List of Current Affairs

Source: Gujarat High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gujarat High Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Prakash @ Piddu MithuBhai Mulani & Ors. has held that a single injury resulting in death can be categorized as murder under the provisions of clause 3 Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of State of Gujarat v. Prakash @ Piddu MithuBhai Mulani & Ors. Case?

• The present appeal has been preferred before the Gujarat High Court by the appellant (the State) challenging the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kachchh-Bhuj whereby the respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
• It is reported that accused no.2 – Raju Mithubhai Mulani has already passed away, and therefore, the appeal is only confined to the accused no.1-Prakash @ Piddu Muthubhai Mulani.
• The State had argued that the Trial Court had overlooked crucial pieces of evidence, such as the dying declarations, the accused's surrender with the weapon, and forensic reports confirming the presence of the deceased's blood on the knife.
• The High Court convicted the accused Prakash @ Piddu Mithubhai Mulani for committing the murder of the deceased and the incident satisfies the provisions of Section 300 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Justices AS Supehia and MR Mengdey observed that where the prosecution proves that the accused had intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the intended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely falls under clause 3 of Section 300 of IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.
• The Court further underscored the differences between Section 300, which pertains to murder, and Section 299, which addresses culpable homicide. It emphasized the pivotal role of intent and knowledge, emphasizing that a solitary injury could qualify as murder if it is objectively lethal, and the accused was conscious of the associated risk.
• Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if the intent aligns with specific categories, the offense could be reclassified as culpable homicide if it satisfies any of the five exceptions specified in Section 300.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Section 300, IPC:
  • This section deals with murder.
  • It states that 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—
  • (Secondly)—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—
  • (Thirdly) —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—
  • (Fourthly) —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.
  • There are certain exceptions such as:
    • Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender is deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. This exception is subject to the following provisos:
    • Provocation is not sought or voluntarily pro­voked by the offender.
    • Provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exer­cise of the powers of such public servant.
    • Provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder if it is in the exercise of the right to private defence.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder if it is done by the public servant acting in good faith.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
  • Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
• Section 299, IPC:
  • This section deals with Culpable homicide.
  • It states that 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.

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Munga Devi and Ors. v. Kamla Devi, has held that an order passed on an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. Instead, it is considered a revisable order.

What was the Background of Munga Devi and Ors. v. Kamla Devi Case?

• The original plaintiff Parshuram Prasad husband of Munga Devi being the owner of the suit land and house has filed the eviction suit stating that defendant Kamla Devi (Opposite Party) who is the sister of the plaintiff did not vacate the suit premises.
• It is alleged that about 10 years back, the defendant and her husband were facing accommodation problems and were in dire need of residential accommodation. Hence, on account of sympathy the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy and live in the suit premises with her husband and children.
• It appears that during pendency of the suit, original plaintiff Parshuram Prasad died leaving behind his wife and sons as heirs and legal representatives.
• Consequentially, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed by the present petitioners before the learned court for their substitution in place of original plaintiff to contest the suit, which has been dismissed on extraneous considerations and same has been assailed in this petition.
• Thereafter, a petition has been filed before the Jharkhand High Court.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court directed the Court below to permit the petitioners to be substituted in the original suit as plaintiffs.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava observed that an order passed on the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC rather it is a revisable order, Hence, there is no substance in the argument of learned counsel for opposite party that there is remedy of appeal before the Civil Court.
• The Court criticized the lower court for dismissing the substitution application based on extraneous considerations and held that order of the Court was not legally sustainable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

• Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC:
  • Rule 3 deals with the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff. It states that—

(1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff.

• Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC:
  • Rule 1 deals with the appeal from orders. It states that an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: —
    • An order under rule 10 of Order 7 returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order 7 has been followed.
    • An order under rule 9 of order 9 rejecting an application in a case open to appeal for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit.
    • An order under rule 13 of Order 9 rejecting an application in a case open to appeal for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte.
    • An order under rule 21 of Order 11.
    • An order under rule 34 of Order 21 on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement.
    • An order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order 21 setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale.
    • An order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order 21, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 105 of that Order is appealable.
    • An order under rule 9 of Order 22 refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit.
    • An order under rule 10 of Order 22 giving or refusing to give leave.
    • An order under rule 2 of Order 25 rejecting an application for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit.
    • An order under rule 5 or rule 7 of Order 33 rejecting an application for permission to sue as an indigent person.
    • Orders in interpleader-suits under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of Order 35.
    • An order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of order 28.
    • An order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 2A, rule 4 or rule 10 of Order 39.
    • An order under rule 1, or rule 4 of Order 40.
    • An order of refusal under rule 19 of Order 41 to re-admit, or under rule 21 of Order 41 to re-hear, an appeal.
    • An order under rule 23 or rule 23A of Order 41 remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court.
• Section 151 of CPC:
  • This section deals with the inherent powers of Court. It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

Source: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur has observed that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) does not automatically bar a suit for mere declaration of title, even if the plaintiffs could have sought additional consequential relief.

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Sudhakar Sharma & others v.Nandini Mishra & others.

What is the Background of Sudhakar Sharma & others v.Nandini Mishra & others Case?

• The main contention raised by the petitioners was that the respondents, who claimed ownership of the disputed property, had never been in possession. The petitioners argued that since the suit was for a declaration without seeking consequential relief of possession, it was barred by Section 34 of the SRA, 1963.
• While the respondents countered this argument by stating that their visits to their grandfather's property, even after his demise, demonstrated their possession. They asserted that the question of possession should be adjudicated during the main suit and that the application to reject the plaint was premature.
• The court noted that the suit filed by the respondents was not merely for a declaration but included consequential reliefs such as permanent prohibitory injunction and damages and emphasized that possession is a fact to be established through evidence during the trial and cannot be determined solely based on the contents of the plaint.
• The impugned order, affirming the rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was upheld by the court.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Section 34 of the SRA does not mandate that a declaratory suit without consequential relief which respondents-plaintiffs being able to seek have omitted to do so, is not maintainable at all.
• Rather it provides that no such declaration shall be made by the court for omission on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs to seek further relief other than a mere declaration of title which could have been sought by the respondents/plaintiffs.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved?

• Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963: Discretion of court as to declaration of status or right.
  • Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:
  • Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
  • Explanation- A trustee of property is a “person interested to deny” a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee.
• Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC
  • It provides for the rejection of a plaint when ‘the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law.’