1). RG Kar Rape and Murder Case: Prime Accused Sanjoy Roy, Sentenced to Life Imprisonment
A sessions court in Sealdah, Kolkata, has sentenced Sanjoy Roy, the main accused in the rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College & Hospital, to life imprisonment. The case, which occurred in August 2024, shocked the nation and led to widespread protests demanding justice for the victim.
Court's Decision
Sessions Judge Anirban Das convicted Roy under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for the following offenses:
- Section 64: Rape – Punishment includes imprisonment of not less than 10 years, which may extend to life. (376(1)/(2) of IPC)
- Section 66: Causing injury resulting in the death of a rape victim – Punishment includes imprisonment of not less than 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment. (376A of IPC)
- Section 103(1): Murder – Provides for either life imprisonment or the death penalty. (302 of IPC)
The court ruled that the case, while heinous, did not fall into the "rarest of rare" category to warrant the death penalty. Sanjoy Roy was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the state government was directed to pay Rs. 17 lakhs as compensation to the victim's family.
Forensic Evidence
The conviction was based on strong forensic evidence. DNA analysis placed Sanjoy Roy at the crime scene and linked him to the victim, proving his involvement in the brutal rape and murder.
During the hearing, Roy pleaded innocence and claimed he was not involved in the incident, but the court rejected his defense.
Case Background
In August 2024, the trainee doctor was brutally raped and murdered after completing her night shift at RG Kar Medical College & Hospital. Initially, the police registered the case as one of "unnatural death," claiming the victim may have committed suicide. This led to allegations of police connivance and corruption.
The case was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Calcutta High Court following protests and public outrage. The CBI filed its chargesheet against Sanjoy Roy, who was arrested by the West Bengal CID shortly after the incident.
Judicial and Public Response
The incident caused nationwide protests and led to significant legal and administrative interventions:
- The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the case to issue guidelines on ensuring workplace safety for doctors and monitored the investigation process.
- The Calcutta High Court, hearing multiple petitions, handed over the investigation to the CBI. It also initiated probes into alleged corruption by the former principal of the college and the officer-in-charge (OC) of the local police station.
- The CBI faced delays in filing chargesheets against the former principal and the OC, leading to their release on bail.
Sanjoy Roy remained the sole accused against whom charges were successfully framed and prosecuted by the CBI.
Legal Takeaway
This case underscores the importance of forensic evidence in criminal trials. It also highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring accountability, even amidst alleged institutional failures.
The case was tried under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a newly introduced criminal law that replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sections applied (64, 66, and 103[1]) show the emphasis on stringent punishments for crimes like rape and murder.
The verdict reinforces the principle that justice must be served while adhering to legal frameworks, even in emotionally charged cases.
2). Supreme Court: High Court Judgment Cannot Be Declared Illegal Under Article 32
The Supreme Court has clarified that a High Court judgment cannot be declared "illegal" under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. If a party feels aggrieved by a High Court judgment, their remedies are either:
- Filing an application for recall of the judgment, or
- Challenging the judgment through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 before the Supreme Court.
The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta while dismissing a writ petition filed against a Bombay High Court judgment.
Facts of the Case
- The petitioners challenged a Bombay High Court judgment that directed the demolition of five apartment complexes.
- The demolition order was based on the finding that the buildings did not have valid permits from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and were constructed on government land without proper authorization.
- Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, arguing that they were not made parties to the High Court case and were not heard before the judgment was passed. They sought to have the High Court’s judgment declared "illegal."
Supreme Court's Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the petitioners' plea and provided the following reasons:
- No Declaration of Illegality Under Article 32:
- A High Court judgment cannot be declared illegal through a writ petition under Article 32.
- If the petitioners were not heard or were aggrieved by the judgment, they could either:
- File an application for recall of the judgment before the High Court.
- Challenge the High Court judgment through an SLP under Article 136.
- Alternative Legal Remedies:
- The petitioners had already filed an SLP earlier, which was dismissed as they wanted to explore other remedies.
- Subsequently, they filed an application before the High Court seeking modification of its judgment. This application was also dismissed.
- Modification Not Justified:
- In their application before the High Court, the petitioners requested modification of the judgment to rehabilitate the flat owners instead of paying monetary compensation.
- The High Court dismissed this application, noting that any arrangements between the flat owners and developers could be made independently, but the judgment required no modification.
Key Legal Takeaway
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that Article 32 is not a substitute for other legal remedies. Petitioners must exhaust available remedies, such as filing recall applications or pursuing appeals under Article 136.
Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, observed:
“Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay cannot be declared illegal. If the petitioners have not been heard and are affected by the said judgment, the remedy available to them is to either file a petition/application for recall of the said order/judgment or to challenge the same by way of a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners may pursue other remedies as available under the law. This judgment reaffirms that Article 32 is a tool for enforcing fundamental rights but cannot be used to declare a High Court judgment illegal.
