List of Current Affairs

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), has laid down the principles which are to be followed in cases where there are multiple dying declarations.

What was the Background of Abhishek Sharma v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) Case?

• In the present case, the appellant (Abhishek Sharma) was accused of murdering his colleague Mandeep Kaur (deceased) on the intervening night of 20^th and 21^st September, 2007.
• The deceased was set on fire and died due to multiple burn injuries and the appellant was booked for murder under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The deceased gave four dying declarations.
  • The first dying declaration was given to a police officer, who reached the spot of the crime and took the deceased to the Hospital.
  • The second dying declaration was given to the Doctor who examined the deceased and prepared a report.
  • The third dying declaration was given to Sub Inspector, based on which the First Information Report (FIR) was registered.
  • The fourth dying declaration was given to the mother of the deceased.
• In the Trial Court, all four dying declarations made by the deceased were found to be consistent, voluntarily given, and reflective of her sound mental condition at the time. As a result, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Delhi High Court, upon appeal, agreed with the Trial Court's findings, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of its lack of merit.
• Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the SC.
• While allowing the appeal, the SC acquitted the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that considering the aforementioned factors, placing the gauntlet of guilt upon the appellant based on dying declarations when no other material particulars, apart from his name, could be elicited therefrom would be unjustified.
  • Furthermore, when considering other circumstances that may or may not point to the guilt of the appellant, as discussed above, the court find gaps unexplained in the prosecution case, which cast sufficient doubt to leave the case short of the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
• The court laid down the following principles which are to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations:
  1. The primary requirement for all dying declarations is that they should be voluntary and reliable and that such statements should be in a fit state of mind.
  2. All dying declarations should be consistent. In other words, inconsistencies between such statements should be material for its credibility to be shaken.
  3. When inconsistencies are found between various dying declarations, other evidence available on record may be considered for the purposes of corroboration of the contents of dying declarations.
  4. The statement treated as a dying declaration must be interpreted in light of surrounding facts and circumstances.
  5. Each declaration must be scrutinized on its own merits. The court has to examine upon which of the statement's reliance can be placed in order for the case to proceed further.
  6. When there are inconsistencies, the statement that has been recorded by a Magistrate or like higher officer can be relied on, subject to the indispensable qualities of truthfulness and being free of suspicion.
  7. In the presence of inconsistencies, the medical fitness of the person making such declaration, at the relevant time, assumes importance along with other factors such as the possibility of tutoring by relatives, etc.

What is Dying Declaration?

• Meaning:
  • Dying declaration is derived from the word ‘leterm motem’ which means words said before death.
  • A dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person as to the cause of his death or as to any circumstances of the transaction that resulted in his death.
  • The dying declaration of the deceased can be recorded by anyone as per law. However, a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial or Executive Magistrate adds an additional strength to the prosecution case.
• Statutory Provision:
  • Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) deals with the concept of dying declaration.
  • Section 32(1) states that when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.
  • The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as evidence and admissible in a Court of law.
• Multiple Dying Declarations:
  • The following rules have to be considered in cases of multiple dying declarations:
    • There should be regularity in all the dying declarations.
    • If the dying declarations are inconsistent, then the court will examine the facts of the case or witnesses.
• Related Case Laws:
  • In the Kamla v. State of Punjab (1993) case, the SC held that dying declaration can form the sole basis of conviction if it is free from infirmities and satisfies various tests.
  • In the Amol Singh v. State of MP (2008) case, the SC held that inconsistencies between multiple dying declarations must be assessed in the context of surrounding facts and circumstances.
  • In the Lakhan v. State of MP (2010) case, the SC observed that if in a case there are multiple dying declarations and there are inconsistencies between them, generally, the dying declaration recorded by the higher officer like a Magistrate can be relied upon, provided that there is no circumstance giving rise to any suspicion about its truthfulness.
  • In the Ashabai v. State of Maharashtra (2013) case, the SC held that when there are multiple dying declarations, each dying declaration has to be separately assessed and evaluated and assessed independently on its own merit as to its evidentiary value and one cannot be rejected because of certain variations in the other.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man charged with kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant in the matter of Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

