Top 10 Criminal Law Cases of 2024 | Yearly Wrap-up

After covering 25 landmark cases and 10 major constitutional law rulings in the year 2024, we thought it would be super helpful to bring a yearly roundup of the most VIP criminal law cases of 2024. Whether you are a law student, a legal exam aspirant, a practising lawyer, or an academic, this blog is packed with insights (from criminal law) that you won't want to miss.

From child pornography to the controversial Google bail conditions and even a case around wishing Pakistan a "Happy Independence Day," the Supreme Court has delivered judgments that touch on critical issues affecting lakhs across India. According to NJDG data, 14,000+ criminal cases were disposed of in 2024. Out of many, we've highlighted the most landmark and important ones for you.

In this blog, you'll see summaries of the top criminal case judgments, including facts, key issues, relevant provisions, verdicts, and other cases cited. Keep reading!💯

#1. Viewing CESAM is punishable under POCSO Act.

Case Title: Just Rights For Children Alliance vs S. Harish

Bench: CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala

Facts

1. On 29 January 2020, the Police were informed that the accused person ("Respondent") was an active consumer of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CESAM), referred to as child pornography in the POCSO Act, and had allegedly downloaded material involving children on his mobile phone.
2. An FIR was registered against the Respondent under Section 67B of the IT Act and Section 14(1) of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, it was revealed that the Respondent used to watch pornography in college. The Computer Forensic Analysis Report found CESAM stored on the Respondent's mobile.
3. The chargesheet replaced Section 14(1) with Section 15(1) of the POCSO Act.
4. The Respondent petitioned to quash the criminal charges in the Madras High Court. On 11 January 2024, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings, holding that mere watching or downloading of CESAM without any transmission or publication was not an offence.

Issues

• Whether viewing CESAM is punishable under Section 15 of the POCSO Act and Section 67B of the IT Act?
• Can Section 30 of the POCSO Act (statutory presumption of culpable mental state) be invoked in a quashing petition?

Judgment

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and restored the criminal proceedings against the Respondent. Key points from the judgment include:

1. Scope of Section 15 of the POCSO Act: Section 15(1) penalizes the storage or possession of any CESAM, the failure to delete, destroy, or report it, and the intention to share such material. The actual transmission of CESAM is not required to attract liability under Section 15(1). The conduct penalized under Section 15 includes the failure to delete, destroy, or report CESAM stored or possessed to share it.

2. Viewing as Possession: The Court held that viewing CESAM amounts to possession, including constructive possession if the individual controls the material. This includes viewing CESAM without storing it on a device. Constructive possession ensures that an accused cannot avoid punishment by physically distancing themselves from the unlawful material.

3. No Requirement of Possession at FIR Registration: Section 15 does not specify when the person 'stored' or 'possessed' CESAM, meaning the offense occurs if it is established that the accused stored or possessed CESAM with the specified intention at any point, even before criminal proceedings.

4. Presumption of Criminal Mental State: Section 30 creates a rebuttable presumption of malicious intention for offenses requiring such intent under the POCSO Act. This presumption assists the prosecution and applies when foundational facts of the offense are established. The statutory presumption can be invoked in quashing petitions to prevent bypassing the legislative presumption of malicious intention.

Other Sited Cases

In the argument presented, reliance was placed on several notable decisions to support the contention. 

• In Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar vs Abanidhar Roy (1965) and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs State of U.P. (1979), the Supreme Court held that ignorance of law accompanied by a bona fide belief might mitigate the culpability under certain circumstances. 

• In Independent Thought vs Union of India & Anr., (2017), the Supreme Court emphasized that the POCSO Act should be interpreted in a manner that prioritizes the best interests and well-being of the child, ensuring comprehensive protection against sexual exploitation and abuse. 

• Similarly, in Attorney General for India vs Satish, (2021), the Court underscored the importance of interpreting the POCSO Act in a way that realizes its legislative intent, advocating for a broad and effective application of the law to protect children from sexual offences.

#2. Grant of Bail under PMLA with Stringent Bail Conditions

Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director 

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine G. Masih

Facts:

1. The Appellant, V. Senthil Balaji, was a former Minister of Transport in Tamil Nadu.

2. FIRs were registered against him between 2015 and 18 for allegedly collecting money to provide jobs in the transport department. The cases involved 2,000 accused persons and 600 state witnesses.

3. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered a money laundering case against him under PMLA on 29 July 2021.

