Issue 5, Sept 2020

20.09.2020

Ratio Obiter
A Fortnightly Newsletter By Criminal Law Review

Contributors: Contact Us
Gyaaneshwar Joshi crlreview@gmail.com

Nikhil Chainani

Saransh Awasthi

Rohan Pathania

Criminal Law Review (CrLR) | A Research Organisation

 Contents
About Us 3

About ‘Ratio Obiter’ 3

From the Desk of the Founder 4

Snippets 5

Supreme Court 6

Allahabad High Court 6

Gujarat High Court 7

Kerala High Court 8

Bombay High Court 9

Karnataka High Court 10

Delhi High Court 10

Rajasthan High Court 11

Punjab & Haryana High Court 12

Jammu & Kashmir High Court 12

Madhya Pradesh High Court 14

Himachal Pradesh High Court 14

Gauhati High Court 15

Jharkhand High Court 15

Patna High Court 16

Quiz Questions 18

The CrLR Blog | Round-Up 20

Notifications 22

Ratio Obiter Issue 5 © 2020 Criminal Law Review (CrLR). All rights reserved.
 3

About Us

Criminal Law Review (the ‘CrLR’), is a research organization founded by Ashwani

Kumar Singh. Though the CrLR started as a criminal law blog in Jan 2018, later on (in
the beginning of 2020) we started working to establish the CrLR as a research
organization. CrLR is incubated by the GNLU Legal Incubation Centre (GLIC).

The CrLR takes up several research projects, runs a blog and conducts various events
with an aim to promote legal writing and research and to assist legal fraternity in the
field of criminal law. As a research organisation, the CrLR provides an effective
platform to credible and comprehensive research work that deals with the intricacies
and nuances of criminal law.

About ‘Ratio Obiter’

The Ratio Obiter is a fortnightly newsletter to keep the legal community updated
about the recent happenings with regards to criminal law. The prime objective behind
the inception of this idea is to spark contemporary and insightful discussions in the
realm of criminal law. The CrLR team along with the interns efficiently works in
selecting content and editing process to put out only the best content.

The newsletter would consist of brief updates on select judgements of the Supreme
Court and High Court of India, recent blog posts, important legal news and snippets
of SC judgements among others.

All Rights Reserved.

 4

From the Desk of the Founder

As our tagline suggests, the primary goal behind every activity of the CrLR is to
assist Legal Fraternity in Criminal Law in different ways possible. The Ratio Obiter,
our fortnightly newsletter, runs on the similar lines by keeping you updated.

The Second Issue of the Ratio Obiter has been made possible majorly by the efforts
of our Interns, and our Team is thankful to all of them –

Gyaaneshwar Joshi (2017-22, Jamia Millia Islamia),

Nikhil Chainani (2017-22, Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad),

Saransh Awasthi (2018-23, Government Law College, Mumbai), and

Rohan Pathania (2019-22, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi)

If you are interested in contributing, reach to us at crlreview@gmail.com or +91-

7434045410 or any of our social media pages. We would be happy to hear any
feedback / suggestion from your end, please do get in touch.

Ashwani Kumar Singh, Founder & MD

E: ashwanis528@hotmail.com
 5

Snippets
Absence in proving of Motive
The motive is always in the mind of person authoring the incident. Motive not
being apparent or not being proved only requires deeper scrutiny of the
evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion. When there are definite
evidence proving an incident and eye-witness account prove the role
of accused, absence in proving of the motive by prosecution does not affect the
prosecution case.
Vide: Jafel Biswas v. State of West Bengal, (2019) 12 SCC 560.

Does acquittal of an accused amounts to automatic acquittal of co-accused?

Where the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused by cogent,
reliable and trustworthy evidence, mere acquittal of one accused would
not automatically lead to acquittal of another accused. It is only where the
entire case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities, discrepancies and
where the prosecution is not able to establish its case, the acquittal of the
co-accused would be of some relevancy for deciding the case of the other.
Vide: Yanob Sheikh v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 6 SCC 428.

