The Wheel of Crime: Understanding "Hub-and-Spoke" Conspiracies and Why They Matter Under MCOCA

 

 Why Should a Judge Care About a Wheel?

Picture a bicycle wheel. In the centre sits a hub. Radiating outward are the spokes. Holding it all together at the edge is the rim. Now replace that wheel with a criminal enterprise — and you have one of the most useful mental models available to any judge trying to make sense of a sprawling, multi-accused organised crime prosecution: the hub-and-spoke conspiracy.

This is not just an academic curiosity from American law. It is a structural lens that helps separate a genuine organised crime syndicate from a loose collection of unrelated individuals who happen to share a common contact. For judges dealing with MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999) cases — where chargesheets often name a dozen or more accused with wildly varying degrees of connection to each other — this distinction can decide whether a prosecution stands or collapses.

Print Page

“From Well to Witness Box”: Two Medico‑Legal Concepts Every Sessions Judge Should Master

 In trials of homicide based on circumstantial evidence, the real battleground often lies not in direct testimony but in medical jurisprudence:

1. correctly classifying the nature of death, and

2. safely accepting identification of a decomposed body without “perfect” science like DNA.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Neelu Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a useful illustration of both points for trial courts, and it is consistent with well‑accepted forensic principles set out in standard medico‑legal texts such as Modi and with classic rules such as Casper’s dictum.

I. Homicidal Death by Throttling: How the Body Speaks of Violence

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether failure to prove motive in the case based on circumstantial evidence is fatal to prosecution case?

It is trite law in the cases of circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances have been adequately proved to link to the culpability of the Accused, motive is irrelevant this principle is further echoed in the case of Mulakh Raj and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors.   MANU/SC/0219/1992 : 1992:INSC:106 : (1992) 3 SCC 43 whereas in it was held as thus:

17..... Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the Accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the Accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. {Para 23}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1063/2021

Decided On: 21.05.2026

Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0507/2026,2026 INSC 522.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What will be effect of husband failing to give reasonable explanation for death of his wife in his statement under S 313 of CRPC?

The learned Trial Court also considered the statement of the Accused Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure which needless to state provides an opportunity to the Accused to explain his stand qua the accusations made against him. In the statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no explanation leave aside any satisfactory explanation in respect of the material evidence against the Appellant. In defence, though an attempt was made to submit that Rupali committed suicide with the help of one chit, the Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence particularly, the handwriting expert's opinion found that the so-called chit had got written by the Accused forcibly prior to the strangulation. The Trial Court also found that the material evidence brought before the Court clearly indicated that the Appellant have caused distraction of the evidence of the offence and provided a false information that Rupali committed suicide. It may not be out of place to state that Rupali after her marriage was residing at her in-laws place. Death of Rupali was in suspicious circumstances and this fact was within the special knowledge of the Appellant being her husband and the Appellant utterly failed to provide a justifiable explanation so as to discharge the burden and this was an additional factor for the Trial Court for holding the Appellant guilty and recording the order of conviction. {Para 20}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1063/2021

Decided On: 21.05.2026

Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pankaj Mithal and P.B. Varale, JJ.

Author: P.B. Varale, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0507/2026,2026 INSC 522

Print Page

Supreme court explains the law relating to appreciation of evidence of finger prints

7. As noticed earlier the only incriminating circumstance on the basis of which the High Court upheld the conviction of Mohd. Aman is that his finger prints were found on a brass jug in the house of the deceased. From the evidence adduced in proof of the above circumstance it appears that the brass jug, together with other articles, was seized, packed and sealed on April 14, 1983 and forwarded to the Finger Print Bureau five days after - on April 19, 1983 to be precise - through Const. Mohd. Sadique (P.W. 4) along with a letter written by the Investigating Officer (copy of which was marked as Ext. P.59). On the following day, that is, April 20, 1983 the Bureau sent the articles back after taking photographs of the chance prints found on the jug and three other articles (out of the sixteen sent) with a corresponding letter (Ext. P.60). After Mohd. Aman was arrested on April 20, 1983 his specimen finger prints were taken by H.C. Ramji Ram (P.W. 24) and forwarded to the Bureau on May 24, 1983. As the prints were not clear, the same were returned by the Bureau asking for better prints. Specimen finger prints were thereafter again taken on June 20, 1983 and sent to the Bureau. These prints were also sent back and for the third time prints of Mohd. Aman were taken and sent to the Bureau on June 30, 1983. Thereafter the Bureau gave its report (Ext. 115) with the opinion that the chance finger prints found on the brass jug were similar to and identical with his specimen finger prints.

