List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. allowed an application filed by a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to call him again for examination.

Background

• The case pertains to the facts that the appellant had complained against the accused, that the accused was an ex-employee of his company and that he had stolen and used company data to manufacture equipment for his own company.
• During trial, the evidence of the appellant was recorded before the report awaited from Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory (CFSL), Chandigarh regarding data could come.
• Upon examination of the report, the CFSL expert who prepared it described that there was data on the hard disk of the accused, but no reference was made to whether it was comparable to the allegation of stolen data.
• Thus, the appellant applied for recall of his witness.
• The Trial Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court (HC) rejected the application for recall of witness and hence the matter is before SC.

Legal Provision

Section 311 - Power to summon material witness or examine person present —

Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.

Court’s Observations

• The SC while deciding the present matter took note of following judgements:
  • In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006), SC held that:
    • “The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case.”
  • In Vijay Kumar v. State of UP (2011), the SC held that:
    • “Though Section 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary power under the said section can be invoked only for the ends of justice. Discretionary power should be exercised consistently with the provisions of CrPC and the principles of criminal law. The discretionary power conferred under Section 311 has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the court and not arbitrarily or capriciously.”
  • In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019), SC has held that:
    • The discretionary authority, such as that granted under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), serves the purpose of allowing the Court to maintain the accuracy of the trial record, resolve any uncertainties pertaining to the presented evidence, and simultaneously guarantee that no unfair bias or harm is inflicted upon any party involved.
  • In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar (2023), a 3-Judge Bench of SC opined that:
    • Section 311 of CrPC should be invoked only when it is mandatory for the just decision of the case.
  • In the present matter SC held that: Based on above observations, the Court found that a case for interference has been made out and stated:
    • “Under the peculiar facts of the present case, the request for recall of the appellant under Section 311 of CrPC was justified, as at the relevant point of time in his initial deposition, there was no occasion for him to bring the relevant facts relating to similarity of data before the Court, which arose after the CFSL expert was examined.”

Legal Aspect

• The aim of the court is always to discover the truth. The discretionary power vested in court under Section 311 of CrPC must be exercised judiciously for fair trial and to meet the ends of justice.
• The SC has time and again reiterated that an application under Section 311 of CrPC an application cannot be rejected merely on ground that it seeks to fulfill lacuna or loopholes.
• In the Amrinder Singh v. Prakash Singh Badal (2009) case it was held that the Court has power under Section 311 of CrPC to summon more witnesses even after conclusion of prosecution case.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Archana v. State of West Bengal held that the power under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may be invoked after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness by the Magistrate.

Background

• In this matter, the matrimonial discord between the parties has reached a different level culminating in a criminal case.
• The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate committed this matter to the jurisdictional Sessions Court after exercising the powers under Section 323 of CrPC and concluded that the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is required to be heard by way of an additional charge.
• Thereafter, the High Court of Calcutta directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to undertake the exercise of committal in pursuant to a decision to be taken as to whether a charge can be added under Section 307 of IPC only after the conclusion of the entire evidence of the appellant.
• The question for consideration before the SC was with respect to the remittal order passed by the HC.
• The order passed by the HC was set aside and the one passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was restored.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and JB Pardiwala observed that it is evident from the statute that the power under Section 323 of CrPC may be invoked by the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding prior to signing of the Judgment. Thus, it is a settled provision of law that the said power may be invoked even after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness.
• The bench further held that the key requirement for the invocation of the power under this Section is that the Magistrate concerned must feel that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions.

Legal Provisions

Section 323, CrPC

• Section 323 deals with the procedure when after the commencement of inquiry or trial, the Magistrate finds a case should be committed. It states that -
  • If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained and thereupon the provisions of Chapter XVIII shall apply to the commitment so made.

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.

Related Case Laws

• In Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) case, the SC held that the presence of an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death is essential to invoke Section 307.
• In the case of Rambabu v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), the HC of Bombay 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.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Subash Vidyarthi observed that an illegally secured telephonic conversation between two accused would be admissible as evidence.

• The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi v. State of UP Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow and Another.

Background

• The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has recorded a telephonic communication between two accused persons on a digital voice recorder.
• Aggrieved from that recording the applicant (now revisionist) sought his discharge under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the ground that the telephonic conversation recorded on the digital voice recorder was not admissible in evidence.
• But the Trial Court rejected his application based upon the aforementioned contention.
  • The revisionist filed a revision petition before the HC contending that interception of messages can only take place with due order of Government.
• The respondents contended that recording of conversation between two persons without interfering in the communication system will not amount to interception of the messages.
• In this case, the communication made by one accused person to the other reached him and thereafter recorded on another device called digital voice recorder.
  • The revisionist called it ‘interception’, however the court took note of a few meanings of ‘interception’ and held that communication was not ‘intercepted’.

Court’s Observations

• The HC observed that the law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the grounds that it had been obtained illegally.
  • Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant.
• However, the court noted that the telephonic conversation recorded in digital voice recorder was not solitary evidence, there was other evidence on which the court dismissed the revision in the present case.

Admissibility of Evidence

• The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is based on the principles of relevancy and admissibility.
• It provides a framework for the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that only relevant and reliable evidence is presented in court.
• The Act makes the process of evidence presentation in India both systematic and coherent.
• Relevance is the cornerstone of admissibility under IEA.
• Section 5 of the Act states that evidence is relevant if it is related to the fact in issue or is connected to the fact in issue by a chain of circumstances.
• In other words, evidence must have some bearing on the case and be capable of shedding light on the issues being litigated.
• Evidence that is irrelevant is not admissible in court.
• Section 65B of the IEA deals with the admissibility of electronic records.

Admissibility of Telephonic Conversation

Landmark cases related to admissibility of telephonic conversation are mentioned below:

• R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973):
  • This case established the principle that a telephonic conversation can be admissible as evidence if it is relevant and does not violate any provision of IEA.
  • The SC held that if the conversation was tape-recorded in a manner that the accuracy of the recording could be verified, it could be considered as evidence.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005):
  • In this case, a question arose regarding the legality and admissibility of intercepted telephone calls in the context of telephone conversation.
  • The SC held that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible.
  • The Court reiterated that there is a warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible.
• Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978):
  • In this case, the SC held that telephone conversations, if relevant, can be admitted as evidence, but the person recording the conversation must be a party to it.
  • Unauthorized interception and recording of telephone conversations without the consent of any of the parties are not admissible.
• Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004):
  • This case did not directly deal with telephonic conversations but laid down principles of fairness and transparency in trials.
  • It emphasized the importance of providing all relevant evidence, including recorded telephonic conversations, to ensure a fair trial.
• P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir (2003):
  • This case dealt with the admissibility of telephonic conversations in the context of a civil dispute.
  • The SC ruled that recorded telephone conversations could be admitted as secondary evidence if the original conversation was relevant and does not violate any provision of IEA.