List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Amit Sharma reduced/commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life of a convict involved in Batla house encounter case.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of State v. Ariz Khan.

What is the Background of State v. Ariz Khan Case?

• On 13th September 2008, a series of explosive incidents occurred across various locations in Delhi, including Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, Greater Kailash, and India Gate.
• These incidents resulted in the tragic loss of 39 lives, with 159 individuals sustaining injuries.
• Separate First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed at distinct police stations, each pertaining to the specific blast site.
• The allegation suggests that the group known as "Indian Mujaheddin" claimed responsibility for these bombings, conveying their involvement through emails sent to different electronic and print media outlets.
• The investigation into these cases was entrusted to the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.
• The appellant was allegedly involved in the shootout that took place in the case and succeeded in absconding hence he was declared as a proclaimed offender.
• However, Delhi Police succeeded in arresting him.
• He was sentenced to death and directed to be ‘hanged by his neck till he is dead’ for offence committed under Section 302 of the IPC.
• He filed an appeal from conviction under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Delhi.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The Delhi HC held that the present case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases.

What is Appeal from Conviction under Section 374 CrPC?

• About:
  • Section 374 of CrPC outlines the provisions for appeals to the Supreme Court, HC & Court of Session in cases where a person has been convicted or acquitted by a lower court.
  • The section begins by highlighting the right of appeal available to a convicted person.
• Sub-section 1:
  • Sub-section (1) of Section 374 CrPC states that any person convicted of an offence by a HC in its extraordinary criminal jurisdiction has the right to appeal to the SC.
  • This provision emphasizes the principle of fair and just adjudication, ensuring that individuals convicted at the high court have the opportunity for justice by SC.
• Sub-section 2:
  • Sub-section (2) of Section 374 CrPC specifies that any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High Court.
  • This provision highlights the power of the High Court to hear appeal.
• Sub-section 3:
  • Sub-section (3) of Section 374 CrPC states that any person:
    • convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class or of the second class, or
    • sentenced under Section 325, or
    • in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.
  • It acknowledges that there may be instances where an acquittal is based on erroneous findings or legal misinterpretations and allows for a Session Court to review such decisions.
• Sub-section 4:
  • Section 374(4) lays down the timeframe within which an appeal must be filed.
  • The appeal for cases related to rape shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC), underscored the significance of requiring convincing evidence for establishing the common object in cases pertaining to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the matter of Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of the Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana Case?

• The facts of the case pertain to the fact that certain persons had fired a gunshot at a boy. Upon reaching the place of incident, statement of one Mohit Kala was recorded.
• He stated that:
  • He saw Ajay and Suraj running towards the house of Dharmender as they were being chased by three youngsters on a bullet motorcycle.
  • Two more motorcycles having two riders each, with batons in their hands were following the Bullet motorcycle driven by Ravi.
  • Further, the person sitting on the Bullet motorcycle got down and fired at Ajay with a country-made revolver, which hit his head and Ajay fell down.
  • On raising the alarm, the assailants sped away on their motorcycles.
  • Ravi was studying in Ajay’s school and was his junior. He used to bully and threaten all.
  • Ajay had a fight with Ravi and Suraj and had threatened to kill him.
• First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was upon the incident.
• Thereafter, upon death of Ajay charge under Section 307 of IPC was converted to that of section 302 of the same Act.
• The Session Court convicted the accused persons which was upheld by the High Court.
• Hence, the present appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court considered the following case laws:
  • Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa (2012), SC held that as a participant in the unlawful assembly, one must have been aware that the murder of the deceased was a probable outcome in the pursuit of the common objective.
  • Lalji v. State of UP (1989), SC stated that “Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behavior of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case.”
• Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar while acquitting the accused persons observed that "To convict a person under Section 149 of IPC prosecution has to establish with the help of evidence that firstly, appellants shared a common object and were part of unlawful assembly and secondly, it had to prove that they were aware of the offences likely to be committed is to achieve the said common object."

What is Unlawful Assembly?

• Unlawful Assembly has been defined under Section 141 of IPC as:
• Section 141 - Unlawful Assembly — An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is
  • First —To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
  • Second —To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
  • Third —To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
  • Fourth—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
  • Fifth —By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation —An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
• Section 142 defines that who is said to be a member of such an assembly as whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
• The punishment for Unlawful Assembly is provided under Section 143 of the code as imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

What is a Common Object?

• Section 149 of IPC mentions the concept of the Common Object.
  • Section 149 Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object — If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
  • In, State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Ors. (2003), SC defined Common Object as the word ‘object’ means the purpose and, in order to make it ‘common’, it must be shared by all.
  • Common Object is based upon the principle of Vicarious Liability which means that a person can be held responsible for the actions committed by others.
    • Every person who joins an unlawful assembly having the common object is held liable as he is accounted to have consented to furthering the object of such assembly.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justices Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar observed if the State or its instrumentalities acts fairly in the tenders proceedings interference by the Court is very restrictive as no bidder can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of M/S Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran v. State of UP And 9 Others.

What is the Background of M/S Jai Hanuman Construction Jagdish Saran v. State of UP And 9 Others Case?

• A tender invitation was released for the expansion and beautification of State Highway in Mirzapur District.
• The stipulated time period for completion was 18 months.
• The case of the petitioner is that they successfully submitted their technical bid through the Prahari website, where the technical sheet was downloaded and subsequently uploaded onto the e-tender platform.
• The outcome posted on the Prahari website indicated that the petitioner's technical bid was deemed "responsive" in every aspect.
• They alleged that several documents were deleted from the website and hence their financial bid became “non-responsive”, and they alleged this act as arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Allahabad HC held the Government, or his undertaking shall have a free hand in setting up the terms of the tender.
• And said that Court will interfere in the tender matters only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, or actuated with bias.

What is Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950?

• Article 14 is a fundamental right that embodies the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
• It states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
• The essence of Article 14 lies in treating equals equally and unequals unequally, ensuring that the law is applied uniformly to all persons without discrimination.
• The concept of reasonable classification is recognized, allowing the state to classify individuals for legitimate purposes, as long as such classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable.

What are the Landmark Judgments Involved in the Case? 

• National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Montecarlo Limited & Another (1994):
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) has held that “the court should be extremely careful in exercising the powers in the tender matters”.
• Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994):
  • The SC held that the court would interfere in tender matters of government only if it finds favoritism or arbitrariness in the procedure.
• N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain & Anr. (2022):
  • The SC held that “If the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract”.
    • The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against public interest.