8. After careful perusal of the evidence adduced in proof of the above circumstance we notice a glaring missing link, in that, the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized articles were not - or could not be - tampered with before it reached the Bureau for examination. Though evidence was led to prove that after seizure the articles were packaged and then sealed, no evidence was led to indicate what was the mark given in the seals and whether the Bureau received the packages with the marked seals intact. Indeed, even the contemporaneous letters exchanged between them (Ext. P.59 and P.60) do not throw any light on this aspect of the matter. Rather, other circumstances appearing on record make the prosecution case doubtful in this regard : first, the articles were kept in the police station for five days without any justifiable reason, secondly the Investigating Officer (P.W. 20) admitted that the seal, mark of which was put on the articles, was with him since the time of seizure and lastly his letter (Ext. P.39) forwarding the seized articles to the Bureau contains admittedly, an overwriting as regards the date of its writing/dispatch and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the same.

Apart from the above missing link and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the same, there is another circumstance which also cast a serious mistrust as to genuineness of the evidence.

Even though the specimen finger prints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take finger prints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bonafides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate.

The other related infirmity from which the prosecution case suffers is that the brass jug, production of which would have been the best evidence in proof of the claim of its seizure and subsequent examination by the Bureau, was not produced and exhibited during trial - for reasons best known to the prosecution and unknown to the Court. For the foregoing discussion we are unable to sustain the convictions of Mohd. Aman.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1749 with 1833 of 1996

Decided On: 08.05.1997

Mohd. Aman, Babu Khan and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.K. Mukherjee and K. Venkataswami, JJ.

Author: M.K. Mukherjee, J.

Citation: 1997 AIR SC 2960, MANU/SC/0771/1997.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the court should not convict accused if prosecution fails to adduce evidence of Ballistic Expert In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms?

We find that the conviction on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained. Apart from that, it is to be noted that even according to PW-11, the gun which was recovered from the car had two empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). Furthermore, the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Goel (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, would show that there was no external exit wound, and wad and pellets were preserved and sealed. It is to be noted that apart from not collecting any evidence as to whether the said gun belonged to the Appellant Manjit Kaur, even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). {Para 22}

23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab   MANU/SC/0305/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 367:

21. .........It hardly needs to be emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an Accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.

24. No doubt that this case has been recently distinguished by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1210/2021 : (2022) 12 SCC 677, relying on the earlier judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab   MANU/SC/0136/1962 : [1963] 3 SCR 585 and State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh   MANU/SC/0098/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 234.

25. However, it is to be noted that the case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, in our opinion, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the Accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1635 of 2010 and 1714 of 2010 

Decided On: 05.07.2023

Pritinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2023 INSC 614, MANU/SC/0754/2023.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Test identification Parade of accused becomes unreliable?

 Circumstance Six: Test Identification Parade

38. The investigating authorities conducted a test identification parade - asking PW-5 to identify the Appellant- convict from a long line of habitual offenders. He did so thrice. This has been taken as another circumstance against the convict Appellant. Before proceeding to the merits of this circumstance, let us appreciate the law on this point.

