List of Current Affairs

Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?  

• Recently, the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Reji Thomas @Vayalar v. State of Kerala, has held that every person who is mentally diseased is not exempted from criminal responsibility.  
• It was further held that mere lack of motive will not bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 of the IPC to take general exception of unsoundness of mind. 

Background  

• In this case, the accused was convicted for allegedly murdering his own eight-year-old son under Section 302 of IPC.  
• The Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.  
• Thereafter the accused approached the Kerala High Court who held that the accused was suffering from Bipolar affective disorder. 
  
  • The Court found that the accused was entitled to benefit of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC and acquitted the accused.  

Court’s Observations  

• A bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that intent and act must concur for constituting a crime, but in the case of insane persons, no culpability can be fastened on them as they have no free will. 
• The Court further added that the benefit of unsoundness of mind is available only if it is proved that during the commission of the offence, the accused, due to defect of reason and disease of the mind, was unable to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was contrary to law. 

Legal Provisions  

Section 84 of IPC 

• It deals with the act of a person of unsound mind. It states that -  
  
  • Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. 
• Section 84 IPC is one of the general defenses available under the IPC and provides for the defence of insanity.  
  
  • The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords in 1843, in what is popularly known as the M’Naghten case. 
• The word ‘insanity’ is not used in Section 84 of IPC.  
  
  • It uses the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’, which is not defined in the Code. However, the courts in India have treated the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’ as equivalent to ‘insanity’.  
• In order to seek protection under Section 84 of IPC, it is necessary for an accused to prove that he, because of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that the act was contrary to law. 
• In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P(2002), it was held that the crucial point of time at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to benefit from Section 84 can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime. 
  
  • The insanity prior to or subsequent to the commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from criminal liability. 

Section 302 of IPC 

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and J B Pardiwala observed that the principle governing “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of T G Krishnamurthy & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Background

• The Trial Court and Karnataka High Court convicted the appellants for murdering the two deceased and injuring the witnesses.
  • They were charged with offences under Section 302 read with Sections 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
• High Court acquitted other accused persons holding that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be applied for the death of deceased no. 2.
  • However, taking note of the fact that these witnesses are injured eyewitnesses, the conviction was rendered only for the death of the deceased no. 1 and for the injuries caused to the witnesses.
• The counsel for appellant in the present appeal contended that the view of the High Court (that testimony of prosecutrix witnesses cannot be relied upon for the charge pertaining to the death of the deceased no.2), ought to have been applied for the other offences as well.

Court’s Observation

• The Apex Court observed it is the duty of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain in its pursuit for truth.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

• The Latin maxim means false in one thing, false in everything.
• As a general rule, the law presumes that if certain facts out of same story are false, the entire story is false.
• The decision of the court is based on the testimony of witnesses.
  • Hence, it is generally considered that the witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any other matter in the same case.
• It has been reiterated by the Apex Court for several times that “The doctrine is a dangerous one specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead-stop”.

Case Laws

• Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa (2002):
  • The SC held that the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law.
  • The maxim is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that the testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded.
• Prem Singh v. State of Haryana (2009):
  • The SC held that it is now a well settled principle of law that the doctrine “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” has no application in India.
• Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019):
  • The SC held that the witnesses cannot be termed as liars.

Source: Times of India

Why in News?  

In the matter of Rameshbhai Danjibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court has held that a woman can file a case of bigamy and cruelty under Section 494 and Section 498A of the IPC even after divorce, but only for incidents that took place while the marriage was subsisting.  

Background 

• The present matter deals with a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 323, 114, 506(2) and 494 of the IPC. 
• Marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent/complainant (wife) was solemnized in 2005 and a petition for divorce was filed in 2011 in the Family Court. 
  
  • The Family Court granted divorce to the couple in 2014 after examining the evidence on record which attained finality on account of not being challenged in superior courts within the time limit prescribed for appeal. 
• The present FIR was filed on 26.12.2015. 
  
  • The FIR indicated that the respondent/complainant, without mentioning the time, date and place of the incidents/offences, alleged ill-treatment, cruelty and harassment. 
  • However, no specific incident was alleged in FIR, nor did she mention the way in which she was physically or mentally harassed by the petitioners.  

Court’s Observation 

Justice Jitendra Doshi while quashing the FIR held that cases for cruelty cannot be filed in respect of offences or incidents that take place after a competent court grants divorce and dissolves the marriage. 

Cruelty 

• Cruelty in matrimonial relations - It means a matrimonial act that causes pain and distress of any kind such as physical, mental, or economical to others. 
• What constitutes cruelty cannot be determined by a strait jacket formula; rather it depends on time, place, person, facts and circumstances of the case. 

First Information Report  

• FIR is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. 
• The information can be provided under Section 154 (1) of CrPC to the officer in charge of a police station. 
  
  • In case the officer in charge of a police station refuses or declines to take down such a report it can be sent to, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned under Section 154(3) of CrPC. 
• An FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC by the High Court. Regarding the same, important principles have been laid down by the SC in the case of Madhu Limaye v. The State of Maharashtra (1977) which are as follows: 
  
  • If there is a specific provision in the CrPC to redress the grievances of the aggrieved party, the aid of Section 482 is not to be taken. 
  • Quashing should be exercised sparingly and to ensure that abuse of process of any Court does not take place or otherwise to secure ends of justice.  
  • The express bar of the law provided in any other provision of the code, or any other law bars the court from taking action under Section 482 CrPC. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

The present matter pertains to FIR filed under the following provisions of the IPC: 

• Section 114 - Abettor present when offence is committed — 
  Whenever any person who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. 
• Section 294 - Obscene acts and songs  
  Whoever, to the annoyance of others -  
  (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. 
• Section 323 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt — 
  Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 
• Section 494 - Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. 
  Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.  
  Exception.—This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge. 
• Section 498A - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.  
  Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.  
  Explanation —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— 
  (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or  
  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 
• Section 506- Punishment for criminal intimidation. — 
  Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;  
  If the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.