What is the Background of the Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• The complainant (Sunil) and his wife were engaged in the business of selling balloons at Indore, they had a daughter (deceased) aged three months and four days.
• They were sleeping at a railway platform and when they woke up, they did not find the deceased at the place where she was sleeping.
• A missing report regarding the deceased was filed by the complainant, later a person informed the Police Station MG Road, Indore (MP) that the dead body of a girl of about three months old had been found.
• Sunil thereafter went to the spot and identified the deceased as his daughter.
• After completing the investigation including collection of evidence from CCTV footage, recovery of incriminating articles, chemical analysis report, etc., the charge sheet was filed.
• On the basis of evidence brought on record during the course of the trial, wherein the prosecution examined 29 witnesses and also proved 78 documents including expert opinion/chemical report/FSL report, the trial Court convicted the appellant for Sections 363, 366-A, 376(A), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 2 376(2)(m), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) and Section 5(m), 5(i) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) for committing rape and murder of a 3 month old.
• The Sessions Court sent reference to the High Court under Section 396 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for confirmation of death sentence.
• The High Court confirmed the death sentence and resultantly the Criminal Appeal was preferred by the appellant in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Court took note of case Bashira vs. State of UP (1968) in which the trial was conducted in 13 days, the SC held that “In our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the time which must elapse between the appointment of the counsel and the beginning of the trial; but, on the circumstances of each case, the Court of Session must ensure that the time granted to the counsel is sufficient to prepare for the defence”.
• The bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that the accused had not been afforded a 'fair chance' to mount his defence as the trial was concluded in 23 days.

What is a Fair Trial?

The concept of a fair trial is a fundamental principle in the legal system as it ensures that individuals accused of crimes are given a just and impartial process to determine their guilt or innocence. Several key components of a fair trial include:

• Impartial Judge and Jury: The trial should be presided over by a judge who is unbiased and neutral.
• Legal Representation: The accused has the right to legal representation, and if they cannot afford an attorney, one must be provided for them. The concept of Free Legal Aid is provided under Article 39A of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• Presumption of Innocence: The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Right to Silence: The accused has the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves. They cannot be compelled to testify against their will. The right against self-incrimination is provided by Article 20(3) of COI.
• Open Trial: In most cases, trials are held in open court, allowing the public and the media to attend. This transparency helps ensure that justice is administered fairly.
• Right to a Speedy Trial: The accused should not be subjected to unreasonable delays in the legal process.
  • In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), SC has held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the COI.
• Right to an Appeal: If convicted, the accused generally has the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The right to appeal is not an inherent right but a statutory right.
• Protection from Double Jeopardy: The accused cannot be tried for the same crime twice, protecting them from being subjected to double jeopardy.
  • The concept of double jeopardy is provided under Article 20(2) of the COI and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the action of simply "liking" a post on social media does not constitute the act of publishing or transmitting the said post in the matter of Mohd Imran Kazi vs. State of UP and Another.

What is the Background of the Mohd Imran Kazi vs. the State of UP and Another Case?

• The accusation against the applicant was centered on his posting of provocative messages on social media.
  • These messages led to the gathering of approximately 600-700 individuals from the Muslim community, who organized a procession without proper authorization. This unauthorized gathering posed a significant risk to the peace and potential breach of it.
• A chargesheet was filed under Section 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 67 Information Technology Act, 2010 (IT Act) in Agra.
  • The present application has been filed to quash the impugned charge sheet.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal's bench noted that the language used in Section 67 of the IT Act pertains to content that is "lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest," indicating a focus on material related to sexual interest and desire.
  • Consequently, such an act of the applicant does not fall under the purview of Section 67 of the IT Act, which stipulates penalties for the dissemination of obscene material in electronic form.

What is Section 67 under IT Act?

• Section 67 - Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.