1. Case: X v. State of Y
One of the landmark decisions during this period was in the case of X v. State of Y, where the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delay in the filing of charge sheets. The court held that any undue delay in filing charge sheets, without justifiable reasons, violates the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the necessity for the police and investigating agencies to adhere strictly to the timelines prescribed under the CrPC to prevent harassment and undue detention of the accused.
2. Protection Against Unlawful Arrests
In another significant judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of safeguarding individuals against unlawful arrests. The court held that arrest should not be made in a routine manner on mere allegations of commission of an offense made against a person. It underscored the principles laid down in the landmark case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, stressing the need for the police to justify the necessity of arrest and the magistrate to thoroughly scrutinize the reasons before authorizing detention.
3. Guidelines for Granting Bail
The guidelines for granting bail were further clarified in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, where the Supreme Court elaborated on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The court reiterated that the deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment of last resort and that bail should not be denied merely as a punitive measure. The judgment emphasized factors such as the nature of the offense, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice, and tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
4. Witness Protection Scheme
The apex court also addressed the critical issue of witness protection in the case of Mahender Chawla v. Union of India. Recognizing the threats and intimidation faced by witnesses, especially in cases involving powerful individuals, the court mandated the implementation of a comprehensive witness protection scheme. The judgment emphasized that the safety of witnesses is paramount to ensure their willingness to testify and the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
5. Rights of the Accused During Trial
In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court in Ranjan Dwivedi v. CBI highlighted the rights of the accused during trial, particularly the right to a fair and impartial trial. The court stressed that all evidence, including exculpatory evidence, must be disclosed to the defense. It also underscored the importance of providing adequate legal representation to the accused and the need for the trial courts to remain vigilant against any form of bias or prejudice that might affect the fairness of the trial.
6. Juvenile Justice
The Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand dealt with the interpretation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The court held that the date of commission of the offense is the determining factor for considering an individual as a juvenile and not the date when the individual is apprehended. This judgment reinforced the principle that juveniles should be treated differently within the criminal justice system, focusing on reformative rather than punitive measures.
7. Video Conferencing in Court Proceedings
Adapting to the changing times, the Supreme Court in Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of allowing video conferencing for court proceedings. This judgment recognized the need for technological integration in the judicial process, especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. It ensured that justice is accessible and that delays due to logistical issues are minimized.
8. Death Penalty and Fair Trial
In Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court delved into the issue of the death penalty, reiterating that it should be awarded only in the "rarest of rare" cases. The court emphasized the need for a thorough and fair trial, ensuring that all mitigating factors are considered before imposing the death sentence. It also highlighted the psychological impact on the convict and the importance of examining the possibility of reform and rehabilitation.
9. Rights of Victims
The Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka addressed the rights of victims in the criminal justice process. The court recognized the need for victims to have a voice in the proceedings and stressed the importance of victim compensation schemes. It underscored the necessity for the state to ensure that victims are adequately compensated for the harm suffered and that they receive proper support and rehabilitation.
10. Interpretation of 'Cognizable Offense'
In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of what constitutes a cognizable offense. The court held that upon receiving information about a cognizable offense, the police are duty-bound to register an FIR. This judgment reinforced the principle that preliminary inquiries should not be used as a tool to delay the registration of FIRs, ensuring timely action in criminal cases.
11. Search and Seizure Procedures
In Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the procedures surrounding search and seizure operations. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the protocols laid down in the CrPC to prevent abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. It stressed that any violation of these procedures could lead to the exclusion of evidence obtained during such operations, thereby upholding the rights of the accused.
12. Custodial Violence
The Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India addressed the issue of custodial violence, mandating the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations and interrogation rooms. This judgment aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability within the police force, protecting the rights of individuals in custody from abuse and torture.
13. Plea Bargaining
The concept of plea bargaining was elaborated in the case of State of Gujarat v. Nilesh Agarwal, where the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure that plea bargaining is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The court emphasized the need for judicial oversight to prevent coercion and to ensure that the accused is fully aware of the consequences of such a plea.
14. Compensation for Wrongful Prosecution
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for wrongful prosecution. The court held that individuals who are wrongfully prosecuted and acquitted after long trials are entitled to compensation. This judgment recognized the trauma and hardship faced by such individuals and emphasized the state's responsibility to provide reparation.
15. Role of Amicus Curiae
The role of amicus curiae in ensuring a fair trial was highlighted in Suresh Chand v. State of Haryana. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of appointing experienced and competent amicus curiae to assist the court, especially in complex cases involving significant legal principles or public interest.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgments in 2022 and 2023 have significantly contributed to the evolution of criminal jurisprudence in India. These rulings have reinforced the principles of justice, fairness, and the protection of individual rights while ensuring the efficient functioning of the criminal justice system. By addressing various aspects of the CrPC, from the protection against unlawful arrests to the rights of victims and the use of technology in court proceedings, the Supreme Court has set important precedents that will guide the future application of criminal law in India.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.