List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Anupam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Anr., has elucidated the difference between the scope of Sections 311 and 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Anupam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the accused is facing trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • Before the Trial Court, an application was moved under Section 311 of CrPC and thereafter, a second application was filed under Section 233 CrPC, for the production of same witnesses.
  • Both these applications were rejected.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision has been filed by the accused before the High Court of Allahabad.
  • The High court set aside the order of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that under Section 311 of CrPC, the power to summon lies with the courts only and under Section 233 of CrPC, the right of defence lies with the accused and the court's interference is limited.
• The observation of the learned trial court that summoning the witnesses will be tantamount to review is misconceived. The trial court failed to apply the law in the right perspective and ignored the difference in scope and implications in which the provisions of Section 311 of CrPC and Section 233 of CrPC are meant to be applied. Hence the order of the trial court suffers from legal flaw and is not sustainable.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 311 of CrPC

About:

• Section 311 of CrPC deals with the power to summon material witness or examine person present whereas the same provisions has been covered under Section 348 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.
• Under the provisions of section 311 CrPC, the court has plenary power to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witness. This power includes recall and re-examination of any person who has already been examined.
• The power lies with the Court alone as juxtaposed to rights or powers of parties and this power is to be exercised when the court finds it necessary to summon/recall any witness for just decision of the case.

Case Law:

• In Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013), the Supreme Court held that the object of Section 313 of CrPC is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

Section 233 of CrPC

About:

• Section of 233 CrPC finds place under Chapter XVIII titled as 'trial before a court of session'. This section deals with entering upon defence
  • The same provision has been covered under Section 256 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that-

(1) Where the accused is not acquitted under Section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof.

(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.

(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.

• This provision is an essential part of session trial and is applicable when the prosecution evidence is complete, and the accused is given an opportunity to produce the evidence in its defence.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Neetu Grover v. Union of India & Ors., has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).

What was the Background of Neetu Grover v. Union of India & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the marriage between the petitioner and her distant cousin Mr. Gagan Grover was solemnized with the mutual consent of the families and by conducting the religious ceremony in the presence of members of civil society.
• Mr. Gagan Grover has succeeded in having the marriage declared null and void by seeking a declaration from a competent Court under Section 5(v) of the HMA.
• He stated that the Petitioner has become a victim of a fraud perpetuated by Mr. Gagan Grover and his family members who induced her to believe in the validity of their marriage.
• Aggrieved by the judgment of the competent Court, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court which was later dismissed.
• Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a writ petition for striking down Section 5 (v) of HMA.
• The High Court disposed of the writ petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the HMA which states that no marriage can be solemnized between parties who are related to each other as sapindas, unless it is sanctioned by usage or custom governing them.
• The Court also states that there is no merit in the challenge to Section 5(v) of the HMA in the present writ petition.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 5 of HMA

• This section deals with the conditions for a Hindu marriage.
• It states that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: —

(i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage.

(ii) At the time of the marriage, neither party—

(a) Is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or

(b) Though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from mental disorder of such a kind or to such an extent as to be unfit for marriage and the procreation of children; or

(c) Has been subject to recurrent attacks of insanity.

(iii) The bridegroom has completed the age of twenty-one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage.

(iv) The parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits of a marriage between the two.

(v) The parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits a marriage between the two.

Sapinda Relationship

• The word Sapinda came from the word Pinda which means a ball of rice offered at a sraddha ceremony to deceased ancestors.
  • According to Hindu law, when two persons offer Pinda to the same ancestor it is known as Sapinda relation. These relations are connected to each other with the same blood.
• Section 3(f) of HMA defines Sapinda Relationship as

(i) Sapinda Relationship with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being traced upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation.

(ii) two persons are said to be sapindas of each other if one is a lineal ascendant of the other within the limits of sapinda relationship, or if they have a common lineal ascendant who is within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them.

• According to Sections 5(v) and 11 of HMA, if any person marries within the sapinda relation such a marriage is considered void.