Power constitutional court to order fresh or de novo investigation could also

be exercised after commencement of the trial
-The power to order fresh, de novo or reinvestigation being vested with the
constitutional courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some
witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said
constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation.
It is the bounden duty of a court of law to uphold the truth and truth means
absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a real and
fair investigation, not an investigation that reveals Itself as a sham one.
Vide: Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160.
 6

Supreme Court
1. Mukesh Singh vs State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) [Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) Nos. 5648, 5894 and 8499/2019]
1.1. Keywords- Reference, Informant, Investigator, Bias.
1.2. The question of whether the informant/complainant being the investigator
leads to acquittal of the accused was referred to a larger bench.
1.3. The court was of the opinion that there does not lay any reason to doubt the
credibility of the informant and doubt the entire case of the prosecution solely
on the ground that the informant has investigated the case.
1.4. The court held that in a case where the informant himself is the investigator,
by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of
bias or the like fact factor. The question of bias would depend on upon the
facts of each case. Therefore the accused is not entitled to acquittal if the
informant/complainant is the investigator.

Similar obiter in Rizwan Khan vs The State of Chhattisgarh [CRIMINAL

APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2020] decided by the SC on 10th September 2020

Allahabad High Court

2. Nitin Jaiswal vs State of U.P [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25681 of 2018]
2.1. Keywords- Charges, Complaint, Witness.
2.2. The court relied on the judgement of Harinarayan G. Bjaja v. State of
Maharashtra1 which held that the right of an accused to cross-examine
witnesses produced by the prosecution before framing of a charge him was a
valuable right. Because it was only through cross examination that the accused
could show the magistrate that the allegations against him were groundless
and that there was no reason for framing of charge against him.
2.3. The court relied on this judgment and was of the opinion that “no charges can
be framed, simply on the basis of statements which has been recorded under

1 (2010) 11 SCC 520.

 7

section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. Consequently view taken by Court below vide
order dated 26.3.2018 that charges under sections 147, 458 and 427 IPC are also
liable to be framed” is erroneous.
2.4. The court held that charges can be framed on the basis of statement of
complainant and his witnesses as recorded under Section 200/202 CrPC.

Gujarat High Court

3. Jagmalbhai Hardasbhau Hathaliya vs State Of Gujarat [R/Criminal Misc.
Application No. 11473 of 2020]
3.1. Keywords: Quashing FIR, Section 482, Inherent Powers, Lesser serious in
nature
3.2. The applicant filed an application under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing
of the FIR against him under sections 313, 498(a) and 114 of the IPC as there
has been amicable settlement reached between the parties.
3.3. The High Court, after taking into consideration that the offences are “lesser
serious in nature” as well as the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in
Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (2014), quashed the
F.I.R and all other consequential proceedings registered against the applicant.

4. Mohanbhai Haribhai vs State of Gujarat [R/ Criminal Misc. Application No.

7754 of 2020]
4.1. Keywords: Quashing FIR, section 482, Inherent powers, ends of justice,
prevent abuse.
4.2. The applicants filed a petition under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of
the FIRs against them under sections 409, 431, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC and
sections 65(e), 81, 83 and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and also under
subsequent FIR under section 409,420, 120 B and 34 of IPC and sections
66(1)€,83 and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition act.
4.3. The court was of the opinion that the expression ‘ends of justice’ and ‘to
prevent abuse of the process’ used in section 482 CrPC are intended to work
both ways. No relief could be granted particularly when, the applicants have
 8

failed to show that neither of the complaints do not disclose any offence and
the investigation into both the complaints is at an advanced stage. The court
rejects the quashing petition.

5. Amit Iqbal Singh Vs State of Gujarat [R/ Criminal Misc. Application No. 9376
of 2020]
5.1. Keywords: Anticipatory Bail, Nature and Gravity.
5.2. The applicants filed a petition under section 438 of the CrPC to get an
anticipatory bail for offences punishable under sections 406,420,468 and 471 of
the IPC and sections 3, 4 and 5 of the GIPD act.
5.3. The court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sidharam
Sathlingappa mhetre vs State of Maharashtra was of the opinion that impact
of the grant of anticipatory bail in cases of large magnitude is required to be
kept in mind. In the current case, the conduct of the applicant is also required
to be considered.

Kerala High Court

6. M/S Smart Logistics vs State of Kerala [WP (C). No. 5042 of 2020(e)]
6.1. Keywords- NDPS, Seized, Used in carrying
6.2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the CrPC for
the grant of interim custody of the vehicle which was seized under the NDPS
act.
6.3. The court held that the petitioner had already filed an application for granting
interim custody of the vehicle before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,
Vatakara. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.
The petitioner has no case that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is
illegal for any reason. The petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid order.
The first relief sought by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the Sub
Inspector to release the vehicle on interim custody is not maintainable.
6.4. The second issue in the case was whether a writ of mandamus can be issued
to the respondent for releasing the vehicle to the interim custody of the
 9

petitioner. The court relying on the provisions of the NDPS act held that that
drugs disposal committee has to take a decision on the disposal of the seized
items. The power conferred on the drugs disposal committee is not an arbitrary
power.

