Target CLAT 2026 (Crash Course) Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) Starting On: 22 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Lucknow Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Karol Bagh Starting On: 12 May 2025 (Admission Open)
         









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Absence of Motive

 22-Apr-2025

Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT of Delhi 

“When the circumstances are very convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused and not to any other hypothesis; the total absence of a motive will be of no consequence.” 

Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran has held that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution’s case when there exists strong, convincing, and unbroken circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT Of Delhi (2025).

What was the Background of Subhash Aggarwal v. The State of NCT Of Delhi (2025) Case? 

  • Subhash Aggarwal was charged with the murder of his son under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and violations under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 
  • The incident occurred on the night of 14th/15th December 2012 at the family residence, where Aggarwal lived with his wife and three children, including the deceased who was his youngest son and only male child among five children. 
  • The prosecution alleged that Aggarwal shot his son using a licensed double-barrel gun without a butt and with a shortened barrel, causing a fatal gunshot to wound to the chest. 
  • The initial claim made by Aggarwal was that his son had committed suicide using a screwdriver, which was later contradicted by medical evidence showing a gunshot wound. 
  • Forensic evidence revealed gunshot residue on Aggarwal's right hand (his dominant hand), and residue was also found around the entry wound on the deceased's clothing. 
  • The wife (PW-3) and two daughters (PW-1 and PW-4) testified that they were sleeping in a separate room when they were awakened by Aggarwal's shouts about his son being dead. 
  • A neighbor (PW-11) testified that when he arrived at the scene, Aggarwal was attempting to convince everyone that the deceased had committed suicide with a screwdriver, despite there being no blood on the implement. 
  • The Trial Court convicted Aggarwal of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, with additional sentences for offences under the Arms Act. The High Court subsequently confirmed this conviction. 
  • The defence primarily argued that there was no established motive for Aggarwal to kill his only son, suggesting instead that the death was a suicide. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme Court held that absence of motive is not fatal to a prosecution case when strong circumstantial evidence establishes an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the accused. 
  • The Court observed that while motive is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and constitutes an important element in circumstantial evidence cases, it becomes less significant when there is compelling direct evidence implicating the accused. 
  • The Court noted that "Motive remains hidden in the inner recesses of the mind of the perpetrator, which cannot, oftener than ever, be ferreted out by the investigation agency." 
  • The Court emphasized that even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused to commit a particular offence, it does not lead to a conviction by itself if the eyewitnesses are not convincing or the chain of circumstances is incomplete. 
  • Conversely, the Court stated that when circumstances are convincing and provide an unbroken chain leading only to the conclusion of guilt, the total absence of a motive becomes inconsequential. 
  • The Court referred to established precedent in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995), which held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive would "supply a link in the chain of circumstances," but absence of motive cannot be grounds to reject the prosecution case entirely. 
  • The Court rejected the appellant's explanation that the gun was hidden by his children as implausible, given testimony that the weapon was in his exclusive custody and only he knew how to operate it. 
  • The Court found the appellant's conduct immediately after discovering the body—falsely claiming suicide by screwdriver—to be a deliberate falsehood that strengthened the case against him. 
  • The Court determined that the medical evidence showing the gunshot was fired from "close range" rather than "contact range" undermined the suicide theory. 
  • The Court concluded that the circumstances formed a complete chain that led only to the hypothesis of the appellant's guilt and not to any hypothesis of innocence. 

What is Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA ) ? 

  • Previously this Section was covered under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act,1872. 
  • Section 6 of the BSA establishes that facts showing or constituting motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact are themselves relevant. 
  • The conduct of any party or agent to a proceeding, in reference to such proceeding or any fact in issue, is legally relevant. 
  • The conduct of a person against whom an offence is the subject of proceedings is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
  • Both previous and subsequent conduct may be deemed legally relevant under this section. 
  • "Conduct" under this section specifically excludes statements unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements themselves. 
  • This exclusion of statements from the definition of conduct does not affect the relevancy of statements under other sections of the Act. 
  • When a person's conduct is relevant, any statement made to them or in their presence and hearing that affects such conduct is also deemed relevant. 
  • The section creates a legal framework for admitting evidence of motive, preparation, and conduct that might otherwise be considered too remote from the primary facts at issue. 
  • Section 6 establishes a causal connection requirement between the conduct and facts in issue - the conduct must either influence or be influenced by facts in issue. 
  • The section encompasses both pre-incident conduct (showing preparation or motive) and post-incident conduct (potentially showing consciousness of guilt or innocence).

Criminal Law

Issue of Non - Bailable Warrants

 22-Apr-2025

Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another 

“Observing that issuance of non bailable warrant "must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. ” 

Justice Sumeet Goel 

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sumeet Goel held that non-bailable warrants must not be issued mechanically and can only be justified by cogent reasons reflecting necessity, especially in the absence of misconduct or deliberate evasion. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another (2025) Case? 

  • The case involves a petitioner named Jaskaran Singh who was facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(cheque bounce case). After being granted bail on July 18, 2023, the petitioner regularly attended court hearings. However, on October 11, 2024, he failed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, allegedly due to health issues. 
  • The petitioner has been suffering from abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy since 2021, a condition that affects his cognitive and physical abilities. This medical condition was supported by medical reports submitted to the court. 
  • Upon his absence on October 11, 2024, the trial court cancelled his bail and issued non-bailable warrants against him. Additionally, proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were initiated against the petitioner. 
  • The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the trial court's order, arguing that his non-appearance was unintentional and solely due to his health condition.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. 
  • The Court noted that the trial court's direct issuance of non-bailable warrants without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner was arbitrary and contrary to procedural safeguards enshrined under law. 
  • The Court held that the cancellation of bail and issuance of arrest warrants amounted to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings. 
  • The court held that the primary object of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds is to secure the presence of the accused, and the petitioner had shown willingness to appear before the trial court on subsequent dates. 
  • The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments establishing that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative, but to secure the appearance of the accused at trial. 
  • The Court observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon, reinforcing the principle that punishment begins after conviction. 