38.1 No provision of law casts an obligation upon the investigating authorities to conduct a test identification parade. If it is conducted, the provision that governs is Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure [See: Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0964/2004 : 2004:INSC:648 : (2005) 9 SCC 631; Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.   MANU/SC/0445/2003 : 2003:INSC:308 : (2003) 5 SCC 746; Visveswaran v. State   MANU/SC/0352/2003 : 2003:INSC:262 : (2003) 6 SCC 73; and Ashok Debbarma v. State of Tripura   MANU/SC/0168/2014 : 2014:INSC:167 : (2014) 4 SCC 747.]

38.2 The onus to show that the T.I.P. has been conducted in accordance with law lies on the prosecution, and only after this burden stands prima facie discharged, does the question of considering objections in this regard arise. [See: Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand   MANU/SC/1412/2021 : (2021) 17 SCC 616.]

38.3 It is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its only purpose is for the investigating authorities to analyse the correctness, or lack thereof, of the direction in which they are steering the investigation. [See: Hari Nath v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0229/1987 : 1987:INSC:315 : (1988) 1 SCC 14; and Iqbal v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0559/2015 : 2015:INSC:387 : (2015) 6 SCC 623]

38.4 If the prosecution does not establish, by examination of witnesses to the T.I.P., and the Magistrate entrusted therewith, it cannot be said that it was conducted per law. [See: Umesh Chandra (supra).]

38.5 There is no hard and fast Rule about delay in conducting T.I.P. being fatal to the case of the prosecution. In certain cases, relatively small delay has been considered fatal yet in others, a delay of as much as 40 days is not fatal. [See: Raja v. State   MANU/SC/1717/2019 : 2019:INSC:1346 : (2020) 15 SCC 562.]

38.6 The prosecution must establish that prior to the test identification parade being conducted, the witness had no opportunity to see the Accused. In other words, the Accused must be kept 'baparda'. [See: Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala   MANU/SC/1486/2022 : 2022:INSC:1199 : (2023) 1 SCC 180; and Budhsen v. State of U.P.   MANU/SC/0103/1970 : 1970:INSC:131 : (1970) 2 SCC 128.]

38.7 If the above has not been ensured, the evidence of the T.I.P. becomes inadmissible. It has also been held that if, prior to the T.I.P. the witness has the opportunity to see even the photograph of the Accused person, such process becomes inconsequential. [See: Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/7994/2007 : 2007:INSC:1014 : (2007) 12 SCC 654; C. Muniappan v. State of T.N.   MANU/SC/0655/2010 : 2010:INSC:553 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; and Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra   MANU/SC/1025/1998 : 1998:INSC:202 : (1998) 5 SCC 103.]

38.8 Dock identification by the informant, even in the absence of T.I.P., can be accepted, but generally, as a matter of prudence, a witness's identification of an Accused in Court is sought to be corroborated by the identification by the former of the latter in previously conducted identification proceedings [Rajesh v. State of Haryana   MANU/SC/0818/2020 : 2020:INSC:628 : (2021) 1 SCC 118; and Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)   MANU/SC/0575/2017 : 2017:INSC:448 : (2017) 6 SCC 1.]

38.9 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, it is open for the Court to draw an adverse inference against the witness, should they put forth a refusal to participate in the identification proceedings. [See: Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi)   MANU/SC/0602/2020 : 2020:INSC:496 : (2020) 7 SCC 391.]

39. It is plain as day that the above principles were not observed in the present case. We are constrained to record our astonishment as to how the Courts below considered the identification proceedings as a circumstance accruing against the Appellant-convict. It is undoubted that PW-50, in his testimony, gives sufficient detail as to the procedure followed in conducting the T.I.P., and on that count, no assault can be made thereon, however, as the preceding paragraph establishes, there are other equally crucial factors. It is a matter of record that PW-5 (the witness who participated in the T.I.P.), in his testimony, stated that about a week after he gave information to the concerned police about the incident of 14th May, 2011, he saw the Appellant- convict at the said police station. Most importantly, as has come on record, the police officials had informed him about the Appellant-convict committing the crime. As held by Budhsen (supra) as far back as the year 1970, by Suryamoorthy v. Govindaswamy   MANU/SC/0591/1989 : (1989) 3 SCC 24 in 1989, Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar   MANU/SC/0500/1994 : 1994:INSC:246 : 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 80 in 1995, Mulla v. State of U.P   MANU/SC/0091/2010 : 2010:INSC:89 : (2010) 3 SCC 508 in 2010, i.e., well before the judgment of the learned Trial Court was pronounced, that if the said witness had the opportunity to see the Accused, in any form, after the incident the subject matter of testimony, but prior to the identification proceedings, it would render the same to be ineffective. Then, in our view, the courts below committed an error of elephantine proportions in considering these proceedings as forming one of the chains of circumstances against the Appellant-convict.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court Guidelines Regarding procedure to be followed regarding DNA evidence from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused,