Bombay High Court

7. Madhav Venkat Pawle v. State of Maharashtra (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 268
OF 2014)
7.1. Keywords: Last seen theory, dying declaration, Sec. 32 Evidence Act, Sec. 161
Cr.P.C.
7.2. The issues before the Court were as to whether conviction can be based on a
dying declaration and whether in cases where there is an oral dying
declaration, any implicit reliance can be placed on the dying declaration.
7.3. The Court relied on Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh2
whereas it was held that “Mere variation between the statement under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and deposition before the Court in narration of the
incident would not amount to contradiction.”
7.4. The Court, after considering the facts of the case and the issues involved
therein as well as the version of prosecution, upheld the conviction
awarded by the Trial Court and dismissed the present appeals.

8. Satish Maganrao Jadhav vs The State of Maharashtra (CRIMINAL APPEAL

NO.59 OF 2014)
8.1. Keywords: Last seen theory, Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC,
Circumstantial evidence, Extra-judicial confession.
8.2. The issues before the court were whether the circumstantial evidence is
enough to implicate the accused in absence of any Eye Witness.
8.3. The court opined that there is enough evidence as well as forensic reports
which support the statements given by the witnesses and the prosecution

2 1999 CrLJ 4561.

 10

has proved its case beyond no reasonable doubt and left no scope any other
inference to be drawn.
8.4. The court held that circumstantial evidence was enough to implicate the
accused and hence dismissed the petition.

Karnataka High Court

9. Fayaz Pasha vs State of Karntaka (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1013 OF 2015)
9.1. Keywords: Murder, Ligature, Destruction of Evidence, Section 201 I.P.C.
9.2. The Appellant-accused filed the present appeal against the judgment and
order of conviction recorded against him under sections 302 and 201 of IPC
for murdering his deceased wife.
9.3. The High Court held that the reasons of the Sessions Court to record the
conviction against the accused are not free from doubt. The Court thus, in
the present case - being one of circumstantial evidence, relied on the tests
given by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra3 and set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court.

Delhi High Court

10. Harish Yadav vs State (CRL.A. 908/2016 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 925/2019)
10.1. Keywords: NDPS Act, Section 21, Section 50, Interested Witness, heroin,
Contraband.
10.2. The issue before the court was whether the recovery of contraband in absence
of gazetted officers would lead to non-compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act.
10.3. The court relied on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanandand & Anr.4
and held that no search has been conducted on the appellant within the
purview of section 50 and he had also declined his right to be searched before
a magistrate.

3 AIR 1985 SCR (1) 88.

4 2014) 5 SCC 345.
 11

10.4. The court after considering issues of mis-application of procedure and lack of
public witnesses, rejected the appeal and upheld the conviction of the
appellant.

11. Khalid vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) (CRL.M.C. 1697/2020)

11.1. Keywords: Section 43D UAPA, Arms Act, Res Integra.
11.2. Whether the accused has a right to be heard to oppose an application seeking
extension of time for completion of investigation under UAPA? and whether
the accused has a right to a copy of the application seeking extension of time
for completion of the investigation?
11.3. The court opined that the extension of custody takes away a right of the
accused and therefore the accused must be given an opportunity to oppose it.
However, giving the copy of application of extension to the accused would
expose the current status of investigation and evidence collected which could
be detrimental to further investigation.
11.4. The court held that the accused has the right to defend the extension of
investigation but no right to the copy of application seeking such extension.

Rajasthan High Court

12. Anil Kataria @ Anil Kumar vs State (Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2695/2020 )
12.1. Keywords: 482 Cr.P.C, Quashing of FIR, Compoundable Cases, Inherent
Powers.
12.2. A petition was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR for offence
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC as parties have arrived at
compromise.
12.3. The court relied on the decision of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.5 to
examine whether such offences are compoundable and be compromised by a
deed.

5
(2012) 10 SCC 303.
 12

12.4. The court held that in these circumstances, invoking its inherent powers
under section 482 Cr.P.C , impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings
may be quashed on the basis of compromise.

