List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has cleared charges of a person accused in a case dating back two decades, related to suspected liquor poisoning resulting in a man's death, has been in the matter of Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh.

What is the Background of the Hariprasad @Kishan Sahu v. State of State of Chhattisgarh Case?

• Bisahu Singh (deceased) went to the forest one evening in July 2003 to collect wood.
  • He was found in a semi-conscious state the next morning.
• The deceased asserted that Hariprasad (appellant-accused) compelled him to ingest liquor and added herbs to the mixture in incoherent speech.
• Considering his falling health, his wife took him to the hospital where he died during treatment in 2003.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed in this regard in November 2004 after the chemical examiner gave his report.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant, and the decision was upheld by the High Court.
• Hence, an appeal was made to the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court found that the delay was caused by the Chemical Examiner, which took 1 year to submit the report of the chemical examination of the viscera of the deceased.
• The Court further took note of the landmark case:
  • Sharad Birdi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), SC stated that the elements to be demonstrated in cases of murder by poison, it is crucial to emphasize the necessity of establishing:
  • A distinct motive.
  • Confirming the cause of death as poison.
  • Demonstrating the accused's possession of the poison.
  • Affirming the opportunity to administer the substance.
• Furthermore, the Court stated that the Trial Court and High Court neglected to provide the accused with the chemical examination report during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the court thereby overturned the conviction.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

• Section 313 - Power to examine the accused -

(1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court—

(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary;

(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).

(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1).

(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving false answers to them.

(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.

(5) The Court may take help of Prosecutor and Defence Counsel in preparing relevant questions which are to be put to the accused and the Court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient compliance of this section.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr., has held that under the provisions of Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw acid on another person, and not any other liquid or substance.

What was the Background of Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr. Case?

• The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent, and both reside in a common property.
• On 16^th March 2017, a call was received by the police from the son of the respondent stating that someone had thrown acid on his mother.
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 326B and 506 of the IPC.
• Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the present FIR is frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the respondent in order to harass the petitioner due to ongoing property dispute between the parties.
• The present petition has been filed before the Delhi High Court for quashing of FIR under Sections 326B and 506 of IPC.
• Allowing the petition, the Delhi HC quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s observations?

• Justice Amit Bansal observed that under the provisions of Section 326B of IPC, an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw acid on another person, and not any other liquid or substance.
• The Court further added that if indeed the liquid that was thrown on the respondent by the petitioner was acid, then the respondent would have suffered external injuries and traces of the acid would have been found on her body

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved?

Section 326B, IPC

• This Section was inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and deals with voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid. It states that -

Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—For the purposes of section 326A and this section, acid includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.


Explanation 2.—For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.

• This is a gender-neutral section which aims to prevent acid-attack crimes against everyone on the gender spectrum.
• The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by a Court of Session.

Section 506, IPC

• This section deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. It states that -

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

• Criminal Intimidation has been defined under Section 503 of IPC