1). 'Transmigration of Motive' Doctrine Explained: Supreme Court on Mistaken Identity in Murder Cases 

Case Background

The case involved an accused who trespassed into the informant's house with a knife, intending to attack him. However, the informant’s wife intervened, and the accused stabbed her in the abdomen, leading to her death.

An FIR was lodged against the accused, but the Trial Court acquitted him, stating that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the High Court overturned this verdict and convicted the accused for murder under Section 302 IPC. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Does Section 301 IPC (Transfer of Malice) apply in this case?
2. Should the accused be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC or for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC?

Court Observations

Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan

• The Court examined Section 301 IPC, which deals with "culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended."
• It explained that the doctrine of transfer of malice means that if a person intends to kill one individual but unintentionally kills another, the intent is legally transferred.
• The Court illustrated this concept using an example:
  • If A intends to kill B but mistakenly kills C, A is still held accountable as if he intended to kill C.

The Court referred to past cases such as:

• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982)
• Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995 CrLJ 464)

In these cases, the Supreme Court upheld convictions under Section 302 IPC by applying the doctrine of transfer of malice.

Court Ruling & Decision

• The Court acknowledged that even if the accused did not intend to kill the informant's wife, Section 301 IPC applies, making him responsible for her death.
• However, it also found that the case fell under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed in a sudden fight without premeditation.
• Therefore, the Court modified the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-I IPC).
• Considering the incident happened in 1992 and the accused was of advanced age, the Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 301 IPC – Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the one intended (Doctrine of Transfer of Malice). (Section 102 of BNS)
2. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder. (Section 103(1) of BNS)
3. Section 304 Part-I IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Section 105 of BNS)
4. Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC – If a homicide occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation, it is not murder. (Exception 4 of Section 101  of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment

• The ruling clarifies how intent in homicide cases is legally transferred, ensuring accountability even if an unintended victim is harmed.
• It highlights the importance of distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide, especially in cases of sudden fights or lack of premeditation.
• The Court’s consideration of the long-pending nature of the case and the accused’s age shows a balanced approach to justice.

The Supreme Court reinforced that Section 301 IPC applies when a person unintentionally kills someone other than their intended target. However, since the act was committed in a sudden fight without premeditation, the Court reduced the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide (Section 304 Part-I IPC) and considered the sentence as already served. This decision ensures a fair interpretation of criminal intent while balancing justice with compassion.

Case Name: ASHOK SAXENA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC., Criminal Appeal Nos.1704-1705/2015

2). Section 498A IPC: Prosecution Time Limit Starts from Last Cruelty Incident, Rules Bombay High Court

Case Background

A wife filed an FIR against her husband and his family on January 6, 2023, alleging cruelty under Section 498-A IPC. The alleged last incident of cruelty took place on October 20, 2019.

The husband and his family members approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that it was filed beyond the three-year limitation period as per Section 468 CrPC.

The wife, however, contended that her complaint was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to an extension of limitation periods under Supreme Court directions.

Issues in the Case

1. When does the limitation period for filing a case under Section 498-A IPC start?
2. Can the limitation period be extended in cases of delay due to special circumstances like Covid-19?
3. Should the FIR against the husband and his family members be quashed due to delay?

Court Observations

Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi & Rohit Joshi

• The Court clarified that the limitation period for a 498-A case starts from the last act of cruelty, meaning each act of cruelty offers a new starting point for the limitation period.
• However, this limitation cannot continue indefinitely, as it would make Section 468 CrPC meaningless.
• If the legislature intended to exclude Section 498-A IPC from limitation rules, it would have explicitly stated so.

The husband argued that:

• Since the last act of cruelty occurred in October 2019, the FIR filed in January 2023 was beyond the three-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC.
• Even the complaint to the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell (November 2022) was filed beyond three years.
• Hence, the charge sheet and FIR should be quashed as time-barred.

However, the prosecution countered that:

• Sections 468 and 473 CrPC, when read together, allow for extension of limitation if the delay is properly explained or if it is in the interest of justice.
• The Covid-19 pandemic led to extensions of the limitation period under Supreme Court orders, which applied to this case.

The Court also noted that:

• The Supreme Court extended limitation periods due to Covid-19 until June 2022.
• The delay in filing the FIR was only a few months after this extension ended.
• Given the serious nature of allegations (physical abuse, dowry demands), it was in the interest of justice to extend the limitation period.