Punjab & Haryana High Court

13. Sumedh Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab (CRM-M No. 26304/2020), decided on
8th September 2020
13.1. Keywords: Section 364, 201, 302, Anticipatory Bail.
13.2. The petitioner was booked in a case of abduction, torture and disappearance
of the deceased.
13.3. An application of anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC was filed after two
co-accused in the case turned into approvers, leading to the addition of
murder charges against the petitioner.
13.4. A Judge recused from hearing bail plea and ordered either quashing or
transfer of the case to the CBI.
13.5. The petitioner absconded after the release of such order, therefore a non-
bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner.

14. Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana (CRR No.28 of 2018), decided on 28th August,
2020
14.1. Keywords: Section 323, 324, 326, 341 of IPC.
14.2. It was concluded that section 319 CrPC grants discretionary and an
extraordinary power to the court, and can only be exercised at the time when
cogent evidence is found against the co-accused.
14.3. The court upon further investigation by the police officers summoned other
accused to face trials under section 323, 324, 326, 341 while they were found
innocent in the past enquiries conducted by the different police officials.

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

15. Amina Begum and Others vs. State of J&K and Others (Crl M No. 173/2020),
pronounced on 28th August 2020
15.1. Keywords: Section 354 of RPC, Section 483 of CrPC.
 13

15.2. Two FIRs were filed against the accused persons under section 341, 354, 336,
323, 147, 504, 506 of RPC.
15.3. The petitioners sought for quashing of the latter FIR that was filed by the
complainant shortly after filing the first FIR, hence adding the offence under
section 354 RPC against two of the petitioners.
15.4. Both petitioners objected to the lodging of a second FIR, and stated that two
FIR for the same incident is not permissible under the court of law, unless it
added some relevance to the investigation of the case. (Surender Kaushik vs.
State of UP 2013)
15.5. The court while describing the limits of section 482 CrPC dismissed the
petition and ruled that nothing can interdict criminal proceedings, unless the
complainant’s intention is mala-fide.

16. Hardev Singh vs. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (Crl M No. 321/2020),
pronounced on 27th August 2020
16.1. Keywords: POSCO Act, rigorous imprisonment.
16.2. The appeal was filed against the court decision on convicting the appellant
under section 10 of POSCO Act for 10-years imprisonment.
16.3. The bail plea was also filed, by stating the fact that the appellant was teacher
and trustee of the child victim in the school and has already undergone an
imprisonment for more than 2 years.
16.4. The court rejected the bail plea and held the offender liable for 10 years’
rigorous imprisonment with Rs. 10,000 fine. Court further stated that
individuals must respect the moral values related to the profession, therefore
strict punishment is required for violating such norms.

17. Musadiq Afzal Masoodi vs. Station House Officer Police [CRM (M) No.
144/2020]
17.1. Keywords: Section 29 of NDPS Act; Speedy Trial; COVID-19; Virtual Hearing
17.2. Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking directions to the trial court to
expedite the trial and posting the hearing on a day to day basis through virtual
 14

mode due to COVID- 19 pandemic. The petition also sought direction to

dispose of the bail application within one month.
17.3. The Hon’ble Court, considering petitioner’s custody since 2017, observed the
right of the petitioner to have speedy trial of his case. The Court subsequently
asked the Ld. trial court to make every endeavor to expedite the trial and
record the examination of the witnesses in a time bound manner. The trial
court shall also explore the possibility of recording examination of the
witnesses through Virtual Mode.
17.4. It also clarified that the trial may concluded the case preferably within eight
months from the date copy of this order.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

18. Mohammad Ali vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC No. 16898/2020)
18.1. Keywords: Section 420 and 467 of IPC, Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
18.2. In this case, the anticipatory bail application was rejected on the demands of
objectors by stating that investigation is still pending against the applicant
under section 420, 467 and 468 of IPC.
18.3. The court directed the police to investigate under section 73 of the Evidence
Act against the applicant and co-accused, who was absconded from the
investigation. They were held guilty in the forgery of sale agreements of the
flats, in which both acted as partners. The police were instructed to complete
the investigation within 60 days and present the final report before the
magistrate without causing any delay.

