1). Supreme Court : Prosecution Can’t Rely on Section 27 Evidence Act If Recovery isn’t Linked to Accused’s Disclosure

Case Background

• The case involved two appellants convicted of murder. The prosecution argued that the deceased’s body was discovered based on the accused’s confessional statement, making it crucial evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The Trial Court convicted the accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
• The Supreme Court, on February 24, 2024, overturned the conviction, citing a lack of conclusive proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues in the Case

1. Was the deceased’s body discovered as a direct result of the accused’s confession?
2. Did the circumstances form a complete chain of evidence proving the accused’s guilt?
3. Was the "last seen" theory sufficient to convict the accused?
4. Did the prosecution prove motive behind the crime?

Court Observations

Bench of Justices

• The case was heard by Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Key Observations

1. Confessional Statement & Discovery of Dead Body Not Correlated
   • The Court examined Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows only that portion of a confession to be admitted which leads to a discovery.
   • The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased’s body was recovered solely based on the accused’s disclosure.
   • Witness testimonies were inconsistent—some claimed the body was found at the police station, while others suggested the accused led to its discovery.
2. Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Not Complete
   • The prosecution relied on three key circumstances:
     1. Last seen together theory
     2. Extrajudicial confession of the accused
     3. Discovery of the dead body
   • The High Court rejected the extrajudicial confession, meaning only two circumstances remained.
   • The Supreme Court ruled that for circumstantial evidence to convict, every link must be proven beyond doubt, which did not happen in this case.
3. ‘Last Seen Together’ Theory Was Weak
   • PW-2’s testimony stated that the accused had taken the victim forcefully, but also mentioned that the victim went willingly as they were in love.
   • Additionally, the dead body was found five days later, creating a time gap that weakened the link between the accused and the crime.
   • Citing Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC 715, the Court emphasized that if a considerable time gap exists, the "last seen" theory loses evidentiary strength.
4. Absence of Motive Further Weakened the Case
   • The appellant’s mother and brother-in-law had agreed to arrange the marriage between the accused and the deceased.
   • If the accused had no reason to harm the victim, the prosecution failed to establish motive—a crucial element in circumstantial evidence cases.
   • The Court relied on Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, which held that motive is an essential link in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Court Rulings & Decision

1. Acquittal Due to Lack of Conclusive Evidence
   • The prosecution failed to prove every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which raised reasonable doubt.
   • The Court ruled that one weak link is enough to break the chain, rendering the conviction unsustainable.
2. Section 27 of the Evidence Act Could Not Be Invoked (Proviso to Section 23(2) of BSA)
   • Since the prosecution failed to prove that the body was found due to the accused’s disclosure, Section 27 did not apply, and the accused's statement could not be used against them.
3. Failure to Examine Key Witnesses
   • The prosecution did not produce the accused’s mother and brother-in-law, who had allegedly assured the victim’s father about arranging the marriage.
   • Their testimony could have been crucial in proving the relationship dynamics and potential motive.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act (Proviso to Section 23(2) of BSA)
  • Allows a portion of a confession to be admitted if it leads to the discovery of new evidence.
• Section 26, Indian Evidence Act (Section 23(2) of BSA)
  • States that confessions made in police custody are not admissible, unless covered under Section 27.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Strengthens the Standard for Circumstantial Evidence
   • Reaffirms that every link in the chain must be proven beyond doubt for a conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence.
2. Limits the Use of Section 27 of the Evidence Act
   • Clarifies that a confession must directly lead to discovery; otherwise, it cannot be used as evidence.
3. Prevents Misuse of ‘Last Seen’ Theory
   • Highlights that a significant time gap weakens the prosecution's case in “last seen” scenarios.

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, the "last seen" theory was weak, and Section 27 could not be applied. The judgment reinforces the principle that convictions based on circumstantial evidence require proof beyond reasonable doubt and prevents wrongful convictions based on incomplete evidence.