Court Rulings & Decision

1. FIR against the husband was NOT quashed.
   • The Court extended the limitation period using Section 473 CrPC, considering the Covid-19 situation and Supreme Court directives.
   • The delay was only a few months, which was reasonable.
   • The case need not be sent back to the Magistrate to reconsider the limitation issue.
2. FIR against the husband's family was quashed.
   • The allegations against them were vague, general, and omnibus (not specific).
   • The Court criticized the over-implication of in-laws in matrimonial disputes, stating this case was an example of that.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 498-A IPC – Punishment for cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives. (Section 85 & 86 of BNS)
2. Section 468 CrPC – Time limit for taking cognizance of certain offences (three years for 498-A IPC). (Section 514 of BNSS)
3. Section 473 CrPC – Allows extension of limitation if the delay is justified or in the interest of justice. (Section 519 of BNSS)
4. Supreme Court Orders on Covid-19 – Extended limitation periods for filing cases due to the pandemic.

Significance of the Judgment

• Clarifies that limitation for 498-A cases starts from the last act of cruelty but is not indefinite.
• Reinforces that Covid-19-related delays in filing cases can be excused under Section 473 CrPC.
• Prevents misuse of 498-A IPC by quashing cases based on vague allegations against in-laws.

The Bombay High Court upheld the FIR against the husband but quashed it against his family members. It ruled that while limitation applies to 498-A cases, it can be extended for valid reasons, like Covid-19 delays. The decision protects genuine victims while preventing misuse of domestic violence laws against in-laws.

Case Name: Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 887 of 2023)

3). 216 IPC Harbouring Offence: Accused Must Be Aware of Conviction, Rules Karnataka High Court 

Case Background

A man named Udaya Kumar Shetty was charged under Section 216 IPC for allegedly harbouring a convicted murderer in his house.

The police were searching for Sharan Poojary, who had been convicted of murder (Section 302 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. When the police failed to locate him, they found and arrested him in the house of the petitioner (Udaya Kumar Shetty).

The petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the case against him.

Issues in the Case

1. Did the petitioner (Udaya Kumar Shetty) have knowledge that Sharan Poojary was a convicted murderer?
2. Did he intentionally harbour the convict to protect him from the police?
3. Should the case against the petitioner continue in the absence of evidence of his intent?

Court Observations

Bench: Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar

• The key requirement for an offence under Section 216 IPC is that the accused must have had:
  1. Knowledge that the person he harboured was a convict.
  2. The intention to help the convict evade arrest.
• In this case, the petitioner argued that he did not know about Sharan Poojary’s conviction.
• The prosecution did not present any evidence to prove that the petitioner was aware of the conviction.

The Court also examined the call records and messages of the petitioner and found that:

• There were no messages or calls that indicated the petitioner was aware of the conviction.
• There was no proof that he knowingly helped the convict evade arrest.

Thus, the Court held that there was no material evidence to continue the case against the petitioner.

Court Rulings & Decision

1. Case against the petitioner quashed.
   • The Court ruled that proceeding with the case would be an abuse of the legal process as there was no evidence to support the charges.
   • The petitioner did not have knowledge of the conviction and did not intentionally harbour the convict.
2. Reaffirmed the requirements under Section 216 IPC
   • Simply being present in the same house as a convict is not enough to charge someone under Section 216 IPC.
   • The accused must have knowledge of the conviction and must intentionally protect the convict.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 216 IPC – Punishment for harbouring an offender who has been convicted and is evading arrest. (Section 253 of BNS)
2. Sections 120B, 109, and 302 IPC – Used in convicting Sharan Poojary for criminal conspiracy, abetment, and murder. (61(2) of BNS, 49 of BNS, 103(1) of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment

• Protects innocent persons from being falsely accused of harbouring criminals without proper evidence.
• Clarifies the importance of "knowledge" and "intention" in Section 216 IPC cases.
• Prevents abuse of legal provisions by ensuring that mere presence with a convict is not enough for conviction.

The Karnataka High Court quashed the case against Udaya Kumar Shetty, ruling that there was no evidence that he knew about the conviction or intentionally harboured the convict. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that knowledge and intent are necessary to establish guilt under Section 216 IPC.

Case Name: Udaya Kumar Shetty AND State of Karnataka 

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14164 OF 2024

4). Gujarat High Court Denies Bail to Drug Manufacturer, Calls NDPS Offences a 'Menace' to Youth

Case Background

The Gujarat High Court recently denied regular bail to Pragnesh Thummar, who was booked under the NDPS Actfor being the main manufacturer of the narcotic drug Mephedrone. The police arrested him after recovering 1011.82 grams of the drug, which falls under the "commercial quantity" category.

The case began when the police received a tip-off that one of the accused, Salman @ Aman Mohammed Hanif Zaveri, was transporting Mephedrone in his car for sale in Surat City. A raid was conducted, and the police caught Salmanalong with the contraband substance. After an investigation, the FIR was registered, and the present applicant (Pragnesh Thummar) was also arrested.