Relevant Provisions Referenced:
- Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies
- Article 136: Special Leave Petition
Case Name: VIMAL BABU DHUMADIYA vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., Diary No. - 1995/2025
3). Supreme Court: Trial Court's Decree Merges with High Court's Decree and Decision of High Court becomes Final
The Supreme Court clarified that under the doctrine of merger, the decision of a trial court merges with the judgment of a superior court once the superior court disposes of the case. The superior court’s decision becomes the final and binding decree, replacing the trial court’s order.
The bench, comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, explained this principle while deciding a case involving the deposit of balance sale consideration in a specific performance suit.
What is the Doctrine of Merger?
The doctrine of merger states that:
- There cannot be more than one decree or operative order governing the same subject matter at the same time.
- When a decision of a lower court is appealed to a higher court, the final decision of the higher court replaces or "merges" the decision of the lower court.
This principle was elaborated in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, where the Court held:
“When a decree or order passed by a lower court is challenged in a higher forum, the final decision of the higher court becomes the operative decree. The decree of the lower court merges with the decree of the higher court, regardless of whether the higher court confirms, modifies, or sets aside the lower court's decision.”
Facts of the Case
- Trial Court Judgment:
- The trial court directed specific performance of an agreement to sell.
- The plaintiff was given 20 days to deposit the balance sale consideration.
- First Appellate Court Judgment:
- The First Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s decision because the plaintiff failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
- High Court Decision:
- The plaintiff filed a second appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- The High Court allowed the second appeal but did not specify a timeline for depositing the balance sale consideration.
- Issue Before the Supreme Court:
- Whether the trial court’s original direction (20 days for deposit) would still apply after the High Court allowed the second appeal without issuing a timeline.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the doctrine of merger, holding that the trial court’s decision merges with the High Court’s order upon the disposal of the appeal.
- High Court’s Judgment Takes Precedence:
- Once the High Court allowed the second appeal, the trial court’s timeline of 20 days ceased to apply.
- The High Court did not specify a time limit for the deposit, so the plaintiff is bound only by the High Court’s decree.
- No Revival of Trial Court’s Directions:
- The appellant (defendant) argued that the 20-day timeline from the trial court should still apply. The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that the High Court’s judgment supersedes the trial court’s decision.
- Equitable Relief in Specific Performance Cases:
- Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and the plaintiff is bound by the High Court’s judgment.
- The plaintiff can seek an extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration, as the trial court retains jurisdiction until the decree is fully executed.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court held:
“The High Court, while allowing the second appeal filed by the original plaintiff, did not issue any specific direction regarding the deposit of the balance sale consideration within a particular period. Therefore, the trial court’s 20-day direction does not apply after the High Court’s judgment.”
Conclusion
The Court ruled that the trial court’s decree merges with the High Court’s decree under the doctrine of merger. The High Court’s judgment becomes final and binding, and any timelines or directions from the lower court are no longer applicable unless explicitly stated.
Relevant Provisions and Cases
- Doctrine of Merger: Explained in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359.
This judgment emphasizes the importance of understanding how appellate decisions impact lower court decrees, especially in cases involving specific performance and equitable remedies.
Case Name: BALBIR SINGH & ANR ETC VERSUS BALDEV SINGH (D) THROUGH HIS LRS & ORS. ETC
4). Supreme Court: Arrest After Chargesheet Filing and Cognizance is Illogical
The Supreme Court criticized the practice of police arresting an accused after a chargesheet has been filed and the court has taken cognizance. The Court observed that this practice, prevalent in Uttar Pradesh, makes no sense and is unnecessary.
Observations by the Court
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stated:
"There is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards this unusual practice except that it makes no sense."
The Court further explained:
"Once the investigation is over and the chargesheet is filed, the accused should be asked to appear before the court and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. If the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the accused, the arrest should have been made during the investigation itself. There is no point in making a formal arrest now."
Case Background
The observations were made while granting bail to a petitioner charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was never arrested during the investigation, and a chargesheet had already been filed. The trial court had taken cognizance, and there was no need for an arrest at this stage.
Previous Judgments on the Issue
- Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)
- The Supreme Court ruled that the police are not obligated to arrest an accused at the time of filing a chargesheet if the accused has cooperated during the investigation.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2021)
- The Court issued clear guidelines to prevent routine arrests of accused persons who were not arrested during the investigation or who cooperated with the inquiry.
- Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024)
- The Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could not arrest an accused after the trial court had taken cognizance of the chargesheet.
Supreme Court’s Concerns
The Court expressed disappointment over the trial courts and investigating agencies not adhering to the principles laid down in Siddharth and Satender Kumar Antil. The bench emphasized that unnecessary arrests disrupt the legal process and violate the principle that arrest should not be a routine step post-cognizance.