 This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48- hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the Accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required. {Para 44}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 

Decided On: 15.07.2025

Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamilnadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 845, MANU/SC/0917/2025.

Print Page

What is meaning of last seen theory?

 Last seen theory means that if the accused was last seen in the company of the deceased, and the time gap between that point and the death is so small that intervention by any other person becomes unlikely, the court may draw an adverse inference against the accused.

30-second answer

Print Page

SC Acquits Woman Accused Of Killing New Born Baby Girl

 By considering the oral evidence on record and taking into consideration the post-mortem report, the Appellant was convicted for the offence by attributing motive that she has strangulated her because the new born is a baby girl. There is no evidence on record to draw such a conclusion against the Appellant. It is clear from the evidence on record, as deposed by PW-7, they already had a male child of the age of 5 years. He has also stated that as they already had a male child, they wanted a female child to complete the family. He further stated that his brother had three daughters which shows that the family was not orthodox and was not averse to have a female child. It is clear from the evidence on record that immediately after birth the baby was put in incubator with oxygen mask and it is also clear that she has not opened the eyes and she did not cry. PW-7, though he was declared hostile by the prosecution, but he has stated in his deposition that he was called to the labour room at 05:00 p.m. to inform that his baby had expired and he was not allowed to see her wife who is the Appellant herein upto 26th August 2007 on which date dead body of the baby girl was sent for post-mortem. It is also to be noticed that there is no reason for sending the body for post-mortem on 26th August when the baby girl died on 24th August 2007. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that the crime was registered against the Appellant only on 31st August 2007. It is true that in the post-mortem, doctor has opined that death is due to asphyxia and there were marks of strangulation, but at the same time if totality of evidence on record is considered, motive is not established and it is totally unnatural for the Appellant-mother to kill her own baby by strangulation. It is also clear from the record that in view of the drugs administered on her she was sleepy and drowsy. In absence of any clear evidence on record, High Court as well as the Trial Court committed error, in attributing motive to the Appellant that, she has killed her baby as she was female. The Trial court as well as the High Court has based conviction on presumptions without any basis. It is fairly well settled that to base conviction solely on the circumstantial evidence, unless chain of circumstances is established conviction cannot be recorded. From the totality of evidence on record it is clear that the baby girl was put in incubator with an oxygen mask and she has also not opened her eyes and she did not cry after birth. There was a possibility of natural death. Though the doctor has opined in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia but in absence of any clear evidence on record it is not safe to convict the Appellant for the offence Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. As the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the Accused, beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the considered view that the Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, for acquittal from the charge framed against her. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1268 of 2013 +

Decided On: 17.12.2019

Manju Vs. State of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.

Author: R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1385, MANU/SC/1763/2019

Print Page

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements U/S. 27 Evidence Act Alone is Not Enough For Conviction Unless Chain Of Evidence Is Complete

(viii) The prosecution case mainly rested upon the deposition given by PW-5 so-called eye-witness as well as on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The alleged motive, last seen theory, recovery, and conduct of the Accused were sought to be relied upon to establish the chain of circumstances.