Himachal Pradesh High Court

19. Roshan Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.MP (M) No. 1506/2020)
19.1. Keywords: Section 436 and 438 of CrPC.
19.2. The court observed the necessity of granting bail to the applicant, in case if it
fulfills the criteria incorporated under section 436 of CrPC.
19.3. Considering the statement “person is innocent until proven guilty” the court
held that bail shall only be granted, if the appellant confesses to assist police
 15

in investigation and always available for the purpose of interrogation before

the trial court at the date of hearing. Furthermore, the appellant shall not
indulge in threatening or dissuading any person acquainted with the facts of
the case, otherwise the bail application stands cancelled.

Gauhati High Court

20. Tanmay Jyoti Mahanta vs. The State Of Assam & Ors. [PIL 53/2020]
20.1. Keywords: Section 188 of Indian Penal Code, COVID-19, Guidelines Violation
20.2. The Petitioner filed an PIL seeking enforcement of punitive measures against
those found violating the orders dated 08.05.2020 by the Health and Family
Welfare Department, Government of Assam.
20.3. The Hon’ble HC, in view of public interest and overflowing numbers with
Covid-19 positive patients, held that no resident or a citizen has the right to
put his own life in jeopardy or put the life of others at risk.
20.4. The Court directed the police force to impose fines on those found violating
norms. Further, it also asked deputy commissioners of all districts to ensure
proper compliance of the court’s order.

Jharkhand High Court

21. Vinay Kumar M. Chaudhari @ Vinay Kumar vs. The State Of Jharkhand [Cr.
M.P. No. 285 of 2019]
21.1. Keywords: Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; FIR; Section 482
21.2. Petitioners, through this miscellaneous petition prays for quashing of the
criminal proceeding and the FIR. It further seeks disposal of the order dated
22.12.2018 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
21.3. The High Court held the impugned orders by the magistrate directing the
Office-in-charge under Section 156(3) are non-speaking and cryptic. It said
said that the complaint does not comply with the preconditions for Section
156(3) of the Code as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s previous decisions.
21.4. The Court also found the allegations made in the FIR absurd and inherently
improbable and that the complaint do not prima facie constitute any offence
 16

or make out a case against the accused, subsequently quashing the entire
criminal proceedings.

22. Prashant Mohan Nayak @ Prashant M … vs. State Of Jharkhand [Cr. M.P No.
451 of 2016 & Cr. M.P No. 479 of 2016]
22.1. Keywords: FIR; 156(3) of Cr.P.C; Section 406, 420 & 120B of IPC; Cheating;
Criminal Breach of Trust
22.2. The application sought to quash the FIR registered under Section 406, 420,
120B IPC. The application questioned whether failure to keep promise can be
an offence punishable under the provisions of cheating or not.
22.3. The Court while taking the note of the earlier transactions between the
contending parties held that there was no intention to cheat and that, mere
failure to repay the dues cannot be said to be a criminal offence.
22.4. While quashing the criminal cases against the petitioner, the Court also stated
that the impugned order and the action of the Magistrate to send the
complaint for investigation under 156(3) Cr.P.C is not in consonance with the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Patna High Court

23. Anil Kumar Sharma vs. State Of Bihar And Anr.[Cr. M. No. 30096 of 2013]
23.1. Keywords: Section 420 & 468 of I.P.C.; The Society Registration Act, 1860;
Section 192(2) & Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
23.2. The CJM had enquired the matter under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned
the petitioner to face trial for offences under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C.
23.3. The petition challenged the same by filing an application under Section 482 of
the CrPC on the ground that no case was made on the allegation by the
complainant..
23.4. The Hon’ble High Court held that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner is
an abuse of the process of the Court since no offence is made out on the
allegation.
 17

23.5. The High Court also observed that there is no material to corroborate the
allegations under Section 420 or even under Section 468 of the I.P.C.
Moreover, the circumstances of the fact suggest dispute amongst the members
of the Governing Body which can be an issue of a civil dispute and certainly
not of a criminal prosecution. Therefore, it quashed the impugned order
holding the charges against the petitioner as baseless.
 18

Quiz Questions
1. Law of evidence is based on which ‘conflict of laws’ rule?
2. Which statutory provisions states that causing of the death of child in the mother’s
womb is not homicide?
3. Which provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives private individuals the
power to arrest ‘any person who has, in his presence, committed a non-bailable
and cognizable offence’ or ‘any proclaimed offender’?
4. When does an offence of robbery become an offence of dacoity?
5. Which provision of the Indian Evidence Act mentions about the admissibility of
electronic evidences?
6. Is right to vote a fundamental right or a constitutional right or merely a statutory
right?
7. Which commission inquired into the conspiracy behind Indira Gandhi
Assassination?
8. What is the name of the treaty establishing the world’s first & only permanent and
independent International Criminal Court?
9. What are the crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as
set out in its Statute?
10. When was the Magna Carta signed by King John of England?
11. An agreement between a company and its employee (generally an executive) that
ensures financial protection of the executive in the event of a sudden dismissal is
known as?
12. Which Indian case is regarded as the Asia's first case of cyber defamation?
13. Recently, the Central Government has approved constitution of the 22nd Law
Commission. What will be the tenure of this Law Commission?