What is a Non-Bailable Warrant? 

  • A non-bailable warrant is a judicial directive that authorizes law enforcement agencies to arrest a person and produce them before the court, without providing the option of immediate bail upon arrest. 
  • When a non-bailable warrant is issued, the arrested individual cannot be released on bail by the police officer executing the warrant; instead, bail can only be granted by a competent court after consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. 
  • The issuance of non-bailable warrants is typically reserved for serious offenses, cases where the accused has repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite opportunities, or situations where the court has reasonable grounds to believe the accused may abscond or tamper with evidence. 
  • Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the form of warrants of arrest, while Sections 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, and 80 provide the procedural framework for the execution of such warrants. 
  • As established in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely or mechanically, but only after proper judicial consideration of the circumstances necessitating such a serious restriction on liberty. 
  • The execution of non-bailable warrants must follow specific procedural safeguards, including informing the arrested person of the contents of the warrant and producing them before the court without delay, generally within 24 hours of arrest. 

Criminal Law

Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings

 22-Apr-2025

SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr 

“It is thus apparent that the finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in 138 NI Act proceedings between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue.” 

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that res judicata applies to criminal proceedings as well. 

  • The Supreme Court held this in the case of SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025). 

What was the Background of SC Garg v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Case?   

  • S.C. Garg (appellant) was the Managing Director of Ruchira Papers Ltd., a company manufacturing craft papers. 
  • The company had business dealings with ID Packaging, a partnership concern of R.N. Tyagi (respondent no. 2). 
  • Between December 1997 and January 1998, Tyagi issued 11 cheques to Ruchira Papers Ltd., which were initially dishonoured due to insufficient funds. 
  • Both parties agreed to present the cheques again later upon Tyagi's instructions. 
  • For liabilities other than those covered by the 11 cheques, Tyagi issued 3 demand drafts to Garg's company. 
  • When the 11 cheques were presented again on 8th June 1998, only 4 were cleared, while the remaining 7 cheques were dishonoured. 
  • Garg's company filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against ID Packaging and Tyagi regarding the 7 dishonoured cheques. 
  • On 25th October 2002, the Magistrate convicted Tyagi, rejecting his defense that the debt had already been paid through demand drafts. 
  • Tyagi was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 3,20,385/- (the total amount of the 7 dishonoured cheques). 
  • The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Tyagi's appeal against the conviction on 17th March 2005. 
  • While Tyagi's criminal revision petition was pending, the High Court disposed of multiple proceedings between the parties on 10th October 2012, based on a compromise. 
  • The compromise involved Tyagi paying Rs. 3,20,385/- to Garg's company in full satisfaction of all claims. 
  • During the ongoing proceedings, Tyagi filed an application seeking registration of an FIR against Garg, alleging that despite payment through demand drafts, Garg fraudulently presented the cheques again and received payment for 4 of them. 
  • An FIR (No. 549 of 1998) was registered against Garg, but not against his company, and a charge sheet was filed. 
  • The Magistrate summoned the accused persons, including Garg, on 19th June, 2002. 
  • Garg filed a petition to quash the chargesheet and summoning order, which was dismissed by the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Court held that the finding recorded by the finding recorded by the jurisdictional criminal court in Section 138 NI Act proceeding between the parties would be binding to both the parties in any subsequent proceedings involving the same issue. 
  • The Court discussed the law on applicability of res judicata in criminal matters. 
  • The Court held that the two decisions where res judicata was not applied to criminal proceedings involved petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
    • In the case of Devendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009) the first petition was for quashing of the FIR and the second petition was preferred after the Magistrate took cognizance of the matter. 
    • In the case of Muskan Enterprises & Anr v. State of Punjab (2024) the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn whereas the second petition was held not maintainable due to earlier withdrawal without any liberty. 
  • The Court thus held that Tyagi cannot maintain a prosecution on the basis of allegations which were precisely his defence in the earlier proceedings wherein he was an accused. Thus, the present criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 
  • The Court quashed the proceedings under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What is the Law Surrounding Applicability of Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings? 

  • The question as to the applicability of principle of res judicata in criminal matters have been considered by this Court in several decisions 
  • In the case of Pritam Singh v. The State of Punjab (1956) the Court cited the case of Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of Malya (1950) and laid down the following: 
    • The maxim of res judicata is applicable to criminal as well as civil proceeding. 
    • The case involves accused Pritam Singh who was first tried and acquitted under the Arms Act for possession of a weapon. 
    • In a subsequent murder trial, the prosecution attempted to use the same weapon recovery as evidence against him. 
    • The Additional Sessions Judge in the murder case disregarded the previous acquittal, stating that opinions in the earlier judgment were not binding and irrelevant under the Indian Evidence Act. 
    • The Additional Sessions Judge independently evaluated the evidence and concluded the weapon recovery was proven against Pritam Singh. 
    • The High Court disagreed with this approach and cited Lord MacDermott's observations from Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor (1950). 
    • Lord MacDermott's cited opinion states that an acquittal verdict is not only a bar to retrial for the same offense but is "binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties." 
    • The High Court affirmed that the maxim "res judicata pro veritate accipitur" (a matter adjudged is accepted as the truth) applies to criminal proceedings as well as civil ones. 
    • According to this principle, once Pritam Singh was acquitted of possessing ammunition, the prosecution was bound to accept that verdict and could not challenge it in the second trial. 
  • In Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1972) the Court approved the view laid down in the case of Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of Malya (1950).