List of Current Affairs

Source – Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was hearing a plea for DNA test to test the parentage under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

• The Allahabad High Court heard this plea in the case of Smt. Mobin And Another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation And 6 Others.

What is the Background of Smt. Mobin And Another v. Dy. Director of Consolidation And 6 Others Case?

• The case is concerned with a land in dispute that was in the name of Yaqoob, who has three sons, namely, Shakeel, Jameel and Furkan.
• The eldest son Shakeel married petitioner no. 1 and it was contended that they had a daughter (petitioner no. 2) out of wedlock who was born after death of Shakeel.
• Hence, her name was not mentioned in the will of Shakeel.
• The matter is related to the paternity of petitioner 2 as the daughter of Shakeel because the respondent contended that petitioner no. 2 was born out of the second marriage of petitioner no. 1 after Shakeel’s death.
• As per the matriculation certificate or birth certificate issued from School the petitioner no. 2 was born after 615 days of Shakeel’s death.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The HC observed that “if there is a document which is recognized to be sufficient legal proof of determination of date of birth, i.e., matriculation certificate, therefore, no circumstance exists to pass an order for DNA test.”

What are the Guidelines of Supreme Court on DNA Test?

The Supreme Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2023) laid down principles that could be culled out as to the circumstances under which a DNA test of a minor child may be directed to be conducted:

• That a DNA test of a minor child is not to be ordered routinely, in matrimonial disputes. Proof by way of DNA profiling is to be directed in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of infidelity, only in matters where there is no other mode of proving such assertions.
• DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed, only when there is sufficient prima-facie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the IEA. Further, if no plea has been raised as to non-access, in order to rebut the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act, a DNA test may not be directed.
• A Court would not be justified in mechanically directing a DNA test of a child, in a case where the paternity of a child is not directly in issue, but is merely collateral to the proceeding.
• Merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy.
  • The parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove or disprove the factum of paternity and only if the Court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such evidence, or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct DNA test and not otherwise.
  • In other words, only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
• While directing DNA tests as a means to prove adultery, the Court is to be mindful of the consequences thereof on the children born out of adultery, including inheritance related consequences, social stigma, etc.

What is Legal Provision Involved in the Case?

• Section 112 of IEA: Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.—
  • The fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mittal held that the High Court has done material irregularity by failing to put material circumstances during the examination of appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana Case?

• The appellant was convicted under Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS).
• They are convicted of possessing poppy straw without a license or permit.
• The Chief Parcel Supervisor caught a total of ten bags in five parcels, five bags containing 20 Kilograms of poppy straw each and the other five bags containing 21 Kilograms each.
• The accused had the railway receipt of those parcels, and the Special Court recorded a finding that though the contraband was recovered during transit, the persons possessing railway receipt of the parcels shall be deemed to have control over the contraband and, thus, in conscious possession thereof.
• The appellant contended before the court that material fact which is the railway receipt which stood in his name had not been put to him in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC observed that “As the only material circumstances pleaded by the prosecution against the appellant were not put to him, a serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant's defense”.
• The court further added that while allowing the appeal that, it was a serious material illegality committed by the HC.

What is Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 313 is in Chapter XXIV of the CrPC, which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials.
  • The primary objective of this section is to give the accused an opportunity to be heard and present their version of events before the court.
• Legal Framework: 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).

• Interpretation and Key Features:
  • Personal Examination of the Accused:
    • The essence of Section 313 lies in the personal examination of the accused by the court. This allows the accused an opportunity to clarify any doubts arising from the evidence presented against them.
    • The court has the discretion to ask questions at any stage of the inquiry or trial. This flexibility ensures that the accused can respond to specific points as they arise during the proceedings.
  • No Prior Warning:
    • Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 313 empowers the court to put questions to the accused without providing prior warning.
    • This is in line with the principle that the accused should respond spontaneously and truthfully, without having the opportunity to fabricate a response.
  • Questioning After Prosecution Witnesses:
    • Sub-section (1)(b) mandates that the court shall question the accused after the prosecution witnesses have been examined but before the accused is called upon for their defense.
    • This sequencing ensures that the accused is aware of the evidence against them before presenting their defense.
  • Dispensation in Summons Cases:
    • The proviso to Section 313(1)(b) allows the court to dispense with the examination of the accused in summons cases where their personal attendance has been dispensed with.
    • This recognizes the practicalities of certain cases where the physical presence of the accused may not be required.
  • No Administration of Oath:
    • Sub-section (2) explicitly states that no oath shall be administered to the accused during their examination under Section 313.
    • This is in contrast to the examination of witnesses who are required to take an oath before providing their testimony.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

While dealing with Section 313 the SC referred to its judgment in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) where it summarized the law related to 313 CrPC in the points mentioned below:

• It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately.
  • The material circumstance means the circumstance or the material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking his conviction.
• The object of examination of the accused under Section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.
• The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances not put to the accused from consideration while dealing with the case of the particular accused;
• The failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused;
• If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes a curable defect.
  • However, while deciding whether the defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be the passage of time from the date of the incident;
• In case such irregularity is curable, even the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance which is not put to him; and
• In a given case, the case can be remanded to the Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary statement of the concerned accused under Section 313 of CrPC.
• While deciding the question whether prejudice has been caused to the accused because of the omission, the delay in raising the contention is only one of the several factors to be considered.