List of Current Affairs

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of S K Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, held that a conviction of an accused under Section 307 Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) can be sustained even if the injuries suffered by the complainant were very simple in nature.

Background

• In this case, the allegation is that the accused tried to assault a police constable on his head by a Gupti in Nanded, Maharashtra.
• However, the constable while avoiding the blow on his head, got injury on his right shoulder.
• The Trial Court had convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 307 and 332 of IPC and directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and two years for the said offences respectively.
• The order of Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court of Bombay.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta observed that a conviction of an accused under Section 307 IPC can be sustained even if the injuries suffered by the complainant were very simple in nature.
• The bench further observed that, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused.
• The bench further held that in the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant with Gupti and that too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the appellant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

Legal Provisions

Section 307, IPC

• Section 307 of IPC defines the offence of attempt to murder. It states that -
  • Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, 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 if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
  • Attempts by life convicts - When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
• The offence under Section 307 is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence.

Essential Elements of Section 307

• Intention or Knowledge to commit the offence.
• The nature of the act should be such that, if the act was not prevented it would have caused the death of the person.
• Execution of the act.
• The act would cause death in its ordinary course.

Case Law

• In the case of Rambabu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that injuries to the person, regardless of their severity, would attract punishment under Section 307. All the injuries will be considered as an offence and the person committing them will be held guilty.

Section 332, IPC

• This Section deals with voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty. It states that-
  • Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public serv­ant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip­tion for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice K V Vishwanathan observed that if a person does not furnish information that is not required, it would not be termed as suppression of material facts.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana.

Background

• After undergoing the necessary procedure, the respondent was placed in the merit list of the constables in the West Bengal Police Force.
• Later, the respondent was supplied with the ‘Police Verification Roll’ and was asked to fill-up the same.
  • He deposited the same with the appointing authority within the time prescribed for the submission.
• As per the police verification report sent by the local Police Station, it was alleged that the respondent was implicated in a criminal case.
• Upon scrutinizing the said verification form, the authority formed an opinion that the respondent had suppressed material information regarding his involvement in a pending criminal case.
• The aforementioned finding led to denial of appointment of the respondent by the appellant.
• The Calcutta High Court opined that the pending criminal case was subject to final outcome hence the presumption of innocence of respondent still remains.
  • The HC ordered the appointment of respondent against which this appeal was filed before the SC.

Court’s Observation

• The SC observed that in the facts of the present case, the information sought from the respondent in the verification form was vague.
  • Hence the HC has rightly recorded the finding that it is not a case of suppression of material information.
• The SC further ordered the appointment of the respondent.

Material Facts

• Fact is defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) as,
  • Any thing, state of things, or relation of things capable of being perceived.
  • Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
• Material facts are those facts which are cardinally connected with issue and have capacity to escort the decision of the court upon that case.
  • In other words, these facts aid the court of law in interpreting the other relevant facts and lead to evaluation of the subject matter.
• Suppression of such facts is impermissible in law as it results in concealment of necessary information.
  • The law promulgates that one must come to court with clean hands and candid facts.

Major Case Laws

• Secy., Deptt. of Home Secy., A.P. and Others v. B. Chinnam Naidu (2005):
  • SC held that since specific requirement to mention about the pending criminal case was not sought in the verification roll, the respondent cannot be held at fault for suppression of material information.
• Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Others (2016):
  • SC held that, for determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
  • Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed.
  • If information not asked for but is relevant comes to the knowledge of the employer, the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness.
    • However, in such cases action cannot be taken on the basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has observed that the conduct of Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

Background

• During the investigation, the Investigating Officer (IO) decided to hold the Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused persons.
• Upon conclusion of the recording of evidence, the further statement of the appellant convict under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) the accused/appellant and he refused for the TIP as he was already shown to the witnesses by the police.
• One of the primary questions that arose was whether an accused can decline to participate in the TIP on the ground that he was already shown to the eyewitnesses prior to the conduct of the TIP?
• Additional Sessions Judge-II held that in the present case appellant is guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 394 and 397 (of IPC) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment of the sentence of life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-II.
• The present appeal is at the instance of the convict (accused) and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the HC of Delhi.

Court’s Observation

Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala have observed that an accused cannot resist subjecting himself to the TIP on the ground that he cannot be forced or coerced for the same.

Test Identification Parade

The TIP is conducted as per section 9 of IEA.

Section 9 - Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts – Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.

• One of the methods of establishing the identity of an accused is “Test Identification Parade” conducted under Section 9 of IEA.
• The parade's objective is to assess the veracity of the witness's claim that he was able to identify a person who was committing an offence.
• When a witness proposes to identify the accused persons or other persons connected with the case under investigation, the IO shall record in the case diary the following points -
  • Their descriptions;
  • The extent of prevailing light at the time of the offence (daylight, moonlight, flashing of torches, burning kerosene, electric or gas lights, etc.);
  • Details of opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of the offence;
  • Anything that stands out in the features or conduct of the accused that identifies him (E.g., a mole or a scar on body or face);
  • Distance from which he saw the accused; and
  • The extent of time during which he saw the accused.
  • The identification parade shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible.
  • It should be conducted when the victim/witness did not know the accused before the occurrence.

Case Law

• The SC in the case of Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) held that the sole purpose of a TIP is to corroborate the evidence and to identify. The accused must identify the witness in Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 313 of the Code provides for the Power of the court to examine the accused.

• The Proper methodology by the Court while taking evidence under this provision should be that while recording the statement of the accused under this provision it must invite the attention of the accused to the circumstances and substantial evidence in relation to the offence, for which he has been charged and ask for his explanation.
• No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under section 313 CrPC.
• His answers to the questions put to him under Section-313 CrPC cannot be used to fill up the gaps left by the prosecution witnesses in their depositions.

Case Law

• The SC in State of M.P V. Ramesh (2011) held that the statement of accused made under Section 313 CrPC can be taken into consideration to appreciate the truthfulness of the prosecution case. As this statement is not recorded upon the administration of oath therefore the accused cannot be cross-examined.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

The accused was sentenced under Sections 302, 392, 394 and 397 read with Section 34.

• Section 302 - Punishment for Murder — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. (Murder is defined under Section 300).
• Section 392 - Punishment for Robbery — Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. (Robbery is defined under Section 390).
• Section 394 - Voluntarily Causing Hurt in Committing Robbery — If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 397 - Robbery, or Dacoity, with Attempt to Cause Death or Grievous Hurt — If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
• Section 34 - Acts done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention —When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 20(3) provides accused, the right against self-incrimination.

Article 20 - Protection in respect of conviction for offences -

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.