4. The ED arrested the Appellant on 14 June 2023. The Madras High Court denied bail on 28 February 2018, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• When should constitutional courts grant bail for offences with stringent bail conditions?
• Whether the Appellant, V. Senthil Balaji, is entitled to bail under the circumstances?

Judgment:

1. The Supreme Court granted bail to the Appellant with conditions, including marking his presence twice a week at the ED office in Chennai and surrendering his passport to the PMLA Court.
2. The Court noted that the trial for the underlying scheduled offence must conclude for the PMLA case to proceed, as no laundering can be proven without an underlying crime.
3. Given the large number of accused, witnesses, and documentary evidence, the trial's conclusion within a reasonable time (three to four years) seemed unlikely.
4. The Court emphasized that constitutional courts can grant bail based on long incarceration and trial delays, even with higher bail thresholds under statutes like the PMLA.
5. Continuing indefinite detention without trial violates the right to liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Also read- New Sections of Criminal Provisions in New Criminal Laws 

#3. Legality of Arrest & Bail for Arvind Kejriwal in CBI Case

Case Title: Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts:

1. The Delhi Government framed the Excise Policy 2021-2022 for the sale of liquor.

2. Complaints about financial irregularities led to CBI and ED investigations.

3. An FIR was registered by CBI, followed by a separate case by ED.

4. Mr. Kejriwal was arrested by ED on 21 March 2024 and was granted bail by the Trial Court on 20 June 2024, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court.

5. CBI sought and received permission to interrogate and later arrest Mr. Kejriwal while he was in judicial custody.

6. Mr. Kejriwal challenged his CBI arrest and sought bail from the Delhi High Court, which was denied, leading to his appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Is the arrest of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal by the CBI while he was in judicial custody for a separate case by the ED legal? 
• Is Mr Kejriwal entitled to bail in the CBI case?

Judgment:

1. Legality of Arrest:

• Justice Kant ruled that Mr. Kejriwal's arrest was legal, as Section 41A(1) of the CrPC does not require notice to an individual already in judicial custody. The CBI had appropriately sought permission from the Trial Court to arrest Mr. Kejriwal, ensuring transparency.

• Justice Kant found that the CBI had complied with Section 41A(3) by recording reasons for arrest, as Mr. Kejriwal's evasive responses justified the arrest.

• Justice Bhuyan dissented, arguing that the timing of the arrest, just after bail was granted in the ED case, raised suspicions of bias. He also stated that evasive responses were insufficient grounds for arrest, citing the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

2. Bail:

• Both Justices agreed that Mr. Kejriwal should be granted bail. Justice Kant emphasized the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 and noted that all evidence was already with the CBI.

• Justice Bhuyan, while expressing reservations about the conditions of bail, upheld them due to precedent.

3. Mr. Kejriwal's bail was subject to the conditions imposed in the ED case, preventing him from visiting his office or signing official files without the Lieutenant Governor's approval.

Other Cited Cases:

• Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P.: The Supreme Court asserted that an arrest should not be made solely on the basis that it is legally permissible for police officers to do so. While the authority to arrest exists, its actual use requires proper justification.

• Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma vs State (NCT of Delhi): The Court highlighted the necessity for investigations to be fair and effective. Investigations should strike a just balance between a citizen's constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21 and the police's extensive powers to conduct investigations.

• Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar: The Court noted that arrest can cause humiliation, restrict freedom, and leave lasting scars. It emphasized the need to educate police against arbitrary arrests and condemned the practice of arresting first and addressing other matters later.

• Mohd. Zubair vs State (NCT of Delhi): A three-Judge Bench underscored that the authority to arrest must be distinguished from the discretion to exercise that authority. Arrests should be made sparingly. The Court reiterated the judiciary's role in protecting personal liberty and ensuring that investigations are not used as tools of harassment.

• Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs Union of India: The Court emphasized that the judiciary must balance the need for proper enforcement of criminal laws with the need to prevent the law from becoming a means of targeted harassment.

• Kanumuri Raghurama Krishnam Raju vs State of A.P.: The Court, in a similar context, discussed the jurisdiction of trial and higher courts regarding bail and arrests, emphasizing the implications of such jurisdiction.

Also read- FIR under New Criminal Laws

#4. Lack of institutional safety measures for medical professionals in hospitals

Case Title: IN RE: Alleged Rape and Murder Incident of a Trainee Doctor in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and Related Issues.

