Updates

The Supreme Court has reiterated that an accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC cannot by itself establish guilt when the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The Court observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must first establish a complete and reliable chain of circumstances. An inadequate explanation by the accused cannot be used to repair missing links in that chain. The Court also examined weaknesses in the evidence relied upon against the accused, including the last-seen theory and forensic material. Finding the prosecution case insufficient to meet the required standard of proof, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The ruling reinforces the principle that the burden of proving guilt remains with the prosecution.

The Supreme Court has set aside a SARFAESI auction sale after finding serious violations of the statutory procedure. The Court held that bids received while a DRAT restraint order was in force could not be retrospectively validated by a subsequent court order. It also found that the mandatory 30-day notice period under Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 had not been properly followed. The borrower was not adequately informed when the auction process was revived after a prolonged gap. The Court emphasised that Rules 8 and 9 provide mandatory safeguards for borrowers and must be strictly complied with. Since the auction process suffered from multiple procedural defects, the Court declined to recognise its legal validity and set aside the sale.

The Supreme Court has clarified that an insolvency proceeding initiated through fraudulent or collusive facts can be recalled by the Adjudicating Authority. However, the Court held that such a finding does not automatically require termination of the entire Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. Once admitted, CIRP assumes an in rem character and involves several stakeholders beyond the original applicant. The Authority must therefore separately consider whether continuing the process would serve the interests of the corporate debtor and its stakeholders. In doing so, it should hear the Resolution Professional, Committee of Creditors and other affected stakeholders. The Court also observed that the party responsible for the fraudulent initiation may be excluded from further participation and may face consequences under Section 65 of the IBC.

The Supreme Court has held that evidence relating to sexual offences committed within the privacy of a home must be assessed realistically and with due sensitivity. The Court observed that such offences are often committed in secrecy, making independent corroboration difficult or impossible. It therefore cautioned against applying the same evidentiary expectations used for crimes committed in public. The Court also clarified that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies should not undermine testimony that is otherwise reliable on material aspects. A witness's relationship with the victim or accused, by itself, does not make the witness an interested witness. In the case before it, the Court found the core testimony of the child's mother reliable after considering the medical, forensic and other evidence. The conviction was upheld, while the death sentence was commuted to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life without remission.

The Supreme Court has clarified that personal receipt of a statutory demand notice is not mandatory in every cheque-dishonour case. Where the notice is sent by registered post to the drawer’s correct address, a presumption of service arises even if a family member receives it. The burden then shifts to the drawer to show that the address was incorrect, that the notice never came to their knowledge, or that the postal endorsement was wrong. The Court relied on the principle laid down in *C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed* and held that an earlier contrary decision in *M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel* was rendered without considering that binding precedent. Since the drawer did not rebut the presumption of service, the Supreme Court restored the conviction for cheque dishonour.

The Supreme Court has held that a compromise decree passed in a partition dispute without impleading a necessary party is a nullity in law. The case concerned the legal heirs of a deceased daughter who claimed a statutory share in the family property under the Hindu Succession Act. Although they had a direct interest in the property, they were not made parties to the proceedings before the compromise was recorded. The Court held that such persons cannot be treated as strangers to the litigation merely because they were left out of it. It further clarified that Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC does not prevent a necessary party from seeking recall of a decree obtained behind their back. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's approach and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the recall applications.

The Supreme Court has emphasised that judges should not allow their personal views on morality to influence decisions in bail matters or criminal trials. The observation came while examining a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused bail partly on concerns about social order and the morals of the victim’s family. The Supreme Court found such reasoning inappropriate and set aside the High Court's order. The Court also considered that the accused had already spent more than a year in custody and that the trial would require additional time to conclude. Taking these circumstances into account, the Court found a case for bail and directed his release subject to appropriate conditions. The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial discretion must remain anchored in legal standards rather than personal value judgments.

