List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., has held that commenting on wife’s cooking skills is not cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the Respondent (Wife) alleged that her husband, Amol Salunkhe, failed to establish a conjugal relationship with her since their marriage date. She also accused her in-laws of taunting and insulting her.
• The allegation levelled against the petitioners who were the brother and cousin of the husband of respondent is that they commented that respondent does not know how to cook and that her parents have not taught her anything.
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the High Court for quashing of the FIR.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench comprising Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and N.R. Borkar observed that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of IPC.
• The Court further observed that petty quarrels do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of IPC. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.

What is Section 498A of IPC?

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
  • Section 84 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the same provision.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Case Laws

• In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
• In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009), the Supreme Court held that for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time to the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John gave observation with regards to Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) which talks about Res Gestae.

• The Kerala High Court gave this judgment in the case of Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala.

What is the Background of Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala Case?

• The prosecution stated that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife as a result of a quarrel that happened between them in the course of their work.
• After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
• The appellant preferred an appeal before the Kerala HC where the learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no direct witness to the occurrence and the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution is of a circumstantial nature.
  • He further said that since the prosecution has not succeeded in fully establishing the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
• However, the Public Prosecutor took note of statements given by Prosecution Witnesses (PW) including PW 1 to 3, which formed part of same transaction.
• The Public Prosecutor said before the court that Court Witness saw the appellant stabbing the deceased with knife and immediately informed PW 1 which is a relevant fact.
• However, there was a variance in the statements of PW 1 to 3 which the counsel for accused contended as hearsay evidence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Kerala HC held that variation in the evidence of PW 1 to 3 regarding the exact time of occurrence are only due to normal errors of observation and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and errors will always be there and the same cannot be accepted as material discrepancies touching the core of the case.
• Hence, the court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of appellants.

What is Legal Provision Related to Facts Forming Part of Same Transaction?

• About:
  • Section 6 of the IEA lays the foundation for understanding the admissibility of facts forming part of the same transaction known as relevant facts.
    • According to this section, facts which, though not in issue directly, are so connected with the facts in issue that they substantially affect the probability of the existence or non-existence of the facts in issue are deemed to be relevant.
  • Facts forming part of the same transaction as relevant facts are covered under Section 4 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
• Proximity in Time, Place, and Circumstances:
  • The connection between facts forming part of the same transaction must be established through proximity in time, place, and circumstances.
  • Courts assess whether the facts are so closely interwoven that they collectively contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the entire incident.
  • As per the Section, that facts forming part of same transaction becomes relevant whether they happened at same time or place or different.
• Complete Understanding of the Transaction:
  • The objective behind considering facts forming part of the same transaction is to present a complete and coherent picture before the court.
• Illustrations in the Act:
  • A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.
  • P is accused of waging war against the Government of India by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
  • X sues Y for libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.
  • The question is whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to C. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
• Exception to Hearsay Rule:
  • The general rule of evidence law is that the court does not rely on hearsay evidence which are statements given by someone who is not testifying before court.
  • The Act provides an exception to the general hearsay rule when it comes to facts forming part of the same transaction.
  • Statements made by a person as to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, or as to the existence of any community custom, are relevant when they accompany or explain acts in question.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Shrishail v. State of Karnataka, has held that a child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.

• The Court also issued guidelines for ascertaining the juvenility of an accused.

What was the Background of Shrishail v. State of Karnataka Case?

• In this case, the juvenile accused had trespassed into the victim minor girl's house and had sexual intercourse with her in her family's absence.
• On knowing about the offence committed by the juvenile accused on the victim, the parents of the victim lodged the complaint.
• The special court convicted the juvenile under the provisions of Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court.
• The Court allowed the appeal as the juvenile accused had been in custody for more than 3 years and 3 months, while the maximum detention in special homes permissible under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) was 3 years.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice C M Joshi observed that there is no doubt that a Magistrate or Special Court has to make certain preliminary enquiry with the accused when produced for the first time in a criminal case during the crime stage. These enquiries are not mere formalities, but they have a vital importance in ascertaining an accused to be a juvenile, mentally fit and the requirements of law are fulfilled. A child, whether an offender or not, is a child and has to be treated as a child.
• The Court also issued the following guidelines for ascertaining the juvenility of an accused.
  • The Learned Magistrate/presiding officer of the Special Court must satisfy that the accused is not a minor.
  • Whenever accused of the age of 18 to 22 years is produced, the Investigating Officer (IO) or the accused may be directed to produce documentary proof of his age.
  • At the time of first production of accused, an oral enquiry about the age, apart from ill treatment by Police, intimation to the family members of the accused, reason for arrest, place of arrest, and ailments if any be made and recorded in the order of remand.
  • An early ascertainment of the juvenility of the accused would be of great importance in reforming the child.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

POCSO Act, 2012

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
  • It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• It is a gender-neutral act and considers the welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.
  • It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents.
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO Amendment Act, 2019.
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years.
• Section 6 deals with the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. It states that

(1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into force on January 15, 2016.
  • It repealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• This Act seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children as ratified by India on December 11, 1992.
  • It specifies 58+ procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law.
• It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc.
• The Act further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years.
• According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021, crimes against children which are mentioned in the chapter “Other Offences Against Children” of the JJ Act, 2015 and that allows imprisonment between three and seven years will be deemed non-cognizable.
• As per Section (35) of this Act, juvenile means a child below the age of eighteen years.