Bench: Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Jamshed B. Pardiwala & Justice Manoj Misra

Facts:

1. On 9 August 2024, a 31-year-old postgraduate doctor, working a thirty-six-hour shift at RG Kar Medical College Hospital in Kolkata, was found murdered and allegedly raped inside the hospital's seminar room. 

2. This incident led to widespread outrage, with graphic images of the deceased circulating on social media. 

3. Writ petitions were filed in the Calcutta High Court seeking a court-monitored investigation into the murder, implicating the hospital authorities and the college principal. 

4. Initially considered a suicide, the case was reclassified as murder by the police. 

5. Due to concerns over the initial investigation, the Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the CBI. Following the incident, a mob vandalized the hospital's Emergency Ward, prompting the Indian Medical Association to call for a nationwide strike by medical personnel, excluding emergency services.

Issues:

• Whether the lack of institutional safety measures for doctors and medical professionals in hospitals necessitates the intervention of the Supreme Court.
• What specific measures should the Supreme Court implement to ensure the safety and well-being of medical professionals?

Judgment:

The Supreme Court established a 9-member National Task Force to develop a national protocol for the safety of doctors and medical professionals. The Task Force was tasked with creating effective recommendations to address issues related to safety, working conditions, and the well-being of medical professionals. The action plan was divided into two main categories:

1. Preventing violence, including gender-based violence, against medical professionals.

2. Providing an enforceable national protocol for dignified and safe working conditions for all medical staff, including interns, residents, senior residents, doctors, and nurses.

#5. States/UTs directed to enforce S.19(6) of POCSO Act & JJ Act for rehabilitation of child victims

Case Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts:

1. A 14-year-old girl (victim) was reported missing by her mother on 20 May 2018 and was found living with a 25-year-old man (accused). 

2. The victim gave birth to a child, and the accused was convicted under various sections of the POCSO Act and IPC for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, rape, kidnapping, and forced marriage. 

3. The Calcutta High Court, after appeal, overturned the conviction for kidnapping and enticement, ruling that the relationship was consensual. 

4. However, the High Court set aside the convictions under the POCSO Act and IPC for rape, stating the relationship was non-exploitative, and the victim was supported by the accused. 

5. This decision was based on a broader view of teenage relationships, citing peer pressure and social media influences.

Issues

• Whether the Calcutta High Court was justified in using its discretionary powers to set aside the conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC based on the consensual nature of the relationship between the accused and the minor victim.
• Whether consensual relationships between older adolescents can be exempted from the POCSO Act provisions.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court found the accused guilty of rape under the POCSO Act and IPC but upheld the High Court's acquittal on charges of kidnapping and abduction. The Court criticized the High Court's decision to use its discretionary powers under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C, noting that consensual relationships do not exempt one from the POCSO Act. 

The Supreme Court stressed that courts must not quash prosecutions in serious offences like rape even if a settlement occurs. It also emphasized the failure of the State to fulfill its obligations under the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice Act for the victim's care and protection. The Court directed the State to form a committee to assess the victim's situation and ensure proper care under the law. The judgment highlighted that judicial decisions should not include personal opinions and irrelevant advice.

Also read- How BSA is Different from IEA?

#6. Validity of sharing location on Google Maps as a bail condition 

Case Title: Frank Vitus vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts:

1. The Appellant, a Nigerian national, faced prosecution under Sections 8, 22, 23, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) for various offenses related to narcotics, including their production, sale, and trafficking.

2. After his arrest, the Appellant was granted bail with specific terms based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs Union of India (1994), which outlined guidelines for releasing undertrial prisoners in NDPS cases.

3. The Appellant challenged the conditions imposed for his bail, which included:
   (i) Obtaining a certificate of assurance from the Nigerian High Commission to ensure he would remain in India and appear in court.
   (ii) Dropping a PIN on Google Maps enables the Investigation Officer to monitor his location.

Issues:

• Does requiring an accused individual to share their location via Google Maps with the Investigating Officer, as a condition for bail, infringe on their right to privacy?
• Is it permissible to mandate that a foreign national accused obtain a Certificate of Assurance from their High Commission or Embassy, guaranteeing their presence in India and attendance in court, as a condition for bail?

Judgment: 

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the requirement for the appellant to drop a PIN on Google Maps was ineffective for tracking and should be removed, as it did not aid state authorities or serve the purpose of bail.

2. It found that the demand for a certificate from the Nigerian High Commission was excessive; more reasonable alternatives like surrendering the passport and reporting to local authorities should be implemented instead.