Case Name: MD. BANI ALAM MAZID @ DHAN v. STATE OF ASSAM., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2011

2). Supreme Court: No ‘Deemed Sanction’ Under Section 197 CrPC

Case Background

• A public servant was prosecuted without prior sanction from the competent authority under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The sanctioning authority denied the sanction, but beyond the stipulated time due to a delay in receiving the request.
• The respondents argued that since the sanction was not granted within the prescribed time, it should be deemed to have been granted.
• The Supreme Court rejected this argument and quashed the criminal proceedings against the public servant.

Issue

• Does Section 197 of CrPC provide for a concept of "deemed sanction" if the competent authority fails to grant sanction within a stipulated time?

Supreme Court’s Observations

Bench of Justices

• Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

1. No Concept of 'Deemed Sanction' Under Section 197 CrPC

• The Court held that Section 197 of CrPC does not provide for deemed sanction in cases where the sanctioning authority fails to act within a time frame.
• Rationale: The law requires express approval from the competent authority before prosecuting a public servant for actions performed in official capacity.

2. Rejection of Reliance on Past Precedents

• The complainant relied on Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (1998) and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh (2012) to argue that if sanction is not granted within a stipulated period, it should be deemed to have been granted.
• The Court distinguished these cases, stating:
  • Vineet Narain’s Case: Dealt with investigation procedures of CBI and CVC, not Section 197 CrPC. While it emphasized strict adherence to time limits, it did not establish "deemed sanction".
  • Subramanian Swamy’s Case: Justice GS Singhvi's concurring judgment suggested a time-bound sanction approval, but this was a guideline, not a statutory provision. The Parliament never incorporated it into CrPC.

3. New Law Introduces ‘Deemed Sanction’

• Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—which replaces CrPC—introduces the concept of deemed sanction.
• Second proviso to Section 218(1) states:
  • If sanction is not received within 120 days, it shall be deemed granted.
• Key Distinction: BNSS explicitly provides for deemed sanction, whereas CrPC does not.

4. No Sanction, No Prosecution

• Since the competent authority denied sanction, the accused could not be prosecuted.
• The Magistrate’s cognizance of the offence was invalid, and the High Court erred in allowing the proceedings.
• The chargesheet, summoning order, and all trial proceedings were quashed.

Legal Provisions 

• Section 197, CrPC (1973):
  • Requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for acts done in official duty.
  • Does not provide for deemed sanction.
• Section 218(1), BNSS (2023):
  • Introduces "deemed sanction" if no response is received within 120 days.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 197 CrPC
   • Ensures public servants cannot be prosecuted without express sanction from competent authority.
2. Reiterates Judicial Discipline in Statutory Interpretation
   • The Court refused to read a "deemed sanction" provision into CrPC, respecting the legislative intent.
3. Recognizes the Change in Law
   • While BNSS now provides for deemed sanction, the Court correctly applied CrPC as it existed at the time of prosecution.
4. Prevents Arbitrary Prosecution of Public Servants
   • Protects officials from malicious prosecution while ensuring accountability through proper sanctioning procedures.

The Supreme Court quashed the case against the public servant, ruling that in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 197 CrPC, prosecution cannot proceed. It reaffirmed that CrPC does not recognize "deemed sanction", while acknowledging that the new BNSS law now provides for it. This decision ensures strict adherence to procedural safeguards in public servant prosecutions and prevents judicial overreach in interpreting statutory provisions.

Case Title: SUNEETI TOTEJA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

3). Supreme Court : Section 106 Evidence Act Must Be Applied Cautiously, Can't Compensate for Weak Prosecution

Case Background

The case involved a man accused of murdering his wife inside their home at night. The prosecution argued that since the crime took place within the four walls of their house, it was the accused’s duty to explain how his wife died. However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal.

Issues in the Case

1. Can Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act be used when the prosecution has not proved a prima facie case?
2. Does the accused have a duty to explain the circumstances of the crime when it happens inside his house?
3. Can an accused’s silence be used against him in a criminal trial?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.