(ix) Upon an exhaustive appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by judgment dated 30.03.2019, acquitted all the Accused of all charges. The Trial Court recorded findings that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the Accused. The alleged motive was held to be weak and speculative; the theory of conspiracy was found to be unsubstantiated; and crucial links such as last seen together and recovery were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents have mainly placed reliance upon confessional statements of the Accused and, thereafter, the discovery of the dead body of the deceased from the canal. We are of the view that simply relying upon the so-called confessional statements of the Accused, and discovery of dead body which is also not duly proved, conviction cannot be recorded. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the present case the sole so-called eyewitness, PW-5, cannot be said to be reliable and the other circumstances upon which the prosecution has placed reliance are insufficient to conclude that the Accused have committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has failed to complete the entire chain of circumstances from which it can be established that the Accused had committed the alleged offences. We are of the further view that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view based upon the evidence led by the prosecution.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024 and 2542-2543 of 2024

Decided On: 16.01.2026

Tulasareddi and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Pancholi and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: V.M. Pancholi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0072/2026.

Print Page

District Judge Interview Questions on Evidentiary value of Crime Scene Recreation

Question 1: Basic Concept and Definition

Q: What do you understand by crime scene recreation? How does it differ from crime scene re-enactment?

Answer: Crime scene recreation, also known as reconstruction, is the forensic science discipline where investigators gain explicit knowledge of the series of events surrounding a crime using deductive and inductive reasoning, physical evidence, scientific methods, and their interrelationships. It systematically addresses six critical questions: what happened, how it happened, where, when, who was involved, and why.

Print Page

Delhi HC: Court Can Seek Mobile Location of Spouse to Ascertain Adultery in Matrimonial Disputes: A Detailed Analysis

 

 Introduction

The intersection of digital privacy rights and matrimonial law has become a critical area of jurisprudence in contemporary India. The recent Delhi High Court judgment in Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Ms. Smita Shrivastava & Anr.Citation: 2025 DHC 7474 DB.  marks a significant milestone in establishing the legal framework for courts to seek mobile location data and Call Detail Records (CDRs) to ascertain adultery in matrimonial disputes. This comprehensive analysis examines the evolving legal position on courts' authority to collect digital evidence in matrimonial proceedings while balancing fundamental privacy rights with the imperative of fair trial.

Legal Framework for Mobile Location Data Collection

Constitutional Foundation

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground to release the accused on bail

 Whether the fact that prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence can be a valid ground to release the accused on bail -- Held, prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground to release the accused on bail, especially where a complete chain of circumstances has been prima facie established during investigation

Per R. Mahadevan, J.

Similarly, in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali v. State of Gujarat, this Court reiterated that the fact that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a valid ground to release the accused on bail, especially where a complete chain of circumstances has been prima facie established during investigation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025 

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: 2025 KHC 6693: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Can Partial Circumstantial Evidence Sustain a Criminal Conviction? A Legal Analysis

  The court concludes that last seen theory, extrajudicial confession is not proved. Recovery of weapon under section 27 proved and court comes to conclusion that the answer given under 313 CPC is false. Whether accused can be held guilty?

An examination of conviction possibilities when key circumstantial evidence fails to meet judicial standards

Introduction

Print Page

How to prove criminal conspiracy in criminal case?

 The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. However, conspiracy is usually hatched in a secret and private setting which makes it almost impossible to produce any affirmative evidence about the date of formation of the criminal conspiracy, the persons involved, or the object of such conspiracy. Due to this secretive nature, criminal conspiracy is primarily based on circumstantial evidence as direct evidence is rarely available.

Essential Elements to Establish Conspiracy

To prove criminal conspiracy under Indian law, the prosecution must establish certain fundamental elements:

Print Page

Supreme Court Commutes Death Penalty Of Man Convicted For Murder & Sexual Assault Of 4 Year Old stating that Possibility Of Reformation Can't Be Ruled Out

 Sentence:

32. The Trial Court has imposed the sentence of death and the High Court has confirmed the same. It is time for us to draw up a balance sheet of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to decide whether the case falls in the category of rarest of rare case. We also need to examine whether the sentence of life imprisonment is foreclosed and the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out.

