Code of Criminal Procedures (CrPC)

The High Court of Kerala (HCK), in Sandeep G v State of Kerala (Vandana Das case), laid down the parameters given below while considering the plea of discharge and framing of charges. The HCK relied upon the Supreme Court (SC) decisions in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023) and Vishnu Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) in arriving at the decisions.

The courts shall not entertain application seeking DNA examination of children of victim only after assessing the principle of eminent need and doctrine of proportionality, says Kerala High Court in Suo Motu v State of Kerala [ 2024 (3) KHC 553].

In paragraph 8 of the judgement in Ravinder Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi [2024 INSC 211 ], the Supreme Court (SC) says that the law regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence is crystallized in Sharada Birdhichand Sarada v State of Maharashtra [ AIR 1984 SC 1622].

In case of daylight murder, when there is reliable witness and direct ocular evidence, the failure of the prosecution to establish motive is inconsequential in convicting the accused, says Chandan v The State (Delhi Administration) .

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.