Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The Supreme Court held that two life sentences imposed in a single trial for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old, under Section 302 and Section 376 read with Section 342 IPC, cannot be directed to run consecutively. Applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam, it set aside the Trial Court's consecutive-sentence direction, confirmed by the Bombay High Court, and directed that the two life sentences be superimposed, so that remission or commutation of one does not ipso facto remit the other (paras 15-18).

The Supreme Court held that the bail bar in Section 43D(7) of the UAP Act applies only when the prosecution prima facie shows that the accused is not an Indian citizen and entered India unauthorisedly or illegally. A visa overstay after a lawful entry does not qualify. Dismissing the Union's appeal, it upheld the Madras High Court's order restoring an alleged Sri Lankan national's default bail (paras 30-31, 47, 50).

The Supreme Court set aside directions of the Orissa High Court which, after refusing anticipatory bail to the accused in a 2010 murder FIR from Rayagada, told them to surrender and directed the trial court to release them on regular bail on fixed terms. Once anticipatory bail was refused, it was not for the High Court to direct how the future should unfold. The magistrate's bail order fell with those directions, and the accused must surrender within two weeks (paras 3-6).

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and acquitted them (paras 1, 57). It held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC because the complainant's first report at a police chowki was never produced, found her minority unproved, and rejected the DNA report because the chain of custody of the samples was not established (paras 19-20, 29, 44).

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed four appeals by ten accused in an NIA case over explosive material allegedly seized from a car at Nimbahera in 2022, upholding the order of 31 July 2024 framing charges (paras 2, 59-60). An accused's absence from the car or the lack of recovery from him does not answer an alleged prior conspiracy at the charge stage; the evidence is for trial. The dismissal is not a finding of guilt (para 60).

The Rajasthan High Court stayed a 2013 conviction under Sections 366, 451 and 323/34 IPC until the appellant's criminal appeal is decided, so that he may contest the upcoming Panchayat elections if otherwise eligible (para 6). Treating the power as extraordinary, the Court examined the record and found that the woman's testimony needed further critical appreciation and a key witness was not produced (paras 5-5.3). It decided only the stay application; the appeal, pending since 2013, is yet to be heard (paras 2-3, 6).