Issues in the Case

1. Should the accused be granted bail despite being allegedly involved in the large-scale manufacture of drugs?
2. Does the evidence collected by the police satisfy the strict conditions for bail under the NDPS Act?
3. Is the accused’s role significant enough to justify rejecting bail?

Court Observations

Bench: Justice Divyesh A. Joshi

• The Court noted that the offences under the NDPS Act are a serious menace to society, particularly affecting the youth of the country.
• The accused is not merely in possession of a small quantity but is allegedly involved in a larger drug trafficking network.
• The police investigation revealed that Pragnesh Thummar, who had a pharmaceutical background, was the main manufacturer of Mephedrone.

Key Findings

1. Role of the Accused:
   • The applicant was not named in the original FIR, but his name surfaced through the statement of a co-accused.
   • The State argued that the accused rented a house for manufacturing the drug and misled the landlord by saying he was producing medicines for severe diseases.
   • Witness statements from chemical suppliers also linked him to drug manufacturing.
2. Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act:
   • Section 37 imposes strict conditions for granting bail when the offence involves commercial quantity of drugs.
   • The Court can only grant bail if:
     • The Public Prosecutor is heard, and
     • The Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit a similar offence.
   • In this case, the Court found no reasonable grounds to presume the accused was not guilty.
3. Social Impact of Drug Offences:
   • The Court emphasized that drug-related crimes are increasing and have a devastating effect on society, especially the youth.
   • It noted that Parliament introduced strict bail conditions under the NDPS Act to prevent the spread of drug abuse.

Court Ruling & Decision

• The Court denied bail to the accused, stating that:
  • The conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied.
  • The accused played a significant role in the crime.
  • Drug-related offences are a serious threat to society and cannot be taken lightly.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act
   • Prohibits manufacturing, selling, transporting, or possessing narcotic drugs without authorization.
2. Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act
   • Prescribes punishment for possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances.
3. Section 29 of the NDPS Act
   • Deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy in drug-related offences.
4. Section 37 of the NDPS Act
   • Imposes strict conditions for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of drugs.

Significance of the Case

• Strengthens the strict approach towards drug-related offences under the NDPS Act.
• Emphasizes the need for strict bail conditions to curb drug trafficking and manufacturing.
• Highlights the growing threat of narcotics affecting the youth and society at large.
• Sets a precedent that courts should carefully scrutinize bail applications in NDPS cases.

The Gujarat High Court’s decision reinforces the seriousness of drug-related crimes and the strict bail conditions under the NDPS Act. Given the strong evidence linking the accused to drug manufacturing, and the potential impact on society, the Court rightly refused to grant bail. This case serves as a warning against drug trafficking and highlights the judiciary’s role in combating the drug menace.

Case Name: Pragnesh Thummar v/s State of Gujarat

5). Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused, Says Extrajudicial Confession Lacks Credibility

Case Background

The Supreme Court recently acquitted an accused convicted of murdering his live-in partner, emphasizing the importance of strong and reliable evidence in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence.

The case involved an appellant accused who was convicted by the Trial Court for allegedly killing his partner following a quarrel. The High Court upheld this conviction. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession (a confession made outside the court, usually to a private individual) by the accused to his landlord and the deceased’s relatives.

The accused challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeal.

Issues in the Case

1. Can a conviction be based solely on circumstantial evidence?
2. How reliable is an extra-judicial confession in criminal cases?
3. Does the evidence in this case meet the standard for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

Court Observations

Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

• Strict Standard for Circumstantial Evidence
  • The Court reiterated the principle that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction is valid only if all circumstances conclusively point to the accused's guilt.
  • There should be no missing links in the chain of evidence, and the evidence must be totally inconsistent with any theory of innocence.
• Extra-Judicial Confession is Weak Evidence
  • Relying on Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Court stated that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence.
  • Such confessions must be made voluntarily, in a fit state of mind, and must be corroborated by other reliable evidence.
  • The Court noted that in this case, the accused was in a confused state of mind when he made the alleged confession, raising doubts about its reliability.
• Unusual Conduct of the Accused and Witnesses
  • The Court found the accused’s behavior strange, as he first informed his landlord and the deceased’s brother instead of the police.
  • It also questioned the deceased’s brother’s reaction, as he calmly accompanied the accused back to the crime scene instead of immediately reporting the crime.
• Missing and Contradictory Evidence
  • There was no recovery of one of the murder weapons.
  • No blood-stained clothes of the accused were found.
  • Witness testimonies contained material omissions and contradictions between their police statements and courtroom testimonies.

