6 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Limitation For Prosecuting One Under Section 498A IPC will Commence From Last Incident of Cruelty

Case- Musin Thengade vs. State of Maharashtra

Date of Order- January 29, 2025

Bench- Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit Joshi

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the limitation period under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for offenses under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) begins from the last instance of cruelty. This section addresses cruelty against married women.

Court Decision: The Bombay High Court held that the limitation period for prosecution under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) begins from the last act of cruelty, considering it as a "continuing offence."

Case Involved: The bench was dealing with a petition filed by a family seeking to quash an FIR lodged against them on January 6, 2023, for an incident of cruelty that allegedly took place on October 20, 2019.

Section 498-A of IPC: This section pertains to cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife. The punishment under this section is up to 3 years in prison, and the limitation period for filing a case under this section is 3 years, according to Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Husband's Argument: The husband argued that the FIR was filed in January 2023 for an incident from October 2019, and the complaint to the Women's Grievance Redressal Cell was also made after the three-year limitation period. He claimed that taking cognizance of the offence was beyond the prescribed limitation.

Prosecution's Argument: The prosecution pointed out that the limitation can be extended under Section 473 of the CrPC if the delay is explained or if it is in the interest of justice. The judges agreed with this, particularly considering the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Covid-19 Impact: The judges noted that the lockdown imposed in March 2020 had led to an extension of the limitation period by the Supreme Court until June 2022. This was taken into account when deciding whether the limitation period should be extended.

Court's Opinion: The court found that the delay in filing the FIR and taking cognizance was not significant enough to bar the case. The delay was under one month if the complaint to the Women's Grievance Redressal Cell was considered, and under three and a half months from the FIR.

Decision on the FIR: The court refused to quash the FIR against the husband, stating it was in the interest of justice to allow the case to proceed, despite the limitation period.

Quashing of FIR for Family Members: The court quashed the FIR against the husband's family, stating that the allegations against them were vague, general, and unspecific, and appeared to be an attempt to implicate them in the matrimonial dispute.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of, with the FIR against the husband allowed to stand and the FIR against the family members quashed.

2. Omission to Name Some Accused in FIR is a Relevant Fact Under Section 11 Evidence Act

Case- State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raghuvir Singh

Date of Order- January 23, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the acquittal of Raghuvir Singh, who was previously convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, stated that the failure to name all perpetrators in the First Information Report (FIR) is unnatural and weakens the complainant’s credibility under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act. 

Background

• The case relates to an incident on August 28, 2004, where Rajkumar was allegedly attacked and beheaded near a tube well in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
• The next day, Ompal Singh (Rajkumar's father) lodged an FIR, accusing Raghuvir Singh and two unidentified individuals of the crime.
• The prosecution argued that the murder was motivated by long-standing animosity between the families, stemming from Raghuvir Singh allegedly murdering the complainant’s brother in 1991.

Trial and High Court Decisions

• The trial court convicted Raghuvir Singh based on eyewitness testimonies from the complainant, his brother, and another relative, sentencing him to life imprisonment.
• The Allahabad High Court overturned the conviction on February 13, 2015, citing inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and a lack of independent corroboration.
• The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

• Omission of Co-Accused in FIR: The complainant only named Raghuvir Singh in the FIR, omitting the two juvenile co-accused, which the Supreme Court found unnatural and suspicious, deeming it relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• Delay in FIR Registration: The FIR was registered 14 hours after the murder, raising concerns about potential fabrication, requiring a satisfactory explanation to avoid suspicion.
• Credibility of Eyewitness Testimonies: The eyewitnesses did not immediately report the crime, which the court found unnatural and casting doubt on their statements.
• Reliability of Defense Evidence: The defense presented independent witnesses, and the Court emphasized that defense evidence should be treated equally with prosecution evidence.

Supreme Court Observations

• The Supreme Court referenced Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 1026), emphasizing that omissions of important facts that affect the probabilities of the case are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act when assessing the prosecution’s case.
• The Court found the delay in filing the FIR and the inconsistent eyewitness accounts weakened the prosecution’s case.
• The court held that a crime witness would usually mention all perpetrators in the FIR. Selectively naming some while omitting others is unnatural and diminishes the credibility of the complainant’s account.

Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court upheld Raghuvir Singh's acquittal, reinforcing that the omission of co-accused names in the FIR was unnatural and created reasonable doubt, necessitating the benefit of doubt for the accused.

3. Acquittal in Criminal Case Doesn’t Bar Departmental Proceedings Against Public Servant

Case- Airports Authority of India vs. Pradip Kumar Banarjee

Date of Order- February 4, 2025

Bench- Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether an acquittal in a criminal case bars departmental proceedings against a public servant. The court, with Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sandeep Mehta, held that an acquittal in a criminal case does not prevent or halt a disciplinary inquiry.

Key Points

Standard of Proof: The court noted that criminal proceedings require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," while departmental inquiries only need a "preponderance of probabilities".

Airports Authority of India (AAI) Case: The case involved an AAI employee who was acquitted of corruption charges due to insufficient evidence but still faced a departmental inquiry. The Calcutta High Court overturned the employee's dismissal, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, reinstating the dismissal.

Disciplinary Authority's Role: The Supreme Court emphasized that an employer's disciplinary authority is distinct from criminal proceedings. Disciplinary actions can be taken even if the employee was acquitted in a related criminal case. The disciplinary authority does not need to provide detailed reasons in disciplinary orders, as long as they examine the evidence and reasonably conclude the employee's guilt based on the "preponderance of probabilities".

High Court Error: Justice Mehta, who authored the judgment, stated that the High Court was wrong in substituting the standard of proof required in a criminal trial for that of a disciplinary inquiry.

Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings: The Supreme Court has also discussed the validity of disciplinary proceedings based on the same evidence as a criminal case that resulted in acquittal, clarifying that a mere acquittal doesn't automatically grant reinstatement. However, if the acquittal follows full consideration of evidence and concludes the prosecution failed to prove the charges, disciplinary proceedings may be quashed.

The Supreme Court's decision reinforces that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials operate under different legal frameworks, allowing employers to maintain discipline and uphold public trust in government institutions.