Review Of Landmark Criminal Judgments
I. REVIEW OF LANDMARK CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Facts: Though primarily a constitutional case, it impacted criminal law by defining the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights including criminal procedural safeguards.
Held: Fundamental rights, including rights under criminal law, are inviolable beyond basic structure.
Significance: Reinforced rights of accused in criminal trials and limits on arbitrary legislative power.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi challenged the impounding of her passport, citing Article 21.
Held: Supreme Court expanded “procedure established by law” to require fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Significance: Crucial in criminal procedure reforms; Article 21 protections apply to preventive detention, arrests, and custodial procedures.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts: Multiple murders investigated using scientific evidence.
Held: Court upheld conviction based on forensic evidence like DNA, ballistics, and mobile tracking, emphasizing scientific corroboration.
Significance: Landmark for acceptance of forensic and technological evidence in criminal trials.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Constitutional challenge to the death penalty under Article 21 and 14.
Held: Death penalty is constitutional but to be applied only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Significance: Established principle limiting capital punishment and guiding sentencing in murder cases.
5. State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Ramchandra Rajurkar (2005)
Facts: Accused involved in organized crime and murder.
Held: Court emphasized strict adherence to criminal procedure, admissibility of confessions, and the need for circumstantial and corroborative evidence.
Significance: Reinforced procedural safeguards and evidence standards in serious crimes.
6. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Murder case solved using DNA and CCTV evidence.
Held: Court admitted DNA evidence as primary proof.
Significance: Landmark for integrating modern forensic science in criminal jurisprudence.
7. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)
Facts: Issue of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain mapping tests.
Held: Voluntary consent required; involuntary tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21.
Significance: Protects constitutional rights of the accused against invasive investigative techniques.
8. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: Custodial deaths and abuse.
Held: Supreme Court issued guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent torture.
Significance: Landmark for custodial rights and police accountability.
II. KEY PRINCIPLES FROM LANDMARK CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS
Protection of fundamental rights: Articles 20, 21, and 14 are core to criminal procedure.
Death penalty restrictions: Bachan Singh principle – “rarest of rare”.
Forensic and technological evidence: DNA, ballistics, and digital tracking are admissible and credible.
Custodial safeguards: Guidelines to prevent abuse during arrests and detention (D.K. Basu).
Consent in investigative techniques: Voluntary consent mandatory for narco, polygraph, or brain mapping tests (Selvi).
Procedural fairness: Arrest, detention, and trial procedures must be fair, reasonable, and follow legal standards.
III. SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati | 1973 | Fundamental rights | Basic structure limits Parliament |
| Maneka Gandhi | 1978 | Passport/Article 21 | Procedure must be fair and just |
| Kashi Ram | 2006 | Forensic evidence in murder | DNA and ballistics accepted |
| Bachan Singh | 1980 | Death penalty | Applied in rarest of rare cases |
| Somnath Rajurkar | 2005 | Evidence standards | Procedural adherence and corroboration |
| Tukaram Dighole | 2010 | DNA evidence | Modern forensic science admissible |
| Selvi | 2010 | Narco/polygraph | Voluntary consent required |
| D.K. Basu | 1997 | Custodial rights | Guidelines to prevent torture |
RELATED Blog
0 comments