33. Without doubt, the crime committed by the appellant was diabolic in character. He enticed the innocent child by tempting him with ice-cream and brutally sodomized and murdered the four-year old. The appellant also mercilessly strangulated the deceased. The post-mortem report clearly indicated that death was due to asphyxia by throttling.

34. On the mitigating side, the appellant was 24 years of age when the incident happened; he had no criminal antecedents; the appellant hails from a low socio-economic household as the Mitigation Investigation Report filed by Ms. Komal of Project 39A, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.10.2023 indicates. The mitigation report further indicates that experts have opined that the appellant is diagnosed with moderate intensity psychotic features and intellectual disability and that the appellant had in his early childhood contacted Tuberculosis Meningitis (TBM). The appellant, according to the report, maintains family ties with his 64-year-old mother who takes care of his 10 year old daughter. The appellant's wife has deserted him.

35. By an order of 05.10.2023, we also called for the conduct and behaviour of the appellant from the Superintendent of Vadodara Central Jail as well as a report on his mental health. The report from the Superintendent of Vadoara Jail indicates, that the behaviour of the appellant in prison is completely normal and that his conduct in jail is good. The report from the Hospital for Mental Health indicates that the appellant has no psychiatric problem at present. The report does indicate a feeling of remorse in the appellant. The appellant has contended that the projective test adopted by the Hospital for Mental Health has its limitations for reliability. Be that as it may.

36. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we hold that the present is not a case where it can be said that the possibility of reformation is completely ruled out. The option of life imprisonment is also not foreclosed. The case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare case. We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if we adopt the path carved out in Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767.

37. Even though the case of the appellant falls short of the rarest of rare category, considering the nature of the crime, we are strongly of the view that a sentence of life imprisonment which normally works out for 14 years would be grossly disproportionate and inadequate. Having regard to the nature of the offence, a sentence of imprisonment for a prescribed period without remission would alone be proportionate to the crime and also not jeopardize the public confidence in the efficacy of the legal system.

38. This Court recently in Nawas Alias Mulanavas v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine SC 315, adverting to this aspect had the following to say:—

“29. How much is too much and how much is too little? This is the difficult area we have tried to address here. As rightly observed, there can be no straitjacket formulae. Pegging the point up to which remission powers cannot be invoked is an exercise that has to be carefully undertaken and the discretion should be exercised on reasonable grounds. The spectrum is very large. The principle in Swamy Shraddananda (supra) as affirmed in V. Sriharan (supra) was evolved as the normally accepted norm of 14 years was found to be grossly disproportionate on the lower side. At the same time, since it is a matter concerning the liberty of the individual, courts should also guard against any disproportion in the imposition, on the higher side too. A delicate balance has to be struck. While undue leniency, which will affect the public confidence and the efficacy of the legal system, should not be shown, at the same time, since a good part of the convict's life with freedom is being sliced away (except in cases where the Court decides to impose imprisonment till rest of the full life), in view of his incarceration, care should be taken that the period fixed is also not harsh and excessive. While by the very nature of the task mathematical exactitude is an impossibility, that will not deter the Court from imposing a period of sentence which will constitute “a just dessert” for the convict…..”

39. Applying this principle, we hold that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 (twenty-five) years without remission would be ‘a just dessert’.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances not conducting DNA test is not fatal to the prosecution case of Rape?

 The argument of Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned senior counsel is that no DNA test was carried out. No doubt, the DNA test was not carried out and it would have been better for the prosecution to have done the same. However, keeping the overall conspectus of the case in mind, we do not think that not conducting DNA test was fatal to the prosecution. We draw support from the judgment of this Court in Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 8 SCC 668, wherein it was held as under:

“53. In view of the nature of the provision under Section 53-ACrPC and the decisions referred to, we are also of the considered view that the lapse or omission (purposeful or otherwise) to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, cannot be permitted to decide the fate of a trial for the offence of rape especially, when it is combined with the commission of the offence of murder as in case of acquittal only on account of such a flaw or defect in the investigation the cause of criminal justice would become the victim. The upshot of this discussion is that even if such a flaw had occurred in the investigation in a given case, the court has still a duty to consider whether the materials and evidence available on record before it, are enough and cogent to prove the case of the prosecution. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to consider whether, despite such a lapse, the various links in the chain of circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused alone in exclusion of all hypothesis of innocence in his favour.”{Para 26}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances Matching of Blood Group of accused with blood group of victim becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances for convicting him?

