Stay updated with key 2025 High Court rulings on governance of related aspects of Penal Code, 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This update offers focused summary of latest cases on Criminal Law concerning power of authorities regarding summons, Grave and sudden provocation, Medical Jurisprudence/Evidence, Delay in lodging FIR and interpretation of fraudulent promise of marriage.
A. Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 Ss. 300, 302 & 304 Part II — Offence under S. 302 or S. 304 Part II — Determination of — Grave and sudden provocation — Proof of — Absence of Intention — Cooling-off period and proportionality — Consideration of — Appellant shot 2 to 3 gun shots at deceased thereby resulting in death of victim — Appellant contending that conviction ought to be not under S. 302 IPC but only under S. 304 IPC, if at all — Held, in absence of direct witnesses, only available material to assess presence or absence of premeditation is appellant’s statement under S. 313 CrPC, which provides insight into sequence of events leading up to the incident – In the absence of any premeditation and given likelihood that incident occurred due to grave and sudden provocation, this Court finds no conclusive evidence of the appellant’s intention to cause death — Conviction modified to an offence under S. 304 Part II IPC — Appeal partly allowed [Manga Ram v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 1]
B. Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Medical Jurisprudence/Evidence — Medico-legal report/certificate — Accused questioning credibility of his medical legal certificate, contending that doctor initially recorded “no fresh external injury” but later altered it to “linear abrasion on the forehead”, contradicting the claim that accused beaten by public — Held, absence of external injuries cannot conclusively establish that accused not apprehended and beaten by public, as nature and degree of force used by public may not necessarily result in injuries visible in medical certificate — Revision dismissed [Anupender v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 155]
C. Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Appreciation of Evidence — Credibility of witness — Conviction on sole testimony of prosecutrix — When may form basis of conviction — Held, a conviction may rest on the sole testimony of the victim, particularly in offences of a sensitive nature — However, this principle applies only where the Prosecution succeeds in presenting cogent, coherent and intrinsically trustworthy account, one that inspires confidence in the mind of the court — Where investigation reveals contradictions or material evidence that may not wholly support prosecution’s version, obligation to examine independent witnesses and present fair and complete picture assumes paramount importance — Appeal allowed [Niranjan Tiwari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 176]
D. Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 —Ss. 376 and 506 — Prosecutrix, alleging repeated sexual assault by accused — Delay in lodging FIR — Effect of — FIR lodged only after medical examination revealed pregnancy — Challenged to — Held, unexplained delay fatal to prosecution, FIR lodged only after discovery of pregnancy hence, no satisfactory explanation offered as to why complaint not made earlier despite alleged repeated assault — Benefit of doubt granted to accused — Conviction quashed — Appeal allowed [Nathu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 191]
E. Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 Ss. 90 and 376 — Consent — Misconception of fact — Effect of — Consent whether given under false and fraudulent promise of marriage — Determination of — Trial court discharged respondent of offences under Ss. 376 and 506 IPC — Tenability of — Held, it is not in doubt that man can be held liable if he has sexual intercourse with a woman on the false pretext of marriage — However, in order to hold such man criminally accountable, it must be shown that such sexual intercourse is direct consequence of the false promise made by the accused, and is not marred by any other consideration or circumstance on the part of the woman — There must be adequate evidence to indicate that ab initio, accused had no intention whatsoever to keep his promise to marry prosecutrix — No specific date and time when offences took place had been mentioned – No interference with the order of the trial court [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Manjeet, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 293]
F. Criminal Law — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 41-A, 50, 57 and 437 — Mandate of Ss. 41-A, 50 and 57 CrPC and effects of its non-compliance Communication of grounds of arrest – Compliance with — Challenge to — Held, notice under S. 41-A CrPC was not served upon petitioner, grounds of arrest in writing were not served upon petitioner — Grounds of arrest must exist before arrest is made — There must be contemporaneous record of the grounds of arrest in police diary or other document — No reason or justification for investigating officer/arresting officer to not communicate to arrestee the grounds of arrest in writing — Bail granted — Petition allowed. [Vikas Chawla v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 326]
Join the discussion
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.