List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, restated the conditions for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

What is the Background of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Case?

• In this case, the appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal, along with other co-accused, had committed the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. His dead body was thrown in the sump tank in his house.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) whereas other co-accused were acquitted.
• Thereafter, the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti clarified that discovery of fact also includes knowledge of the accused person. Thus, this fact discovery cannot be just equated to the object found.
• The Court relied on the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) elucidating Section 27 of the IEA.
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence.
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition.
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody.
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 27, IEA

About:

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved.
• It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object.

Case Laws

• In State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005), the Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates.
• In Rajesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that formal accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites under Section 27 of the IEA.

Section 201, IPC

• This section deals with the disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender.
• It states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
• If the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
• If punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, it shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
• If the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., has held that under the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (C0I), an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices during investigation.

What is the Background of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. Case?

• The applicant has filed the present application before the Delhi High Court under the Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in First Information Report (FIR) registered under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
• In the present FIR, it was alleged that a company namely E-Sampark Softech Pvt. Ltd. along with its directors had made millions of scam phone calls to the USA from fraud call centres located in India and as such, had defrauded and cheated US Citizens to the tune of about 20 million USD.
• The applicant and at least 12 other persons were held accused in this case and were in custody since 19^th July 2023.
• The High Court released the appellant on bail.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, like the applicant herein, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, like the applicant herein is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the COI.
• The Court further held that the accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords, or any other similar details of the digital devices or gadgets seized during investigation while the trial is ongoing.

What is Section 20(3) of the COI?

About:

• Article 20(3) affirms that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• The right conferred by this article is a right which gives a privilege to an accused to remain silent during a trial or investigation whereas the State has no claim on the confession made by him.

Case Laws

• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the process of justice must be fair and on equitable grounds.
• In the case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) of the COI enjoys an exalted status. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

Recently, a Qatar Court has commuted the death sentence of 8 Indian navy veterans in Dahra Global Case into varying jail terms. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) confirmed the commutation of death sentence.

What is the Background of Dahra Global Case?

• 30^th August 2022:
  • 8 Indian Navy Men were arrested in Doha, by Qatari Intelligence Services.
• 1^st March 2023:
  • Qatar court rejected their bail applications.
• 28^th October 2023:
  • Court of First Instance at Qatar sentenced all of them to death.
• 28^th December 2023:
  • The Court of Appeal in Qatar commuted the death sentence into jail terms.

What Can be the Next Step?

• Appeal:
  • The Indian Legal team has a 60 days' time to appeal against the jail terms of the 8 navy men.
• Application of Treaty:
  • There is a Treaty on transfer of sentenced persons between India and Qatar which can be invoked if the aforementioned appeal against jail term fails.

What is the Treaty Between Indian and Qatar?

• Signing of Treaty:
  • The Union Cabinet, led by Prime Minister gave approval to the signing of the treaty concerning the transfer of sentenced persons between India and Qatar on 2^nd December 2014.
• Purpose of Treaty:
  • This treaty's implementation enabled Indian prisoners incarcerated in Qatar, or vice versa, to be in proximity to their families while serving the remaining portion of their sentences.
  • It was signed with the aim of social reintegration.
• Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003:
  • Before 2004, there was no domestic legislation allowing foreign prisoners to be transferred to their home country for the remainder of their sentence.
  • Furthermore, there was no provision for the transfer of individuals of Indian origin convicted by foreign courts to serve their sentences in India.
  • To address this gap, the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 was enacted.
  • To achieve the Act's objectives, the signing of a Treaty/Agreement was necessary with countries that share mutual interests with India.
• Similar Treaty with Other Nations:
  • The Government of India has already entered into Agreements with the governments of the United Kingdom, Mauritius, Bulgaria, Brazil, Cambodia, Egypt, France, Bangladesh, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, Sri Lanka, UAE, Maldives, Thailand, Turkey, Italy, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Israel, Russia, Vietnam, and Australia.