Penal code, 1860, section 34– A co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act. If the final outcome or offence committed is distinctly remote and unconnected with the common intention, he would not be liable – merely accompanying the principal accused may not establish common intention – a co-perpetrator, who shares a common intention, will be liable only to the extent that he intends or could or should have visualized the possibility or probability of the final act – The ambit should not be extended so as to hold a person liable for remote possibilities, which were not probable and could not be envisaged. (para 13,19) Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu vs State of Karnataka, 2022 (4) SCC 176.
Penal Code,1860; section 302 – In order to convict an accused under section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death. (para8) Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2022 SC 2542.
Penal code, 1860; section 366 – Appeal against High Court judgement which refused to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant accused of abducting/kidnapping a girl – allowed – the abductee had clearly stated that she was neither taken away nor induced and that she had left her home of her own will – no fruitful purpose would be served by relegating the matter for conducting the trial as the same would not be conducive for either of the appelants.it would be a futile exercise. Mafat Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 6 SCC 589.
Penal code, 1860; section 498A – Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against relatives of husband would simply result in an abuse of the process of law – if allegations made against them are general and omnibus, they do not warrant prosecution. (para 19-21). Penal code, 1860; section 498A – Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC – the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramification of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgements has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. (para 18). Penal code, 1860; section 498A – General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged (para22)Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, AIR 2022 SC 820 : (2022) 6 SCC 599.
Penal code, 1860; section 498A- expected approach of the High court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes – the duty of the court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes. (para 8-9)Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, 2022
Penal code, 1860; section 498A – Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A. Deepak Sharma v. State of Hrayana, 2022
![\"\"](\"https://advsaikatrahman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Artboard-8-100-1-1024x683.jpg\")