The Allahabad High Court has transferred the investigation into the disappearance of a 42-year-old woman, Sudama Devi, to the CBI after she remained untraced for more than two years. She was reported missing from Maharajganj district on September 8, 2024, with a missing-person report registered the following day. The woman's husband had approached the High Court through a habeas corpus petition, alleging that she was being kept in illegal custody. The State informed the Court that she was of unsound mind, had no mobile phone and could not be located despite efforts by a dedicated police team. Finding the prolonged failure to trace her significant, the Court directed the CBI to take over the investigation and make every effort to locate and produce her. The State authorities were also directed to provide the CBI with all relevant records, evidence and assistance.

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 509 IPC for making vulgar sexual remarks and obscene gestures towards a woman. The incident arose after the accused allegedly intercepted the woman and her husband while they were returning home and made offensive comments before making an obscene gesture. The Court found the testimony of the complainant and her husband reliable and sufficient to establish the offence. It relied on Supreme Court precedents concerning conduct capable of offending a woman's sense of decency. The Court also held that minor inconsistencies and shortcomings in the investigation could not override otherwise credible evidence. It rejected the argument that absence of a proven prior motive weakened the prosecution case, observing that intent could be inferred from the conduct and surrounding circumstances. The six-month sentence and conviction were therefore upheld.

The Kerala High Court has held that public objection alone cannot be treated as sufficient reason to reject an application for an explosives licence. The Court was considering a challenge to orders refusing permission for an explosive magazine, where public opposition was cited as one of the grounds. The authorities also referred to the presence of several quarries in the locality and concerns regarding public safety. The Court, however, observed that such concerns must be supported by a specific and legally recognised ground under the applicable Explosives Rules. Relying on an earlier decision in *Joy Joseph v. District Collector*, the Court found that the rejection could not be sustained on the stated grounds. The impugned orders were accordingly set aside. The District Collector was directed to reconsider the application in accordance with law within six weeks.

The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a husband and his family members arising from allegations of matrimonial cruelty and caste-based humiliation. The Court found no material in the FIR, charge sheet or case diary showing that the complainant was insulted on the basis of her caste in a place within public view. It also noted that the original complaint did not contain allegations attracting the SC/ST Act, with such allegations appearing later during the investigation. While examining the cruelty allegations, the Court also considered the Supreme Court's caution against proceeding against relatives on the basis of vague and general accusations. Relying on established principles concerning the requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act, the Court found that the necessary ingredients of the offences were not made out. The proceedings against the petitioners were accordingly quashed.

The Orissa High Court has upheld a Family Court's decision granting divorce on the ground of cruelty after finding that the marital relationship had substantially deteriorated. The Court examined the relationship as a whole rather than treating the spouses' separation as an isolated event. Allegations of physical abuse, humiliation, financial demands and disputes involving the wife's family were considered along with witness evidence and messages exchanged between the couple. The Court noted that attempts at reconciliation had failed and that mutual confidence between the spouses had significantly eroded. It also took into account that both parties, when appearing before the Court, expressed their desire to part ways. Referring to the Supreme Court's approach in matrimonial matters, the Bench held that cruelty may emerge from the cumulative effect of circumstances rather than one particular incident. The Family Court's decree of divorce was therefore affirmed.

The Delhi High Court has dismissed petitions seeking an independent inquiry, compensation and further action concerning the December 2019 violence at Jamia Millia Islamia. The Court observed that the police did not initially enter the university to disperse a peaceful gathering, but intervened after the situation around the campus escalated and protesters moved inside. At the same time, the Bench noted concerns regarding aspects of the police intervention, including the use of tear-gas shells inside the university library. The Court reiterated that peaceful protest is constitutionally protected, but police may intervene when an assembly becomes violent or poses a threat to life or property. It also observed that authorities should ordinarily inform or consult university officials before entering a campus where circumstances permit. However, prior permission cannot be treated as an absolute requirement during an immediate or rapidly developing emergency. Finding no sufficient basis for a fresh independent investigation or other requested directions, the Court dismissed the petitions.