Criminal law

Right to private defence is a right every citizen has when faced with grave danger to his life or property, under Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The IPC states nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of self-defence. In order to ascertain whether any act done falls under right to self-defence, the Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC need to be examined as a whole.

The Explanation to Section 162(2) of CrPC deals with omission. It states, “An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub- section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact”.

Investigation by police is the first stage in the criminal proceedings. It is an exclusive domain of police. It serves as a crucial step in punishing the offender. The police have unfettered powers to investigate into a cognizable offence, as per Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The Section 216 CrPC enables a court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgement is pronounced, and an improper or erroneous charge can also be corrected under the section by reframing it properly, says the High Court of Kerala (HCK) in Johnkutty M V v State of Kerala [2024:KER:14955 : 2024 (2) KHC 397].

When any offence involving an Indian citizen is committed outside of India, the trial should not be processed with, without the prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), says Telangana High Court in two Criminal Petitions No 6110 of 2022 and 6074 of 2022.

The Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) insists that there would be separate trial for separate charges and that every distinct offence a person is accused of shall be charged separately, says the High court of Kerala in Santosh @ Chandu v State [2024 (1) KLD 714] .

A man cannot be held guilty for abetment of suicide of his wife, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) read with Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), within seven years of marriage, unless there is cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, the Supreme Court has said in Naresh Kumar v State of Haryana [2024 (1) KLD 427 (SC)].

In Pathapathi Subba Reddy (Died) By Legal Heirs & Others v Special Deputy Collector (LA), the Supreme Court (SC) laid down eight principles to be followed while seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals, by providing harmonious construction to Sections 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

On the basis of evidence on record in a court proceeding, if two equally sustainable views - one in favourable to the accused and the other against him - are equally possible, the court should take the one that is favourable to the accused, but not the other, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Chandrappa & Others v State of Karnataka

A conviction of an accused can be recorded based on the testimony of the single witness. While doing so the court must be satisfied that the testimony of the sole witness is of sterling quality, free from any blemish or suspicion to connect solely on the testimony of single witness [Bhimappa Chandrappa Hosamani v State of Karnataka : 2006 AIR SC 5043].

The government sanction, under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), is a prerequisite for a court in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on a private complaint, against a public servant, the High Court of Kerala states in  C.V. Balan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.