LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Smruti Tukaram Badade vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 39Decided 11 Jan 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2019
Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · Surya Kant

Background

This order continues the Supreme Court's long-running effort (starting with Sakshi v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, and more recently State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat) to ensure a safe, barrier-free environment for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses, such as child witnesses and victims of sexual assault, in criminal trials. Notice had earlier been issued to all High Courts, and amicus curiae Ms Vibha Datta Makhija compiled a status report (as of 25 October 2021) on the state of "Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres" (VWDCs) across the country, showing wide variation: some High Courts had established multiple functioning centres, while many others (including Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Allahabad) had none at all.

Decision Breakdown

Exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court issued a comprehensive set of twelve directions. It expanded the definition of "vulnerable witness" beyond child witnesses to include age/gender-neutral victims of sexual assault, witnesses with mental illness, witnesses under threat perception under the Witness Protection Scheme, and speech/hearing-impaired individuals. It directed every High Court to adopt/notify a VWDC Scheme within two months, set up an in-house VWDC Committee, estimate costs and set up at least one permanent VWDC in every District Court establishment within four months, with State Governments required to sanction funds promptly. The Court also constituted a national Committee chaired by Justice (retired) Gita Mittal to design and implement an All-India VWDC training programme, with logistical and financial support to be coordinated through the Ministry of Women and Child Development and NALSA/State Legal Services Authorities.

Lesson Learnt

Ensuring dignity and a barrier-free environment for vulnerable witnesses (including sexual assault victims, children, and persons with disabilities) is treated by the Supreme Court as a facet of the constitutional right under Article 21, and the Court will use its Article 142 powers to impose concrete, time-bound, nationwide infrastructure and monitoring obligations on High Courts and governments to make that a reality, not just an aspiration.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case