Read 4 minutes

Continuing the journey through key judgments from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Indian Evidence Act, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), this blog presents five more critical cases that every judiciary aspirant should know. These cases provide deep insights into fundamental legal principles and judicial interpretations, making them essential for both exams and practical understanding.

1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)

Relevant Statutes: Section 125 (CrPC)

Facts:
Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, sought maintenance from her husband, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, after he divorced her by triple talaq. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, which allows a wife (or former wife) to claim maintenance if unable to support herself. The husband argued that under Islamic law, his obligations ended after the ‘iddat’ period.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, holding that Section 125 of CrPC applies to all, irrespective of religion, and the husband must provide maintenance. The judgment stressed that personal laws cannot override constitutional rights to equality and protection.
Key Takeaway:
This case is critical for judiciary aspirants as it balances personal laws and uniform civil principles, establishing a precedent for maintenance rights under CrPC.

2. R v. Govinda (1876)

Relevant Statutes: Sections 299 and 300 (IPC)

Facts:
This case involved the accused, Govinda, who hit the deceased on the head with a brick, resulting in death. The issue before the court was whether the act amounted to murder (Section 300 IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC).
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 299 IPC because there was no premeditated intent to cause death, but the act was likely to result in death. The case clarified the fine distinction between Section 299 and 300 of IPC.
Key Takeaway:
Judiciary aspirants must understand the difference between murder and culpable homicide, and this case serves as a guiding precedent for interpreting these sections of the IPC.

3. Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi) (2020)

Relevant Statutes: Sections 376, 302, 34 (IPC), Section 235 (CrPC)

Facts:
In one of the most heinous crimes in modern India, the accused were charged with the gang-rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi. The brutality of the crime led to widespread public outrage. The legal questions revolved around the admissibility of evidence, sentencing, and the application of death penalty guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the convicts, calling the crime a “rarest of rare” case under the guidelines laid out in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. The court relied heavily on forensic and medical evidence, reasserting the relevance of Sections 376 and 302 IPC.
Key Takeaway:
This case underscores the judicial approach to heinous crimes involving sexual violence and serves as a benchmark for interpreting the “rarest of rare” doctrine under CrPC.

4. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014)

Relevant Statutes: Section 326A, 326B (IPC)

Facts:
Laxmi, a victim of an acid attack, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking stricter regulation on the sale of acid and better compensation for victims. The legal issue involved whether the government was taking adequate measures to curb such crimes and to provide rehabilitation to victims.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court directed the government to regulate the sale of acid and ensure free medical treatment and compensation for acid attack victims. The court’s interpretation of Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC, which deal with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid, was critical in enhancing the legal framework for acid attack cases.
Key Takeaway:
Judiciary aspirants should be aware of how social reforms influence statutory interpretations and how courts can enforce stringent rules through public interest litigation.

5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987)

Relevant Statutes: Section 268 (IPC), Article 21 (Constitution)

Facts:
This case arose from a gas leak in Delhi, which endangered the lives of many residents. M.C. Mehta filed a petition under Article 32, claiming that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution had been violated. The issue concerned corporate liability for environmental damage and public nuisance under Section 268 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that the right to life includes the right to a healthy environment. The court introduced the concept of absolute liability, stating that industries engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for any harm caused, regardless of fault.
Key Takeaway:
This case is significant for judiciary aspirants as it introduces concepts of public liability and environmental protection, linking criminal law with constitutional safeguards.

Conclusion

These additional five cases represent a cross-section of legal principles governing criminal law, evidence, and procedure. Together with the earlier set, they provide judiciary aspirants with a comprehensive understanding of landmark judgments that have shaped Indian law. Mastering these cases will not only enhance preparation for exams but also enrich practical knowledge of key legal doctrines.