SEC.50 NDPS ACT CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH BY STATING THAT POLICE CONDUCTED SEARCH WITH CONSENT OF ACCUSED

Relying on the judgment given by Supreme Court in case of Arif Khan @ Aga Khan vs State Of  Uttarakhand, Delhi High Court acquitted the accused in case of NDPS Act holding that taking the search of accused even after obtaining the consent of the accused  to waive his right of being searched in the presence of the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer will amount to non compliance of the provisions of the section 50 NDPS Act. ( Dharambir vs State, Crl.A. 658/2017 dated 13-11-18)

COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES IN NON COMPOUNDABLE CASES

Offences which are non compoundable cannot be allowed to be compounded, even if there is settlement between the parties. However compromise can be taken into account for determination of quantum of sentence. ( Gulab Das vs State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 888)

SCOPE OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 174 Cr.P.C

“The proceeding under section 174 Cr.P.C. have a very limited scope. The object of the proceeding is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of death. The question  regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C.”  (Pedda Narayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh  1975 (4) SCC153)

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF INQUEST REPORT

The purpose of holding an inquest is limited. The inquest report does not constitute substantive evidence.  Hence matters relating to the how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him and under what circumstances are beyond the scope of the report. The report of inquest is primarily intended to ascertain the nature of injuries and apparent cause of death. ( Tahseen Poonawala vs Union of India 2018(2) Crimes 455 SC)

DNA EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED OF RAPE CASES IS MUST UNDER SECTION 53 A OF Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court while disposing an appeal observed that “Now, after the incorporation of Section 53 (A) in the Criminal Procedure Code, w.e.f. 23.06.2006, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the Respondent-State, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the Cr.P.C. prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the Appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences.”

 However not conducting DNA test of accused not necessarily result in the failure of prosecution case. ( Krishna Kumar Malik vs State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 130)

CONSTITUTION OF FAMILY WELFARE COMMITTEE AS PER THE ORDERS IN CASE OF RAJESH SHARMA IS NOT PERMISSIBLE.

In case of “Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P.” a  bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the case of 498 A I P C issued various directions including constitution of family welfare committees, complaints filed under 498 A I P C to be referred by police and magistrate to family welfare committee.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Social Action Forum for Manavadhikar and Anothers vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice 2018(3) Crimes 503 SC  held that constitution of family welfare committee by the District Legal Service Authority and the power conferred on the committee is impermissible and to this extent the order and judgment of this court in case of  “Rajesh Sharma vs State of U.P. AIR 2017 SC 3869” is overruled.

TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF TRIAL IN CASES OF RAPE

After the commencement of Criminal Law Amendment Act 2018, trial in cases of 376, 376 A, 376A B, 376 B , 376 C, 376 D, 376 DA, 376 DB or 376 E  as far as possible shall be completed within two months. ( Criminal Law Amendment Act 2018)