List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal have observed that ‘Instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide’.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand.

What is the Background of Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand?

• The widow of the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000 from Sandeep Bansal and later another sum of Rs.60,000. A legal notice was served by Sandeep regarding dishonored cheques to the deceased.
• The deceased due to this committed suicide on July 4, 2017. The prosecution relied on a suicide note written by the deceased on June 30, 2017.
• The High Court rejected the plea to quash the offence, allowing the case to proceed.
• The court emphasizes that for abetment, there must be a specific act of instigation with mens rea, pushing the deceased to a point where suicide becomes the only option.
• The alleged acts of the accused took place over two weeks before the suicide, and there was no evidence of subsequent contact or instigation in close proximity to the suicide and was concluded that the acts of the accused did not amount to instigation under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order, observing that the continuation of the prosecution will be "nothing but an abuse of the process of law”.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• To attract the first clause under Section 107 of IPC, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
• The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.

What are Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC?

• Section 107: Abetment of a thing.
  • A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

(1) Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(2) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(3) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

• • Explanations:

(1) A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

(2) Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

• Section 306: Abetment of suicide.
  • If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal have observed that common intention doesn't necessitate explicit discussions or agreements among the co-accused; it is a psychological aspect that can arise just before or during the commission of the offense.

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Ram Naresh v. State of UP.

What is the Background of Ram Naresh v. State of UP Case?

• On October 18, 1982, Balram and his brother Ram Kishore were attacked and encountered Virender armed with an iron rod (Rambha), along with Rajaram, Jogendra, and Ram Naresh, who were wielding lathis and proceeded to attack Ram Kishore viciously with lathis and an iron rod which led to his death.
• On the First Information Report (FIR), a case was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), dealing with murder and common intention.
• The trial court found all four accused individuals guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The High Court affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellant approached the Supreme Court.
• Mere common intention alone might not trigger Section 34 IPC. The court dismissed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• For applying Section 34 IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence.
• Common intention is a psychological fact, and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence.

What are Sections 34 and 302 of the IPC?

• Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  • When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Section 302: Punishment for Murder.
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

What is the Landmark Judgment Cited in the Case?

• Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. the State of Punjab (2022):
  • Supreme Court held that a mere common intention per se may not attract Section 34 IPC unless the present accused has done some act in furtherance thereof is of no assistance to the appellant as it is writ large on record as per the evidence that the appellant not only had common intention to kill the deceased Ram Kishore but also actively participated in assaulting and giving blows to the deceased Ram Kishore together with the other accused persons.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

Recently, the Lok Sabha has passed the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023 to repeal the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 and amend the Advocates Act, 1961.

What was the Background of Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023?

• This Bill is a part of the Central government’s effort to repeal all obsolete laws that have lost their utility.
• This Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha on 1^st August 2023 and was passed by the upper house on 3^rd August 2023.
• The Bill will now be given to the President for her assent.

What is the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023?

• This Bill amends the Advocates Act, 1961 and repeals certain sections of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879.
• It provides for the insertion of a new section, namely Section 45A in the Advocates Act, 1961.
• It incorporates the provisions of Section 36 (power to frame and publish lists of touts in courts) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 in the Advocates Act, 1961.
• The Bill provides that every High Court, district judge, sessions judge, district magistrate, and revenue officer (not below the rank of a district collector) may frame and publish lists of touts.
  • Tout refers to a person who:
    • either proposes to procure or procures the employment of a legal practitioner in a legal business in return of any payment, or
    • frequents places such as the precincts of civil or criminal courts, revenue-offices, or railway stations to procure such employment.
• The authorities empowered to frame and publish the list of touts may order subordinate courts to hold an inquiry into the conduct of persons alleged or suspected to be touts.
• Once such a person is proven to be a tout, his name may be included by the authority in the list of touts.
• No person will be included in such lists without getting an opportunity of showing cause against his inclusion.
• Any person who acts as a tout while his name is included in the list of touts will be punished with imprisonment up to three months, a fine up to Rs 500, or both.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• The Advocates Act, 1961:
  • An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the legal practitioners and to provide for the constitution of Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
  • This Act came into force on 19^th May 1961.
  • This Act has been in force in entire India.
  • The Act has a total of 60 sections split into 7 chapters.
• The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879:
  • This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Legal Practitioners.
  • It came into force on 1^st January 1880.
  • It provided that an Advocate or vakil on the roll of any high Court can practice in all the courts subordinate to the courts on the role of which he was entered.
  • According to this act, the High court was empowered to make rules consistent with the act as to suspension and dismissal of pleaders and advocates.