Dua to quash the FIR lodged against him by a BJP leader in Shimla.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Being a renowned journalist, the petitioner was entitled to and did nothing more than critical analysis of the functioning and the actions of the Government.

  • He was touching upon issues of great concern so that adequate attention could be given to the prevailing problems.
  • The petitioner did his duty to bring forward the dispassionate and critical appraisal of the Government. Dua’s actions were covered by Explanations 2 and 3 of Section 124A, IPC3, and exception to Section 505 IPC3 and were within his Right of Free Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
  • No FIR should be registered against a person belonging to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the Committee as suggested.

Contentions of the Respondent

Mr. Vinod Dua is spreading fake and malicious news by stating that the Prime Minister has garnered votes through acts of terrorism. This directly amounts to inciting violence amongst the citizens and will further disturb public tranquility. This is an act of instigating violence against the government of India and the Prime Minister. Whoever makes or circulates false claims, alarms, or warnings relating to a disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to the panic of the citizens of the country, shall on conviction, will be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 1 year or with fine.

The Decision by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday quashed the case against Dua for his alleged comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his YouTube show, saying a verdict of the year 1962, namely Kedar Nath Singh, entitles every journalist to protection. The prayer that no FIR be registered against a person belonging to media with at least 10 years of standing unless cleared by the Committee was rejected by the Supreme Court. Writ Petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent and FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh was quashed.

Relevant Sections

  • Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 124A, 268, 501 and 505
  • Disaster Management Act – Section 52, 54.
  • Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949
  • Article 19(1)(a) in The Constitution of India 1949