List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed that the Doctrine of State Humanity does not cover acts that are done by the public servant for her/his own benefit or pleasure.

• The Karnataka High Court gave this observation in the matter of D Roopa v. Rohini Sindhuri.

Background

• The respondent (previous complainant) IAS officer filed a private complaint for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1870 (IPC) against the appellant.
• The petitioner was alleged to be guilty of sharing photos of the complainant on Facebook and the petitioner has intentionally posted comments and allegations on a private Facebook account.
  • She has also given a statement to the media virtually questioning the character and conduct of the complainant not only in her professional life, but the allegations even covered incidents and actions relating to her private life.
• The petitioner claimed the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• However, Karnataka HC clearly denied such protection.

Court’s Observation

• The bench of Karnataka HC observed that the scope of operation of Section 197 of CrPC is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.

Doctrine of State Humanity

• It covers all the acts performed by a public servant in the exercise of the function of the Government.
  • The doctrine can be traced under Section 197 of CrPC.
• The doctrine finds its origins in the principles of natural justice, human rights, and the inherent dignity of every individual.
• The doctrine also finds a slight expression in international human rights treaties and conventions to which India is a signatory, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
• It plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the administration and the effective functioning of government offices.
  • However, it has been criticized several times as a ‘draconian’ law.
    • The term ‘draconian law’ refers to a set of rules or regulations that are excessively harsh, severe, or strict in their enforcement.

Section 197 of CrPC

• Introduction:
  • Section 197 of the CrPC is a significant legal provision in India that deals with the protection of public servants from frivolous or vexatious criminal proceedings.
  • It is an essential safeguard to ensure that public servants can perform their duties without fear of harassment through the criminal justice system.
• Applicability:
  • According to Section 197, no court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the government or the authority competent to remove him from his office.
  • The protection under Section 197 extends to acts done or purporting to be done in the official discharge of a public servant's duty.
  • It includes both lawful and unlawful acts done in the course of official duty, provided that they are reasonably connected with their official functions.
• Nature of the Offence:
  • Section 197 applies to both cognizable and non-cognizable offences.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

In the matter of Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized upon the crucial significance of eyewitness testimonies in legal proceedings involving criminal cases.

Background

• The case arises from the facts that the deceased was killed with the knife blows.
• A FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased stating that the offence was committed by the appellant (accused) and two other individuals.
• The autopsy surgeon found that the death was caused by shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries.
• He also identified that there were eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which in his opinion were ante­mortem.
• The medical evidence also stated that the death could not have been caused by the knife recovered.
• The prosecution case was primarily founded on evidence of a distant relative of the deceased, who was presented by the prosecution as eyewitness.
• Whereas it was argued on behalf of the appellant that there were substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements and the eyewitnesses herself as she was not a neutral person.
• The accused was acquitted by the Trial Court as the Court found contradictions in the prosecution version as regards the manner in which the knife blows were inflicted and the identification of the assault weapon.
• Thereafter, on appeal to the Gujarat High Court (HC), accused was convicted under the offences Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Hence a criminal appeal was filed in the SC.

Court’s Observations

• The Court relied on earlier SC verdicts given in the case Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Anvaruddin v. Shakoor (1990) which emphasized the importance of ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts. The ruling highlighted that eyewitness testimony, even if not exhaustive in every detail, carries significant importance in establishing the chronological order of events.
• Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi while hearing an appeal against the judgment of Gujarat HC, overturned the acquittal by the trial court.
  • The Bench stated that “Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution's version. In our opinion the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor ones. An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate a blow-by-blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay".
• The SC also pointed out that the trial court had placed undue emphasis on relatively minor contradictions in witness statements while ignoring the overall testimony of prosecution witnesses.

Legal Provisions

Indian Penal Code, 1860

The FIR pertains to Sections 302 and 114 of IPC which are described below:

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 302 - Punishment for murder — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act mentions about Evidence of Expert under Section 45.

Section 45 - Opinions of experts – When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

• The IEA gives due importance to the opinion of an expert, whereas the opinion of an ordinary person is of no value.
• The evidence of expert is not conclusive and how much reliance is to be placed on such evidence or how much weightage is to be given to it is the domain to the court concerned.

Case Law

• Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012): It was held by SC that the primary purpose of expert opinion is to aid the court in reaching a final verdict although such an opinion is not binding upon the court.
• Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala (2014) the SC bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy has held that Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it.
• Himanshu Mohan Rai v. State of U.P (2017): The SC held that where the ocular testimony provides that accused shot and killed the deceased was reliable the opinion of the ballistic expert cannot discredit that.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice C Hari Shankar directed owner/controllers of certain websites to desist from unauthorized copying, transmission, and communication of any content in which the plaintiff holds copyright.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the matter of Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.

Background

• The court in April 2023 restrained the defendants, and all others acting on their behalf from copying, recording, reproducing, allowing recording, transmitting, communicating or making available for distribution, duplication, display or release, exhibiting or playing in any manner, any stills, audio/video clips, songs, recordings or other proprietary information relating to the cinematographic film "Jawan".
• However, an application was heard in this case as the plaintiff claimed at one Mr. Rohit Sharma is indulging in the aforesaid activities.
• The plaintiff sought impleadment of Meta Platforms, which controls WhatsApp.
• The plaintiff requested the court to disable the various chat groups on which the plaintiff’s copyrighted material is being illegally circulated by Mr. Rohit Sharma.
• The plaintiff presented this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking an extension of the interim order of April 2023 to Mr. Rohit Sharma and Meta Platforms.

CJI’s Observation

• The bench of Delhi HC directed the respondents to disclose, on an affidavit, the Basic Subscriber Information, including IP addresses, usernames, registered email IDs, phone numbers, and other relevant details of the culprit accounts.
• The Court gave this observation under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC as an ex-parte temporary injunction.

Temporary Injunction

• Purpose:
  • The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to prevent irreparable harm or injustice during the course of litigation.
  • It serves as a balancing act between preserving the rights of the parties and ensuring that justice is done.
• Applicability:
  • When a plaintiff files a civil suit and believes that the defendant's actions may cause immediate and irreparable harm, they can seek a temporary injunction to maintain the existing state of affairs until the court decides the main dispute.
  • They are interlocutory orders, meaning they are issued during the pendency of the main suit and are subject to modification or revocation as the case progresses.
  • The concept of temporary injunction is primarily covered under Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
• Notice by the Court:
  • Generally, before granting a temporary injunction, the court must issue a notice to the opposite party and provide an opportunity for them to be heard.
    • However, in cases of urgency, ex-parte injunctions can be granted temporarily under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
• Time-Limit:
  • Temporary injunctions are not meant to be indefinite.
  • They are typically granted for a fixed duration, and the court can extend or modify them as necessary.
• Violation:
  • Under Rule 2A of CPC - In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted the Court may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release..

Essentials to Avail Temporary Injunction

• The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case in their favor.
• The plaintiff must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable injury or harm if the injunction is not granted.
• The court will weigh the balance of convenience.
  • This means considering whether it is more just and convenient to grant the injunction or to deny it.
  • The court takes into account the interests of both parties and the public interest in making this determination.
• The plaintiff must show that there is no other adequate remedy available. If monetary damages can adequately compensate the plaintiff, the court may be less inclined to grant an injunction.