List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has conveyed its resentment over being compelled to acquit three individuals accused of murder and kidnapping due to significant deficiencies in the police investigation in the case of Rajesh v. State of MP.

What is the Background of Rajesh v. State of MP Case?

• A 15-year-old boy was killed brutally in July, 2013.
• A Neighbour (Om Prakash), along with his brother, and his son, stood trial in Sessions Case for Ajit Pal’s murder and connected offences.
• Additional Sessions Judge convicted all three of them on different counts.
  • Om Prakash Yadav was held guilty under Section 364A read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to life imprisonment along with default imprisonment of two months, if he failed to pay a fine of ₹2,000.
• The other two accused were held guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC; Section 364A read with Section 120B of IPC and Section 201 IPC.
  • They were sentenced to death under Sections 302 and 364A and to two months default imprisonment each, if they individually failed to pay the fine amounts of ₹1,000/- and ₹1,000/- respectively.
  • Also, for Section 201 they were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and payment of fine of ₹500/- coupled with one month’s default imprisonment.
• An appeal was made to the High Court (HC) and the sentences were confirmed.
• Assailing the HC’s verdict, the three convicts approached the SC by way of appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC was aghast to see the shocking lapses in the investigation on the part of the police, the Court drew attention to a 2003 report by Justice V.S. Malimath's Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, which emphasized on:
  • The manner in which police investigation is conducted is of critical importance to the functioning of the Criminal Justice System.
  • Not only serious miscarriage of justice will result if the collection of evidence is vitiated by error or malpractice, but successful prosecution of the guilty depends on a thorough and careful search for truth and collection of evidence which is both admissible and probative.
  • It is the duty of the police to investigate fairly and thoroughly and collect all evidence, whether for or against the suspect.
• The SC held that the present case was solely based on circumstantial evidence and there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder.
• Therefore, relying on the precedent set in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), the Court highlighted that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, in the present case the chain being broken owing to faulty investigation the accused had to be released.
• The three-judge bench of SC comprising of Justices BR Gavai, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Sanjay Kumar further stated that “the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants”.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Investigation After Commission of a Crime

• The initial action taken after a crime occurs or when a police officer receives information regarding the commission of an offence is "investigation."
• The term “investigation” has been defined under Section 2(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf.
• The process of investigation primarily involves:
  • Filing of FIR (First Information Report): The process usually begins with the filing of an FIR by a person who has knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence. The police initiates an investigation based on this report.
  • Collection of Evidence: The investigating officer collects physical evidence such as fingerprints, forensic samples, photographs, and any other material that may be relevant to the case.
  • Recording of Statements: The police records statements from witnesses, or other people supposed to be acquainted with the facts of the case, to gather information about the alleged crime. These statements can be recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.
  • Examination of Witnesses: Witnesses are examined during the course of the investigation, and their statements are recorded under Section 161 or Section 164 of the CrPC, depending on the circumstances.
  • Search and Seizure: If necessary, the police may conduct searches and seizures with a proper warrant or under certain legal conditions to obtain evidence.
  • Arrest: If there is sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime, the police may arrest the suspect. Arrest can be made by the Police Officer under Section 41 of CrPC.
  • Case Diary: The investigating officer is required to maintain a case diary under Section 172 of CrPC, in which police officer making an investigation shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation contains a chronological record of the investigation's progress.
  • Closure Report or Charge Sheet: Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the police may submit either a closure report (when no evidence of a crime is found) or a charge sheet (when there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial) to the magistrate.
  • Court Proceedings: Thereafter the case proceeds to the court having jurisdiction over the offence.

Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System

• Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts headed a committee that was tasked with suggesting reforms for the criminal justice system in India.
• It was established in the year 2000 and gave its report in the year 2003.
• The suggestions of the committee are enumerated as under:
  • Police Reforms: The committee suggested measures to enhance the efficiency, professionalism, and accountability of the police force. It called for the establishment of State Security Commissions to oversee police functioning.
  • Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Reforms: The committee proposed amendments to the CrPC to streamline the criminal justice process, expedite trials, and protect the rights of the accused. It also recommended limiting the scope of anticipatory bail.
  • Witness Protection: To address the issue of witness intimidation and hostile witnesses, the committee recommended the introduction of witness protection programs and measures to safeguard the interests of witnesses.
  • Victim Compensation: The committee emphasized the need to provide compensation and support to victims of crimes, particularly in cases of sexual assault and other heinous crimes.
  • Legal Aid and Plea Bargaining: The committee suggested reforms to improve the availability and quality of legal aid to indigent accused persons. It also proposed introducing plea bargaining as a means to expedite the resolution of certain cases.
  • Sentencing Guidelines: The committee recommended the development of clear and consistent sentencing guidelines to ensure uniformity in sentencing across the country.
  • Juvenile Justice: The committee addressed issues related to juvenile offenders, including recommending changes to the Juvenile Justice Act to deal with heinous crimes committed by juveniles.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy —
  • (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
  • (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
• Section 201 - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender — Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
  • If a capital offence. — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.
  • If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.
  • If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both
• Section 302 - Punishment for murder — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 364 A - Kidnapping for ransom, etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intinter-governmentalganisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that subsequent order on order for remand does not take away the right to appeal against it.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed And 2 Others.

What is the Background of Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed And 2 Others Case?

• The maintainability of an appeal made against an order of remand preferred before the HC was in question.
• The remand order in this case was given in such a way that after that remand order, a subsequent order was also passed, and that subsequent order became appealable taking away the right to appeal against the prior order.
• The appellant contended that they still have the right to appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) against the remand order.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The while allowing the right to appeal of the appellants stated that:
  • The right of appeal, thus conferred by the statute, is a substantial right, and in the absence of any express provision to the contrary, it would not be legitimate to read into the statutory provision granting a right of appeal, any limitation or disability which the legislature did not deem it appropriate to insert.
  • The abrogation of a statutory right of appeal is not to be readily inferred, particularly in a situation where non-­filing of such an appeal has the effect of imposing a serious disability on the right of the party concerned from disputing the correctness of the order at a subsequent stage

What is a Remand Case Under CPC?

• Introduction:
  • A "remand case" is a situation where a higher court sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings or reconsideration.
  • This can happen for various reasons, including errors in the lower court's judgment, the need for additional evidence or clarification, or a review of legal issues.
  • The court gives directions of remanding under Order XLI Rule 23 and 23A.
• Procedure of Remanding a Case:
  • A party in a civil case may file an appeal to a higher court (appellate court) if they are dissatisfied with the decision made by the lower court (trial court).
  • The appellate court reviews the lower court's decision and can either uphold, reverse, or modify the judgment.
  • If the appellate court determines that the lower court made errors in its proceedings, or if there are issues that need further consideration or clarification, it may remand the case.
    • The appellate court gives the directions to re-admit the suit under its original number in the register of civil suits.
  • This means sending it back to the lower court for specific actions, such as a new trial, reevaluation of evidence, or reconsideration of legal arguments.
  • Upon receiving the remanded case, the lower court carries out the instructions given by the appellate court.
  • Once the lower court has completed the necessary actions in accordance with the instructions from the higher court, it issues a new judgment or decision in the case.
  • This new judgment is based on the guidance provided by the appellate court.
• Appeal Against Remand Order:
  • Order XLIII of CPC governs appeals from orders.
  • Rule 1(u) of Order XLIII states that the appeal lies from an order under Rule 23 or Rule 23A of Order XLI where the court gives an order to remand a case.