Criminal law

When the offence of murder was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then he has the duty to give an explanation and a failure to offer an explanation can be treated as an adverse circumstance against the accused, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Uma & Another v The State Represented by the DySP [2024 INSC 809 ].

Presence of the accused, particularly in cheque bouncing cases–which are semi-criminal/civil in nature, should not be ordinarily insisted upon, unless the trial court needs to either examine the accused or their statement is to be recorded, says the Rajasthan High Court.

Shouting and threatening someone doesn't amount to committing an offence of assault, says the Supreme Court (SC) in K Dhananjay v Cabinet Secretary & Others.

If the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party in a criminal trial it can be read as substantive evidence under Section 294 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Shyam Narayan Ram v State of UP [2024 INSC 800].

Physical touch on the body of a female by a male as part of an altercation without intention to outrage her modesty cannot be termed as an unwelcome and explicit sexual overture, says the Kerala High Court while quashing of an FIR lodged against an official by a law student of the cochin University, in Dr P K Baby v State of Kerala [2024:KER:75539].

The Supreme Court (SC) in Sharik Khan v. Narcotics Control Bureau directed on 6th March 2024 that the Narcotics Control Bureau's officers should comply with its three-judge Bench judgment in  Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1].

Mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically disqualify an individual from exercising their right to seek long-term opportunities abroad, says Delhi High Court in Mr Amardeep Singh Bedi v Union of India & Another.

The accused in a criminal trial will be able to get the statements, documents and material objects collected during the course of investigation, but which are not relied upon by the Investigating Officer, says the Kerala High Court in Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala [2024: KER:66881].

Viewing in private, downloading, storing, possessing, distributing or displaying pornographic acts involving children is a criminal offence under Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 67 B of the Information Technology Act, says the Supreme Court (SC), in a 200-page judgement.

The Supreme Court (SC), in Nipun Saxena & Another v Union of India & Others, says that identity of the rape victims should be published or revealed, in any manner, as per Section 228 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).