Answers

1. Lex Fori
2. Explanation III to Section 299
3. Section 43 of Cr.P.C.
4. five or more persons co-jointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery
 19

5. Section 65B
6. False (Article 326 of the Indian Constitution)
7. Liberhan Commission
8. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998
9. Crime of genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes & The crime of
aggression (Article 5 of the Rome Statute)
10. June 15, 1215
11. Golden Parachute
12. SMC Numatics Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra (2014)
13. Three-year term
 20

The CrLR Blog | Round-Up

1. The Court of Public Opinion: Judge, Jury, and Executioner (Published on: 8th
September 2020. Access Here )
Author: Shantanu Shetty [Dr D. Y. Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai]
A media trial is a phenomenon where public opinion on the culpability of the
accused regarding a controversy or a criminal investigation/trial is largely affected
or determined by the media, which often precedes a trial or a verdict by a judicial
body.

2. Victim Centric Reforms in Laws relating to Sexual Offences (Published on: 5th
September 2020. Access Here )
Author: Shilpha Narasimhan [Jindal Global Law School]
“In a society that is caught up in the paradoxical vicious circle of constant
victimization as well as attributing the blame to the victim, a justice system that
seeks to eliminate the procedural disadvantages….”

3. Custodial deaths to Extra-Judicial Killings: The Staged Encounter of Rule of

Law (Published on:18th August 2020. Access Here )
Author: Shiv Sang Thakur [ Dr. D.Y Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai]
"The public, particularly the educated middle class, also do not mind if the police
take the law in their own hands and become executioners, particularly with regard
to the dreaded criminals", a report says.

This article gives an idea of how such arbitrary actions originate, and answers a
few questions as to why it is often justified by the public

4. The Tussle of Guards: Bihar & Mumbai Police on SSR Case (Published on: 12th
August 2020. Access Here )
Authors: Amartya Sahastranshu Singh and Rishav Paraser [ National University
of Study & Research in Law, Ranchi]
 21

Though the case has been transferred to CBI, there is still an unsettled question i.e.,
does Bihar police hold any authority, at all, to probe into the matter? This article
answers the same.

5. The Gloomy Standpoint of the Juvenile Justice System in India (Published on:
27th August 2020. Access Here )
Authors: Deyashini Mondal and Bandana Saikia [ Symbiosis Law School, Pune]
It is important to look into history to trace the development of the Juvenile Justice
System in India. According to some scholars, the English Federal Courts of High
Chancery could be the beginning.
Under the English Law of Equity, the crown had given the responsibility to the
High Chancery to serve as parens-patriae to protect the interest of the children
who.

6. Dissecting Conviction based on the Sole Testimony of a Child Witness

(Published on: 20th August 2020. Access Here.)
Authors: Aditya Joshi & Rohan Rishi Bhatnagar [Law Centre II, Faculty of Law,
University of Delhi]
This article provides an in-depth yet precise analysis of conviction based on sole
testimony of child witness.
“Participation of children in the Criminal Justice System is required to be handled
diligently. If questioned skillfully, they provide an unbiased view of circumstances
leading to the happening of a particular instance…”
 22

Notifications

1. The internship application for the month of October (1st batch) will close on Sept
25, 2020.

2. The first episode of the ‘On Trial Series’, where we put Dr Viru Sahastrabuddhe
on trial for abetting the suicide attempt of Raju Rastogi, is available on your
YouTube Channel.

3. If you are willing to contribute to our study projects, you may contact us via mail
crlreview@gmail.com or via WhatsApp +91-7434045410.

4. Though registration for the 2nd Ed of the Criminal Law Review National Writing
Competition is closed, you may directly submit your manuscript (on or before Sept
25, 2020) by paying - Rs 300 for single author and Rs 500 for co-author.
For further details on the competition, refer to https://crlreview.in/criminal-law-
review-national-writing-competition-2nd-edition/