Key Observations

1. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof onto the accused
   • The prosecution must first establish a prima facie case (i.e., enough evidence that suggests the accused might be guilty).
   • Only after this can the accused be expected to explain facts that are within his special knowledge.
   • "Section 106 cannot be used to make up for the prosecution’s inability to provide evidence," the Court ruled.
2. An accused’s silence alone is not proof of guilt
   • The accused is not legally required to prove his innocence.
   • If a prima facie case exists, his failure to explain may strengthen the case against him, but it cannot be the sole reason for conviction.
3. Section 106 applies only when some evidence points to guilt
   • If the prosecution presents sufficient facts, Section 106 can apply to require an explanation from the accused.
   • If the accused provides a reasonable explanation, he gets the benefit of doubt.
   • However, if he gives a false or unacceptable explanation, it may be considered against him.
4. The prosecution must prove its case first
   • The burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
   • The accused is not required to prove a negative fact (that he did not commit the crime).

Court Rulings

Supreme Court Decision

• The Court set aside the acquittal of the accused and allowed the State’s appeal.
• It held that the prosecution had established enough facts to justify applying Section 106.
• Since the accused failed to explain the suspicious circumstances, it strengthened the case against him.

Legal Provision: Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 109 of BSA)

• This section states that if a fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving it is on that person.
• However, the Supreme Court clarified that this does not mean the accused must prove his innocence.
• Section 106 only applies when the prosecution has first presented enough evidence to suggest guilt.

Key Circumstances Justifying Section 106 in This Case

1. The crime took place inside the accused’s home, where only he, his wife, and their 7-year-old daughter were present.
2. The accused did not inform the victim’s family about her death and secretly cremated her body, destroying evidence.
3. The accused fled the house, leaving his 7-year-old daughter behind.
4. The victim died under suspicious circumstances shortly after a fight with the accused.
5. The accused remained silent and did not explain any of the incriminating evidence.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove its case first
   • The burden of proof cannot be shifted onto the accused under Section 106.
   • The accused’s silence alone is not enough for conviction.
2. Clarifies when Section 106 applies
   • It applies only when the prosecution has already established a reasonable case.
   • The accused’s failure to explain may strengthen the case, but does not replace evidence.
3. Strengthens the use of circumstantial evidence
   • If strong circumstantial evidence exists, the accused’s silence can be used against him.
   • However, the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not misused to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. While an accused must explain facts within his special knowledge, this duty only arises when the prosecution has presented enough evidence to suggest guilt. This judgment strengthens fair trial principles while ensuring that circumstantial evidence is given due importance in criminal cases.

Case Title: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VERSUS BALVEER SINGH

4). Supreme Court : Legislative Decisions Subject to Judicial Review, Article 212(1) Protects Only Legislative Proceedings

Case Background

The case involved the expulsion of RJD MLC Sunil Kumar Singh from the Bihar Legislative Council for alleged derogatory remarks against Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Singh challenged his expulsion by filing a writ petition, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights. However, the Bihar Legislative Council opposed the petition, claiming that the expulsion process was protected under Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India, which prevents courts from questioning “proceedings in the Legislature” based on procedural irregularities.

Issues in the Case

1. Is there a difference between “Legislative Decisions” and “Proceedings in the Legislature”?
2. Does Article 212(1) completely bar judicial review of legislative actions?
3. Can a legislative body’s administrative actions, such as expulsion based on an Ethics Committee report, be reviewed by courts?

Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh.

Key Observations

1. Distinction Between “Proceedings in the Legislature” and “Legislative Decisions”
   • Proceedings in the Legislature:
     • Includes debates, motions, and deliberations that take place within the House.
     • These are protected under Article 212(1), meaning courts cannot interfere based on procedural irregularities.
   • Legislative Decision:
     • The final outcome of legislative deliberations, such as passing laws or imposing penalties on members.
     • While such decisions arise from legislative processes, they are not immune from judicial review.
2. Judicial Review of Legislative Decisions is Allowed
   • The Court rejected the Bihar Legislative Council’s argument that Singh’s expulsion was protected under Article 212(1).
   • The Court clarified that while legislative proceedings are immune from judicial review, final legislative decisions affecting fundamental rights are not.
   • “Judicial review of Legislative Decisions is not an encroachment upon legislative dominion but a necessary safeguard to uphold constitutional supremacy.”
3. Ethics Committee’s Action Was an Administrative Function, Not a Legislative One
   • The Ethics Committee’s recommendation to expel Singh was an administrative function and not part of legislative proceedings.
   • The Court cited Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, stating that administrative actions by legislatures can be challenged in courts if they affect an individual’s rights.