Court Rulings & Decision

1. Circumstantial evidence must be strong and leave no room for doubt—in this case, there were gaps in the evidence.
2. Extra-judicial confession alone cannot be the basis of conviction—it must be credible and corroborated, which was not the case here.
3. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof—since the evidence was not strong enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was given the benefit of the doubt.
4. The accused’s conviction was quashed, and the Court directed his immediate release.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 161 CrPC (Statements to Police)
   • Witnesses had made statements to the police, but their court testimonies contained material omissions, weakening the prosecution’s case. (Section 180 of BNSS)
2. Judicial Precedents on Circumstantial Evidence
   • State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 – Confession must be made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind.
   • Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403 – Extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and must be corroborated.

Significance of the Case

• Strengthens the legal standard for circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.
• Reiterates that extra-judicial confessions alone are insufficient for conviction.
• Upholds the principle that suspicion cannot replace conclusive proof in criminal trials.
• Ensures that courts carefully evaluate evidence before convicting an accused.

The Supreme Court quashed the murder conviction, ruling that the circumstantial evidence was weak and did not conclusively prove guilt. The extra-judicial confession was unreliable, and material evidence was missing or contradictory. By giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, the Court reinforced the principle that a person cannot be convicted on mere suspicion or weak evidence.

Case Name: Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs State Of Maharashtra., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2013

Add-On

No Violation of Natural Justice If Accused Not Given Advance Copy of PMLA Application Under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Allahabad High Court 

Case Background

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is not required to provide an advance copy of an application filed under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) to the accused. The Court held that the accused has no right to oppose such an application, and therefore, non-service of the copy does not violate the principles of natural justice.

This case arose from the Shine City Scam, where a massive financial fraud was uncovered. The accused, who was already in jail, was being further investigated. The ED approached the Special PMLA Court in Lucknow, seeking permission to confront the accused in jail with new evidence collected during the investigation. The Special Court allowed the request, leading the accused to challenge the order before the High Court.

Issues in the Case

1. Does the accused have the right to receive an advance copy of an ED application under Section 50 of PMLA?
2. Does not providing the application copy violate the principles of natural justice?
3. Can the accused be further interrogated after a chargesheet has already been filed?

Court Observations

Bench: Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan

• ED’s Power to Summon & Interrogate:
  • Under Section 50 of PMLA, ED officers can summon any person and request information related to an ongoing investigation.
  • The accused is required to provide truthful information and cooperate with the investigation.
• Ongoing Investigation Justifies Further Questioning:
  • The Shine City Scam involves fraud worth thousands of crores.
  • Since new evidence was found, the ED needed to confront the accused to record his statement.
  • The Court emphasized that investigations can continue even after a chargesheet is filed if new evidence emerges.
• No Right to Oppose ED’s Application:
  • The accused moved the High Court, arguing that he should have received an advance copy of the ED’s application.
  • However, the Court ruled that since the accused had no right to oppose the application, not providing a copy did not violate natural justice.
• Principles of Natural Justice Are Not Violated:
  • The Court clarified that while providing a copy would have been an "abundant precaution," its absence does not affect fairness.
  • The accused still had an opportunity to admit or deny the evidence when confronted by the ED.
• Balancing Equity – Presence of Legal Counsel Permitted:
  • To ensure fairness, the Court directed that the accused’s statement be recorded in the jail superintendent's office.
  • His legal counsel would be present to assist him during the interrogation.

Court Rulings & Decision

1. The ED is not required to provide an advance copy of its application under Section 50 of PMLA to the accused.
2. Investigations can continue even after the chargesheet is filed if new evidence is found.
3. Not providing the application copy does not violate natural justice since the accused had no right to oppose the application.
4. The accused’s statement will be recorded in the jail superintendent's office in the presence of his legal counsel.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 50 of the PMLA
   • Empowers ED officers to summon individuals, request documents, and record statements.
   • Individuals must provide truthful information when summoned.
2. Principles of Natural Justice
   • Ensure fairness in legal proceedings.
   • In this case, the Court held that the accused's rights were not violated since he had no right to challenge the ED’s application.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies that accused persons have limited rights in ED investigations under PMLA.
• Reinforces that further investigation is permissible even after a chargesheet is filed.
• Sets a precedent that non-supply of ED applications does not amount to a violation of natural justice.
• Ensures fairness by allowing legal counsel during interrogation in jail.

The Allahabad High Court upheld the ED’s power to summon and interrogate the accused even after the filing of a chargesheet, stating that the accused does not have the right to oppose such an application. The Court struck a balance between investigative needs and fairness, ensuring that while the accused was not entitled to an advance copy of the ED’s application, his lawyer would be present during questioning. This ruling reinforces the broad powers of the ED under PMLA and ensures that financial fraud investigations can proceed without unnecessary legal obstructions.

Case Name: Udhaw Singh vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Lko. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 55 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 850 of 2025]