Whether court should convict accused on basis of recovery evidence if link between fact discovered with crime is not proved?

The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
evidence of recovery. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it
is not the discovery of every fact that is admissible but the discovery of
relevant fact is alone admissible. Relevancy is nothing but the
connection or the link between the facts discovered with the crime.
The recovery of the motorcycle is sought to be relied upon as a
circumstance against the appellants. There is nothing on record to
show that the motorcycle recovered at the instance of appellant No.1, belongs to him. PW-13, IO, in his cross-examination admits that he
does not know whether the appellant No.1 is the owner of the
motorcycle. He further admits that no attempts were made by him to
enquire about the owner of the vehicle.
30. Testimony of PWs 4 and 5 is also unreliable since it contradicts
that of PW-10. As per PW-10, herself and Anita had seen the bodies of
the deceased at 3 a.m. She did not see the assailants and does not
mention anything about the motorcycle. Hence, there is no occasion
for the assailants of the deceased to remain in the house and hence
the motorcycle would not be outside the house of the deceased at 4
p.m. PWs 4 and 5 contradict each other. While PW-4 states that the
motorcycle was of Bajaj Company, PW-5 mentions it as a motorcycle
from Hero Honda Company. PW-5 in his examination-in-chief says
that he had moved the motorcycle to allow the tractor to pass.
However, in his cross-examination, he says that he did not move the
motorcycle and it was PW-4, who moved it. PW-5 does not even state
the day or month when he saw the motorcycle.
31. PW-2 was the witness to the seizure of the motorcycle. According
to him, the motorcycle was red in colour. However, as per the seizure
memo, the recovered motorcycle was black in colour. This makes the
recovery of the motorcycle unreliable.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 428-430 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.5530-5532 of 2015)

DIGAMBER VAISHNAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Dated:March 5, 2019.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to prove motive of crime where accused is named on suspicion?

In view of the conclusions given by Forensic Science Laboratory on points (1), (2) and (3), quoted above, we are of the view that the prosecution story, as narrated by PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh, is highly doubtful. Apart from this, though the motive of crime is not necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present one where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant PW-6 Amit Kumar in the First Information Report (which does not contain names of PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh as witnesses who had seen the occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and Another Vs. State of Haryana

[Criminal Appeal No. 2194 of 2014]

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Dated:March 08, 2017.

Print Page

Whether drinking liquor by woman while pregnant is a crime?

LONDON: Britain's Court of Appeal on Thursday rejected claims that a child born with severe brain damage because her mother drank excessively, while pregnant, was a victim of crime, a ruling which has important consequences for expectant women.

Lawyers acting for the girl, now aged 7 and known only as CP, argued that she should be entitled to compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority as her mother, who had an alcohol addiction, had inflicted "grievous bodily harm" by poisoning her. The girl, now in the care of a local authority which brought the claim, was born with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder that can cause severe learning difficulties and growth problems. The mother had been drinking eight cans of strong lager and half a bottle of vodka a day.

Print Page

Principles of criminal liability

Characteristics of a crime

• Harm
• Brought about by Human Conduct
• Sovereign state desires to prevent it
• Measure for prevention includes threat of Punishment
• Special proceedings employed to decide whether the accused has caused the harm and inflicting punishment

The place of Criminal Law in Criminal Science

Three branches of Criminal Science:

• Criminology: It deals with the causes of Crime – both Biological and Social
• Criminal Policy: Studies the measures to limit the harmful conduct, Takes measures by setting up social organizations to prevent harmful activities and lays down the principles by which harms are classed as crimes and how criminals are to be treated
• Criminal law: What conduct is considered as tort and what is Crime, Prescribes the punishment. It is an instrument used to implement the Criminal policy

Principles of criminal liability

Print Page

Good legal article on Mental Element Of Crime (Mensrea)

One of the main characteristic of our legal system is that the individual's liability to punishment for crimes depends, among other things, on certain mental conditions. The liability of conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward acts which the law forbids, but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with a certain will.

Mens rea means a mental state, in which a person deliberately violates a law. Thus mens rea means intention to do the prohibited act

These are known as mental elements in criminal liability. Therefore an act in order to be a crime must be committed with a guilty mind,

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is a well know principle of natural justice meaning no person could be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind.

Print Page