List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has recently observed that the absence of an explanation for the injuries inflicted on the accused suggests that the prosecution may have hidden the true nature of the incident in the matter of Parshuram v. State of MP.

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

• The accused persons were arrested, and a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class after completion of investigation.
• As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge.
• Before the trial court, in total nine accused persons were examined.
  • They denied the charges levelled against them, stating that they had been falsely implicated.
• The prosecution examined twenty-one witnesses and defence examined two witnesses.
• Seven accused out of 9 were held guilty of the charges under Section 302, 326, 324, 323, 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the remaining two accused were acquitted of the charges.
  • All the sentences awarded to the accused were to run concurrently.
• An appeal was made to the High Court (HC), both the criminal appeals were dismissed and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction as recorded by the trial court.
  • Thereby, the present appeal was filed in the SC.
• The learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that the prosecution has failed to attribute any specific role to the appellants in the matter.
• It was submitted that many accused persons had sustained injuries which were not at all explained by the prosecution.
• Reliance was placed upon the case Nand Lal and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), in which SC has opined that non-explanation of injuries is fatal to the prosecution case and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted on the ground of non-explanation of such injuries.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice BV Nagarathna, and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra stated that “non-explanation of injuries on the persons of the accused would create a doubt, as to, whether the prosecution has brought on record the real genesis of the incident or not”.
• The court further held that prosecution had failed to prove that the unlawful assembly had the intention to cause the death of the deceased.
  • Therefore, the court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Part II of Section 304 of IPC.

What are the Legal Provisions of IPC Involved?

• Section 300 – Murder — Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
  • —If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
  • —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
  • —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
• 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 299 - Culpable homicide - Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
• Section 304 - Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Parshuram v. State of MP, held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role in convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Parshuram v. State of MP Case?

• It is the prosecution case that the appellant Jalim Singh had constructed a shed on the passage of the village which is used by the cattle.
  • Since the said shed was damaged by a buffalo belonging to the complainant party, appellant Jalim Singh had beaten that buffalo with lathi and drove that buffalo away.
  • Thereafter, a violent altercation occurred among a group of armed individuals.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC.
  • Thereafter an appeal was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was later dismissed.
  • Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with the following directions.
  • The conviction under Section 302 IPC was altered to Part-II of Section 304 of IPC.
  • The appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices BR Gavai, BV Nagarathna, and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that for the application Section 149 of the IPC, it is not necessary to demonstrate that a person committed an illegal overt act or was guilty of an illegal omission to be held a member of an unlawful assembly. The punishment prescribed by Section 149 is, in a sense, vicarious, and does not mandate that every member of the unlawful assembly has personally committed the offence.
• The court referred to the case of Masalti v. State of U.P (1964).
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role for convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of IPC. What has to be established by the prosecution is that a person has to be a member of an unlawful assembly.

What is Section 149 of IPC?

About:

• This section deals with the offence committed by the members of unlawful assembly.
  • It states that 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.
• Section 141 of IPC defines Unlawful Assembly.

Essential Characteristics:

• The following are the characteristics for convicting the person under Section 149 of IPC:
  • Existence of an unlawful assembly.
  • Commission of an offence by any member of the unlawful assembly.
  • The offence committed must be in furtherance of the assembly’s common objective.

Case Laws:

• In Vinnubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajivebhai Dudabhai Patel (2018), the Supreme Court held Section 149 of IPC is not a separate offence rather it creates vicarious liability for all the members having a common object in an unlawful assembly to commit a crime.
• In Yunis v. State of M.P (2002), the Supreme Court held that even though there has been no overt act committed by any one of the accused, still that accused would be liable under Section 149 of IPC by virtue of being present at the place of commission of the crime.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Bombay in the case of Amar S. Mulchandani v. State of Maharashtra, held that an accused who is in custody in one case can seek anticipatory bail in another case under the provisions of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Amar S. Mulchandani v. State of Maharashtra?

• An application for pre-arrest bail has been filed before the High Court of Bombay in connection with a case registered with Pimpri Police Station for the offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • The applicant is already in custody since the year 2021.
• The first informant has raised an objection to the maintainability of the application for pre-arrest bail on the ground that a person who is already in custody is not entitled to seek a relief of pre-arrest bail in connection with the other crimes which have been registered against him.
• The High Court disallowed the objection to maintainability of the application.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice NJ Jamadar held that the fact that the applicant who is already in custody in one case, does not preclude him from seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with another case in which he apprehends arrest.
• The Court further noted that Section 438 of CrPC does not hold in very clear terms that a person arrested for one offence was barred from seeking anticipatory bail in another offence.

What is Section 438 of CrPC?

About:

• This section contains directions for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. It states that-

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, interalia, the following factors, namely:---

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested;

either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail.

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days' notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court,

(1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including--

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Conditions:

• This Section is made applicable only in the event of there being an apprehension of arrest.
• It envisages for seeking pre-arrest bail is that the applicant must have reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

Significance of Section 438 of CrPC:

• The reason for enactment of Section 438 in the Code was Parliamentary acceptance of the crucial underpinning of personal liberty in a free and democratic country.
• Section 438 of CrPC is a procedural provision concerned with the personal liberty of each individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

Case Laws:

• In the case of Badresh Bipinbai Seth v. State of Gujarat (2015), the Supreme Court held that Section 438 of CrPC should be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 which grants freedom of life and personal liberty.
• In the case of Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020), the Supreme Court held that the anticipatory bails should not be time-bound.