List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the newspaper can be considered as a secondary source of evidence under the IEA. The bench was hearing appeals namely Kadira Jeevan v. State of Karnataka and B.S. Dinesh v. State of Karnataka.

Background

• The appellants A1 and A3 were convicted for the offence of murder of the victim by shooting him.
• The High Court convicted them and awarded a life imprisonment.
• It was noted by the Apex Court that the conviction of the A1 was based on a newspaper report.
• The correspondent who was examined as Prosecution Witness 21 (PW-21) claimed that he visited the District Jail and interviewed the 1st and 8th accused inside the Jail premises.
• He further claimed that he published the newspaper report on the basis of his interaction with the accused and their answers related to the incident.
• However, it was noted that the correspondent whose testimony led to conviction had not directly interacted with the accused and just overheard the statements given by the accused.
• A sub-editor interacted with the accused who was not examined by the Court.
• The Apex Court acquitted both of the accused by considering the evidence to be unacceptable.

Court’s Observations

• The Apex Court opined that the appellants have succeeded in making out a case of inadequate evidence to sustain their conviction under the impugned judgment of the High Court.

Cases on Evidentiary Value of Newspaper Reports

The landmark cases into which the hon’ble courts observed that the newspaper report is not credible evidence in itself are:

• Laxmi Raj Shetty & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1988):
  • It was held by the Court that a report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence.
  • The Court further said that a newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of IEA by which an allegation of fact can be proved.
  • It was laid in this case that the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of IEA to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein.
• Naval Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022)
  • The Court observed in this case that it is trite law that there must be legal evidence in support of the allegations levelled against a person.
  • In the present case the only evidence relied upon is the newspaper reporting that is not legal evidence but hearsay evidence.
  • Newspaper reports need to be corroborated.

Why in News?

The Bench comprising of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, laid down the test to distinguish between a fundamental or collateral determination.

• The Court laid down the test in the matter of Yadaiah and Anr. v. State of Telangana and others.

Background

• The dispute relates to a resumption order concerning an assignment of non-occupied land in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe persons for the purpose of cultivation.
• A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was sent to the Appellants by office of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana regarding a land issue in question.
• The notice was adjudged unsustainable afterwards by the District Revenue Officer.
• Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to Appellants.
• The Appellants contended that the SCN was barred by doctrine of Res Judicata since it was based on same subject matter as the first SCN.
• This appeal was filed in the Apex Court against the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana.
  • In the order passed by the High Court, an appeal State of Telangana and its revenue authorities was allowed, reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge.

Court’s Observations

• “Only those findings, without which the Court cannot adjudicate a dispute and also form the vital cog in the reasoning of a definite conclusion on an issue on merits, constitute res judicata between the same set of parties in subsequent proceedings”.
• “In the process of arriving at a final conclusion, if the Court makes any incidental, supplemental or non-essential observations which are not foundational to the final determination, the same would not tie down the hands of Courts in future”.

Case Decided on Merits

• The term case decide on merits means that the facts in issue directly involved must have been actually litigated and determined.
• A case will be said to be litigated and determined when the Court has evaluated the party's substantive arguments and relevant evidence.

Legal Provision

Section 11 of CPC – Res Judicata - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.

• Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
• Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
• Explanation III - The matter above referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
• Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
• Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
• Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
• Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Why in News?

A person below the age of 18 years cannot be in a live-in-relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal, observed the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of UP and 3 Others.

Background

• A criminal prosecution was initiated against a 17-year-old Muslim boy for the offences under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 by the family of a 19-year-old girl.
• It was the case that both the petitioners started living with each other on 27th April 2023, and the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the family members of the Girl on 30th April 2023.
• The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 30th April 2023 under Sections 363, 366 IPC and no arrest shall be made in the aforesaid case.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV held that an accused who is below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the grounds of having a live-in relationship with a major girl i.e., above 18 years of age.
• The Court while referring to the Allahabad High Court's prior ruling in the case of Kiran Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others, (2023) further stated that the minor boy is a Muslim, therefore, his relationship with the Girl is 'Zina' as per Muslim Law and thus, impermissible.

Live-In-Relationship

• Live-in relation i.e., cohabitation is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship.
• The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married.
• The Supreme Court in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr, (2010) opined that:
  • A man and a woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.
  • There were no laws prohibiting live-in relationships or pre-marital sex.
  • Living together comes under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty.
• Some Foreign Countries that have given legislative validity to live-in-relationship are Scotland, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia etc.

Legal Provisions

IPC

The news pertains to Section 363 and 366 of IPC which are as follows:

• Section 363. Punishment for Kidnapping — Whoever kidnaps any person from 1 [India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 366 - Kidnapping, Abducting or Inducing Woman to Compel her Marriage, etc —Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.

Constitution of India

Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Legislative Aspect of Live in Relationships in India

Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005

• It has been specifically mentioned under Section 2(f) of the act that it not only takes under its purview married couples but also those relationships which are in the nature of marriage giving way to its application to Live-in-Relationships.
• Section 2 - Definitions (f) Domestic Relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973

• According to Section 125 CrPC a female partner can claim maintenance if she has a relationship that follows the nature of the live-in relationship, in addition, she would be entitled to maintenance.
• In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Ors, (2010) the Apex Court ruled that “We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term `wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a pre-condition for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125”.