3. The Court emphasized that additional bail conditions should align with Section 437(3) of the CrPC and not be arbitrary or overly restrictive. They must aim to prevent interference with the investigation while ensuring the accused's presence at trial. It noted that the Google Maps condition infringed on the appellant's right to privacy under Article 21, as it did not facilitate real-time tracking.

4. The requirement for a certificate from the High Commission was clarified as a one-time measure for pending cases and not applicable to all foreign nationals; if obtaining it was impractical, the court could waive it.

Other Cited Cases: 

• Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners vs Union of India: This case laid down guidelines for granting bail to undertrial prisoners in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) cases, especially for foreign nationals.

Also read- How BNSS is Different from CrPC?

#7. Legality of arrest and remand under the UAPA 1967

Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Bench: Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta

Facts:

1. The appellant was arrested on 3 October 2023 by Delhi Police in connection with a case under the UAPA.
2. The appellant challenged the legality of the arrest and remand, stating that the arrest memo did not include grounds for arrest and that the remand process lacked proper legal representation.
3. The Delhi High Court rejected the appeal, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• Whether a person arrested under the UAPA must be provided with the grounds of arrest in writing?
• Was the appellant's remand into police custody legal?

Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant's arrest and remand were invalid as the grounds for arrest were not communicated in writing before the remand. The Court emphasized that under Article 22(1), grounds for arrest must be provided in writing. It also noted procedural irregularities during the remand process, including the lack of legal representation and failure to disclose the grounds for arrest before the remand order. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail.

Other Cited Cases: 

• Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India: The case stressed that under Section 19 of PMLA, the arrested person must be informed of the grounds for arrest in writing, not just orally. This ensures compliance with constitutional rights and prevents disputes about whether the grounds were communicated properly.
• Ram Kishor Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement: This case confirmed that the principles from Pankaj Bansal apply even after the judgment was delivered, supporting the need for written communication of arrest grounds in cases under PMLA and UAPA.
• Roy V.D. vs State of Kerala: The case affirmed that personal liberty is a fundamental right under Articles 20, 21, and 22, and any detention must be authorized by law, emphasizing the constitutional protection against unlawful interference with liberty.
• Harikisan vs State of Maharashtra: The Constitution Bench held that under Article 22(5), the grounds for preventive detention must be communicated in writing and in a language the detenue understands to allow effective representation against detention.
• Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs Union of India: This case reinforced that the grounds of detention must be communicated in writing, not just orally, to ensure the detenue can make a meaningful representation, thus fulfilling the constitutional mandate.

Also read- Difference between IPC and BNS?

#8. Completion of chargesheet for taking cognizance under CrPC

Case Title: Sharif Ahmad vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Secretary

Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sarasa V. Bhatti

Facts:

1. The appellants were involved in a property ownership dispute, facing charges under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (breach of trust), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
2. An FIR was filed against them for allegedly accepting partial payment for a property without completing the sale or returning the payment.
3. A chargesheet was filed under Sections 406 and 506 IPC.
4. The Allahabad High Court dismissed their application to quash the chargesheet, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• When can a chargesheet be considered complete for the court to take cognizance of the offence under the CrPC?
• What constitutes a complete chargesheet in criminal proceedings?

Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against the appellants. The Court ruled that there was no evidence of entrustment, and thus no offence under Section 406 IPC, nor was there evidence to support criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. The Court clarified that a chargesheet is considered complete when it includes sufficient material and evidence for the court to take cognizance and proceed to trial.

It further emphasized that a chargesheet should reflect a thorough investigation, providing the Magistrate with enough information to determine the appropriate course of action, including taking cognizance or issuing process.

Other Cases Cited:

• Dablu Kujur vs State of Jharkhand emphasizes that a police report should contain essential details about the offense, such as the names of the parties, nature of the information, the identities of witnesses, the involvement of the accused, and medical examination reports where applicable, especially in cases of sexual offenses.

• The Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner of Police case further highlights the magistrate's role in evaluating the sufficiency of the police report and the options available, including taking cognizance even if the police report indicates that no offense was committed.

• Additionally, K. Veeraswami vs UOI & Ors. reinforces the point that the investigating officer's duty is to gather relevant material and evidence, and while they may examine the accused, they are not required to conduct an inquiry or resolve disputed issues at the charge sheet stage. The detailed evaluation of evidence happens at trial, but the chargesheet must still set out the basic facts of the offense to comply with legal requirements and facilitate judicial review. 

