List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) is unsustainable as there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Sivamani and Anr.v. State Represented by Inspector of Police.

What is the Background of Sivamani and Anr.v. State Represented by Inspector of Police Case?

• The appellants along with three others were named by the complainant in First Information Report (FIR) dated 15^th September 2012 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with Section 109 of the IPC accusing them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the complainant.
• Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were acquitted and the appellants, who were Accused Nos. 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.1000/- each.
• The appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court did not succeed in full, and only resulted in the sentence of rigorous imprisonment being reduced from 10 years to 5 years.
• Hence, the appellant appealed in the SC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been inflicted. Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favor. As such, the conviction under Section 307, IPC is unsustainable.

What is Section 307of IPC?

• About:
  • Section 307 of IPC deals with ‘Attempt to Murder’.
  • Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
• Attempts by Life Convicts:
  • When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Jage Ram v. State of Haryana (2015):
  • Supreme Court had observed that while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the weapon used, and the severity of the blows inflicted can be considered to infer intent.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Smt. Monika Yadav v. Aakash Singh & Ors., has held that an appeal against the order of a Civil Judge rejecting a plea for the issuance of a succession certificate would lie before the District Judge under Section 388(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA).

What was the Background of Smt. Monika Yadav v. Aakash Singh & Ors. Case?

• The appellant before the High Court of Allahabad has filed the present appeal under Section 384(1) of the ISA, against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), whereby the application for obtaining the Succession Certificate, has been rejected.
• A question has arisen with regard to the maintainability of the appeal in view of the provisions contained in Section 388(2) of ISA.
• Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the High Court did not have jurisdiction over such appeals.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that an appeal against the order of a Civil Judge rejecting a plea for the issuance of a succession certificate would lie before the District Judge under Section 388(2) of ISA and not before the High Court under Section 384 of the Act.
• It was further held that Section 388 of ISA creates a special jurisdiction on a Court subordinate to the District Judge through investiture of power. Once such power is invested to a Court inferior to the District Judge, under sub­section (1), in that event by virtue of the deeming clause under sub­section (2), such Court would discharge the function of the District Judge by reason of such investiture, and have concurrent jurisdiction in exercise of all the powers conferred by Part X upon the District Judge.
• It was further stated that the proviso to sub­section (2) creates an exception by providing that an appeal from any order of an inferior court falling within the scope of Section 384 would in such circumstance, lie to the District Judge and not to the High Court.

What is Section 388 of ISA?

• This section deals with the Investiture of inferior courts with the jurisdiction of the District Court for the purposes of this Act. It states that -

(1) The State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, invest any court inferior in grade to a District Judge with power to exercise the functions of a District Judge under this Part.

(2) Any inferior court so invested shall, within the local limits of its jurisdiction, have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Judge in the exercise of all the powers conferred by this Part upon the District Judge, and the provisions of this Part relating to the District Judge shall apply to such an inferior court as if it were a District Judge.

Provided that an appeal from any such order of an inferior court as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 384 shall lie to the District Judge, and not to the High Court, and that the District Judge may, if he thinks fit, by his order on the appeal, make any such declaration and direction as that sub-section authorizes the High Court to make by its order on an appeal from an order of a District Judge.


(3) An order of a District Judge on an appeal from an order of an inferior Court under the last foregoing sub-section shall, subject to the provisions as to reference to and revision by the High Court and as to review of judgment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applied by section 141 of that Code, be final.

(4) The District Judge may withdraw any proceedings under this Part from an inferior court and may either himself dispose of them or transfer them to another such court established within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the District Judge and having authority to dispose of the proceedings.

(5) A notification under sub-section (1) may specify any inferior court specially or any class of such courts in any local area.

(6) Any Civil Court which for any of the purposes of any enactment is subordinate to, or subject to the control of, a District Judge shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a court inferior in grade to a District Judge.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur, has held that welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.

What was the Background of Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur Case?

• The appellant (father) filed an application before the Family Court under Section 43 (2) of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (GD Act) directing the respondent (mother) to send the child to a school in Dwarka.
• The Family Court dismissed the appeal.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi which was later rejected by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.
• The Court further noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the father was in Dwarka (20 kms away). The current school is suited to the needs of the child as his mother always remains present with him and therefore, the change of school at this stage would not be in the interest and welfare of the child.

What is Section 43 of the GD Act?

• This Section deals with the order for regulating conduct or proceedings of guardians, and enforcement of those orders. It states that -

(1) The Court may, on the application of any person interested or of its own motion, make an order regulating the conduct or proceedings of any guardian appointed or declared by the Court.

(2) Where there are more guardians than one of a ward, and they are unable to agree upon a question affecting his welfare, any of them may apply to the Court for its direction, and the Court may make such order respecting the matter in difference as it thinks fit.

(3) Except where it appears that the object of making an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) would be defeated by the delay, the Court shall, before making the order, direct notice of the application therefor or of the intention of the Court to make it, as the case may be, to be given, in a case under sub-section (1), to the guardian or, in a case under sub-section (2), to the guardian who has not made the application

(4) In case of disobedience to an order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the order may be enforced in the same manner as an injunction granted under section 492 or section 493 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882), in a case under sub-section (1), as if the ward were the plaintiff and the guardian were the defendant or, in a case under sub-section (2), as if the guardian who made the application were the plaintiff and the other guardian were the defendant.

(5) Except in a case under sub-section (2), nothing in this section shall apply to a Collector who is, as such, a guardian.