 Circumstance No. 5 : Matching of Blood Group

25. Blood group on the clothes of the deceased tallied with the blood group of the accused as per Exh.50, the Serological Analysis Report. PW-9 the father of the deceased identified the clothes worn by the deceased on the fateful day. PW-17 the Investigating Officer Gajendra Kumar has clearly deposed that the apparel of the deceased was recovered near the situs of the crime. PW-7 Dr. Kamlesh Kumar who medically examined the appellant deposed that samples of pubic hair, blood, saliva, semen and nails were obtained of the accused and he further deposed that the samples were sealed and the Muddamal was sent for further investigation through police constable to FSL, Surat. Coming back to PW-17, he deposed about receiving the sealed samples and keeping it in safe custody. Thereafter, he deposed that a forwarding note was prepared for analysis of the aforementioned Muddamal and the sealed samples to FSL, Surat and that a constable was deputed to submit the same to FSL, Surat. The receipt obtained was duly filed. The Biological and Serological Reports received from FSL, Surat were marked as Exh.49 and Exh.50 respectively. The Serological analysis clearly showed that the small trouser (leggings), the anal swab (semen) and the perianal swab (semen) had blood of group O. The accused had also blood group O. We are satisfied with the chain of custody as emerging from the evidence. The defence has a case that sample mark H mentioned in Exh.47 which is the forwarding letter to the forensic science laboratory has neither been analyzed in the biological analysis Exh.49 or in the serological analysis Exh.50 and hence tampering cannot be ruled out. The State has countered the submission by contending that sample mark ‘H’ in Exh.47 is a Khaki cover and is not an item recovered from the accused and as such the State counsel contends that in all likelihood sample mark H was a cover in which all other samples were put. The matching of the blood group has occurred in sample F1 which is the anal swab (semen) and F2 perianal swab (semen). The blood group of the aforesaid semen was found to be O. It should be noted that the sample of semen of appellant along with blood and saliva in sample no. G1 to G4 also had blood group O. The judgment in Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133 cited by the appellant also does not advance the case of the defence. It is clear from the facts of the case, that the blood sample therein was decomposed and its original grouping could not be determined. In any event, coupled with other circumstances indicated hereinabove, we are inclined to consider the matching of blood group as an additional link in the chain as far as the facts of this case is concerned.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Under which circumstances the conduct of accused becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances for convicting him?

Circumstance No. 4 : Conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act:

24. Irrespective of the admissibility of the discovery, panchnama (Exh.18) and the recovery panchnama Exh. 21 and irrespective of the admissibility of the recovery of the clothes of the deceased on the statement of the accused, we find that the conduct of the appellant in leading the investigation team and the panchas and pointing out where the apparel of the deceased was hidden would be admissible. In this case PW-17, the Investigating Officer has clearly deposed that the accused showed willingness to show the place where he had thrown the clothes. PW-17, his team and the panchas reached by walking to the place as indicated by the accused. This Court in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714 relying on Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 3 SCC 90 held as under:

“9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400]. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellants (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1, 2, 7 and PW 4 the spot mahazar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 8 as the conduct of the accused. Presence of A-1 and A-2 at a place where ransom demand was to be fulfilled and their action of fleeing on spotting the police party is a relevant circumstance and are admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.”

We take this as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Before B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. _________ of 2024

(@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9015-9016 of 2019)

Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar Vs State of Gujarat 

Decided on December 17, 2024

Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3769,2024 INSC 987.

Print Page