#9. Criminal proceedings for WhatsApp status

Case Title: Javed Ahmad Hajam vs The State of Maharashtra

Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts:

1. The appellant, a Professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, posted two WhatsApp statuses:
   (i) "5 August – Black Day Jammu & Kashmir" and "14 August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan."
   (ii) "Article 370 was abrogated, we are not happy."
2. An FIR was registered against him under Section 153-A IPC for promoting enmity. The Bombay High Court refused to quash the FIR, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Issues: Should the criminal proceedings against the appellant be quashed for his WhatsApp status criticizing the abrogation of Article 370 and wishing Pakistan a Happy Independence Day?

Judgment:
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, holding that the appellant's WhatsApp statuses did not fulfill the ingredients of Section 153-A IPC. The Court emphasized that the Constitution upheld the right to dissent, criticize government decisions, and express views through freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). It was found that the words used by the appellant did not aim to promote enmity or cause disharmony between groups. The Court also held that extending good wishes to citizens of other countries on their independence days is not an offence, and no harmful motives could be attributed to the appellant based solely on his religion.

Other Cited Cases:

• Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State of Maharashtra (2007): The Court held that the offence under Section 153-A IPC requires an intention to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between groups, which must be judged based on the language used and the circumstances. Strongly worded, isolated passages cannot be relied upon to prove the charge. Mens rea (intention) must be proved prima facie.

• Bhagwati Charan Shukla vs Provincial Government Reference by Vivian Bose, J: This case involved the interpretation of sedition and the applicability of Section 153-A IPC. The Court referred to the importance of proving the intention to promote enmity and the need for context in interpreting statements.

• Ramesh vs Union of India: The effect of words under Section 153-A IPC must be judged by the standard of a reasonable person, not by those who see danger in every hostile viewpoint. It emphasized that the effect on the public must be considered from the standpoint of an ordinary, reasonable person.

• Patricia Mukhim vs State of Meghalaya & Ors (2021), Paragraphs 8 to 10: The Court noted that only words potentially creating public disorder or affecting law and order should be addressed under Section 153-A IPC. It reiterated that the prosecution must prove the existence of mens rea (intention) and emphasized that isolated, strongly worded passages cannot be the basis for charges.

• Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1995): The Court highlighted that the law steps in when the words have the tendency to create public disorder or affect public tranquility, and the prosecution must prove intent to cause disorder or violence.

#10. Early release of Bilkis Bano gangrape convicts

Case Title: Bilkis Bano Yakub vs Union of India

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Facts:

1. Bilkis Bano, the petitioner, was gang-raped during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat. The accused were initially convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

2. After serving 14 years, the convicts applied for remission under Sections 432 and 433A of the CrPC. The remission applications were considered and granted by the State of Gujarat.

3. The petitioner challenged the remission orders, arguing that the State of Gujarat was not competent to grant remission, and the order violated the law.

Issues:

• Whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to entertain Bilkis Bano’s petition under Article 32?

• Whether the Gujarat government was the "appropriate government" to grant remission?

• Whether the remission of the 11 convicts was justifiable?

• The maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the remission?

Judgment:

• Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the remission orders granting premature release to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano gangrape case. Justice B.V. Nagarathna directed the 11 convicts to return to prison within two weeks.

• Maintainability of Writ Petition: The Court upheld the maintainability of the petition under Article 32, as the petitioner was enforcing her fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life).

• Jurisdiction of Gujarat: The Court held that the remission powers lay with the State of Maharashtra, where the convicts were sentenced, and not the State of Gujarat. The remission orders by Gujarat were deemed illegal.

• Fraud on the Court: The Court found that the remission application was filed by fraudulently suppressing material information, including the cancellation of Gujarat's 1992 remission policy.

• Legality of Remission Orders: The Court declared the remission orders by Gujarat illegal and quashed them, directing the released convicts to return to jail within two weeks. The Court emphasized the importance of following the legal procedures and conditions for remission applications under the CrPC, including compliance with Section 433A and the opinion of the Presiding Judge.

Other Cases Referred:

• State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ratan Singh (1976): The Supreme Court defined the "appropriate government" for granting remission as the government of the state where the conviction occurred, not where the crime was committed or where the convict was imprisoned. This was pivotal in the Bilkis Bano case, as it determined that Gujarat had no jurisdiction to grant remission to the convicts.

• Union of India vs V. Sriharan (2016): The Court reaffirmed that the "appropriate government" for considering remission is the state where the conviction took place, reinforcing the principle from Ratan Singh and clarifying that states unrelated to the conviction cannot grant remission.