Supreme Court Decision

• The Ethics Committee’s report and Singh’s expulsion were not part of “proceedings in the Legislature” but an administrative decision.
• Since the expulsion had civil consequences, it could not remain immune from judicial review.
• The Bihar Legislative Council’s challenge to Singh’s writ petition was rejected, allowing the judicial review to proceed.

Legal Provision: Article 212(1) of the Constitution of India

• Protects legislative proceedings from judicial interference on grounds of procedural irregularity.
• However, the Court clarified that this immunity does not extend to legislative decisions that affect fundamental rights.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Strengthens the Scope of Judicial Review
   • Confirms that legislative decisions affecting fundamental rights are subject to judicial scrutiny.
2. Clarifies the Immunity Under Article 212(1)
   • Legislative procedures are protected, but final decisions with legal consequences can be reviewed.
3. Limits Legislative Bodies’ Administrative Power
   • Actions of legislative committees, like ethics committees, are not legislative functions and can be challenged in court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that while legislative procedures enjoy constitutional protection, final decisions affecting fundamental rights remain open to judicial review. This judgment reinforces the principle of constitutional supremacy and ensures that legislative bodies do not misuse their powers to infringe on individuals’ rights.

Case Title: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH v. BIHAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 530/2024

5). Supreme Court : Landlord’s Choice of Property for Bona Fide Need Cannot Be Challenged by Tenant

Case Background

In this case, a landlord filed a suit seeking eviction of a tenant from a rented property. The landlord wanted to establish an ultrasound machine business for his two unemployed sons. However, the trial court dismissed the suit, and the High Court upheld this decision, rejecting the landlord’s claim of bona fide need. The landlord then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the landlord's need for the property was bona fide (genuine and real).
2. Whether the tenant could oppose eviction on the grounds that the landlord owned other properties and could use them instead.

Court Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and N Kotiswar Singh, examined the case and made the following key observations:

• The law regarding eviction based on the bona fide need of the landlord is well established. The need must be real and not just a mere wish to get the property vacated.
• The landlord is the best judge of which property he requires for his need, and the tenant has no right to dictate which premises the landlord should vacate.
• The landlord had proved that the suit property was the most suitable for setting up an ultrasound machine business because it was located near a medical clinic and a pathology center.

Court Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the landlord and allowed the eviction, rejecting the tenant’s argument that the landlord had other properties he could use instead. The Court clarified that:

• Once the landlord’s bona fide need is established, the tenant cannot force him to seek eviction from another property.
• The landlord has the right to choose which of his rented properties should be vacated to meet his specific need.
• The landlord had also proved his financial capacity to establish the business and the fact that his sons were unemployed, further justifying his need for the premises.

Legal Provisions 

The case was decided based on the principles of bona fide need under tenancy laws, which protect the landlord’s right to seek eviction for genuine personal use.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Strengthens landlord rights – It reinforces that landlords have the right to choose which property they need for their personal use.
2. Clarifies bona fide need – It establishes that once a landlord’s need is proven, tenants cannot challenge eviction by suggesting alternative properties.
3. Prevents unnecessary litigation – It discourages tenants from opposing eviction without strong legal grounds.

The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity and protection to landlords seeking eviction based on bona fide need. It ensures that tenants cannot challenge eviction simply because the landlord owns other properties. The decision upholds the landlord’s right to choose which rented property best serves his legitimate needs.

Case Title: KANAHAIYA LAL ARYA VERSUS MD. EHSHAN & ORS.