Relevant Legal Provisions
- Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Replaced by 193(3) of BNSS
Governs the filing of a chargesheet after completing the investigation. - Section 204 of the CrPC: Replaced by Section 227 of BNSS
Allows the court to take cognizance of the chargesheet and issue summons to the accused.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court reiterated that after a chargesheet is filed, the accused should be allowed to appear in court and furnish bail instead of being arrested unnecessarily. The Court’s observations reinforce the principles of fair investigation and ensure that arrests are not made arbitrarily or without justification.
Case Name : Musheer Alam v State of Uttar Pradesh
5). Supreme Court: Substantive Justice Prevails Over Procedural Irregularities in NDPS Cases
Case Summary
The Supreme Court recently ruled that procedural lapses under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) will not nullify a conviction if strong evidence proves the accused’s guilt. The Court emphasized that substantive justice outweighs procedural non-compliance, provided the prosecution's case is supported by credible evidence.
This judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan in an appeal challenging the conviction of an individual for possession of contraband.
Key Facts of the Case
- The accused argued that mixing 73 packets of seized contraband into a single composite lot and subsequent sampling violated Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Rule 10 of the NDPS Rules, 2022.
- The accused claimed this process compromised the evidence's integrity, making the prosecution's case unreliable.
- The trial court rejected this plea, noting that all 73 packets were properly opened, matched, and identified before drawing two representative samples of 100 grams each. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld this conviction, dismissing the accused’s argument as baseless.
- The Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, highlighting that the investigating officers substantially followed the prescribed procedures and that minor procedural lapses, if any, did not affect the overall reliability of the evidence.
Supreme Court Observations
- Non-compliance with Section 52A is not fatal: The Court held that minor lapses in complying with Section 52Aor related rules do not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case unless they create doubts about the evidence's reliability.
- Holistic assessment: Courts must evaluate discrepancies in evidence cumulatively, keeping procedural lapses in mind while appreciating the prosecution’s case.
- Focus on substantive justice: If the prosecution’s other evidence (oral or documentary) inspires confidence regarding recovery and possession of contraband, courts can uphold the conviction even with procedural defects.
Principles Summarized
The Court outlined ten key principles on Section 52A compliance:
- Purpose of Section 52A:
Section 52A primarily ensures the safe disposal of seized contraband but also introduces safeguards like preparing inventories, taking photographs, and drawing samples in the presence of a magistrate. The mere presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance with Section 52A(2). - Timing of sampling:
Sampling at the time of seizure is not mandatory (as per Mohanlal v. State of Punjab, 2018). However, it should ideally be done in the accused’s presence whenever possible, though not necessarily at the spot of seizure. - Primary evidence:
Inventories, photographs, or samples prepared substantially in compliance with Section 52A must be treated as primary evidence under Section 52A(4), even if the original substance is not produced in court. - Substantial compliance suffices:
The procedural rules under Section 52A are guidelines to ensure fair investigations. Substantial compliance is sufficient to validate the prosecution's case. - Effect of procedural lapses:
Mere non-compliance with Section 52A or related rules does not vitiate a trial unless it creates doubts about the physical evidence that would not exist had compliance been observed. - Credible evidence prevails:
Convictions can be upheld if the prosecution’s oral and documentary evidence is credible, even if there are procedural defects under Section 52A. - Adverse inference:
Courts may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for delayed or non-compliance with Section 52A, but this depends on the facts of each case. - Statutory presumption under Section 54:
Courts should not rely on the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 54 of the NDPS Act in cases of procedural lapses unless the evidence (seizure and recovery) independently satisfies the court. - Burden of proof on the accused:
The accused must initially prove non-compliance with Section 52A by presenting evidence or relying on prosecution evidence. The standard required is a preponderance of probabilities. - Onus on the prosecution:
If the accused establishes non-compliance, the prosecution must prove either:- Substantial compliance with Section 52A, or
- That the non-compliance did not affect the case. The prosecution must meet this burden beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reference Case: Mohanlal v. State of Punjab (2018)
The Supreme Court in this case clarified that while sampling at the time of seizure is preferable, it is not mandatory. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 52A is sufficient if it does not compromise the case's fairness.
Relevant Provisions of the NDPS Act
- Section 52A: Governs disposal, inventory preparation, sampling, and certification of seized contraband.
- Section 54: Establishes a presumption of guilt based on possession of contraband unless proven otherwise.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities. While procedural compliance ensures fairness, convictions under the NDPS Act hinge on the credibility and reliability of the evidence as a whole. Courts must strike a balance between adhering to procedural safeguards and ensuring justice based on the merits of each case.
Case Name: BHARAT AAMBALE VERSUS THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH