List of Current Affairs

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., has held that the question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.

What was the Background of Sushil Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the complainant (Shashi Karan) stated in the written complaint, that his mother-in-law was cremated in the land of Kailash Prasad Verma (husband of wife’s sister).
• When the complainant along with Kailash Prasad Verma arrived at the place for taking Asthi Kalash of their mother-in-law, the accused Sushil Chaudhari along with his associates wrongfully restrained them and assaulted them and stole Rs. 3,000.
• The accused were charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• During the trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
• None of the witnesses made any allegation against the accused, Sushil Chaudhari or others.
• Due to the lack of supporting evidence and the presence of doubt in the factual circumstances, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on benefit of doubt.
• Thereafter, an appeal has been filed before the High Court of Patna that acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt casts stigma on their reputation and the said phrase should be declared to be expunged from the impugned order.
• The High Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed the question of giving benefit of doubt by the Trial Court arises when from the evidence on record, it appears that two views one in support of the prosecution and other in support of the defence are found, the Court should accept the view that is in favor of the accused.
• The Court further stated that the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt when he is acquitted. But when there is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons, they will be simply acquitted. The question of exercising discretionary power of granting the benefit of doubt does not arise when the evidence on record is absolutely silent in respect of the role of the accused persons.

What is the Benefit of Doubt?

• The fundamental principle, upon which the whole structure of our Criminal Jurisprudence is based, is that burden of proving every essential ingredient of the offence lies upon the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent till the offence is proved against him beyond all reasonable doubt.
• In legal terms, this is known as the “benefit of doubt”. If the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence to convict a defendant, the court will find the defendant not guilty.
• Under this concept, the defendant is considered to be acquitted by the court if his or her offence has not been established, which means when the prosecution fails to provide the legal evidence against the defendant or an accused of the offence he or she has committed.
• The question of doubt arises only when the evidence against the accused is of such character that the Court is not in a position to give a categorical finding of facts regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused. Doubt and certainty cannot co-exist. The existence of one automatically vanishes the existence of other.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A division bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal heard a case involving the offence rape because of false promise to marry under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Supreme Court quashed the complaint in the case of Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

What is the Background of Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Case?

• The First Information Report (FIR) stemmed from the second respondent's complaint filed on 23^rd February 2018, at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur.
• The complaint outlined their acquaintance since 2011, when the second respondent worked at a beauty parlour where the appellant took a hair-cutting course.
• Allegedly, the appellant proposed in June 2011, leading to subsequent meetings.
• The second respondent claimed the appellant attempted physical intimacy in 2011 and engaged in sexual intercourse in 2012 under false marriage promises.
• After discovering her pregnancy in February 2013, the appellant arranged an abortion, yet their relationship persisted.
• Despite their engagement in July 2017, the appellant purportedly continued the affair.
• In December 2017, when the second respondent became pregnant again, the appellant promised marriage, causing her to forgo an abortion.
• However, she discovered the appellant's engagement to another woman in January 2018, and later learned of his marriage in February 2018.
• The appellant insisted they had a Nikah ceremony on 20^th January 2017, supported by a seized copy of the Nikahnama and his passport listing the second respondent as his wife since 17^th August 2017.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that “If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out”.
• The appellant offered Rs. 10 lakhs during the case's pendency but settlement attempts failed.
• Evaluating the case, the court referenced IPC Section 375, highlighting non-consensual consent due to false promises.
• The second respondent, over 18 at the relationship's start, engaged with the appellant since 2011, with physical relations from 2012-2017.
• Although pregnancies occurred, she filed a complaint in 2018 post-marriage revelation.
• Despite the missing original Nikahnama, its existence was affirmed, and the second respondent acknowledged the engagement.
  • The court deemed continued prosecution an abuse of process.
• The appellant was directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs, affirming marital status, with further monetary arrangements for the child.
• The appeal was upheld, and proceedings quashed, pending compliance and future rights preservation.

What is the Offence of Rape?

• About:
  • Rape, as defined under the IPC is one of the most heinous crimes against women, with far-reaching physical, emotional, and psychological consequences.
  • Under the IPC, rape is addressed comprehensively, with provisions detailing the elements of the offence, penalties for offenders, and procedural requirements for justice to be served.
  • Section 63 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines the offence of Rape.
• Understanding the Definition of Rape:
  • Section 375 of the IPC delineates the definition of rape and outlines the circumstances under which sexual intercourse or sexual acts are deemed non-consensual and therefore, criminal.
  • According to the statute, rape occurs when there is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, without her consent, under certain specified conditions.
  • These conditions include instances where consent is obtained through coercion, deception, or when the woman is unable to give consent due to intoxication, unsoundness of mind, or being under the age of consent.
• Elements of the Offence:
  • To establish the offence of rape under the IPC, certain key elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • These elements typically include the absence of consent, the presence of force, coercion, or deception, and the sexual penetration of the victim.
  • Furthermore, the law recognizes that consent must be given voluntarily and with full understanding of the nature of the act, without any fear or duress.
• Legal Penalties and Punishments:
  • The IPC prescribes stringent penalties for individuals convicted of rape, recognizing the gravity of the offense and its impact on the victim.
  • The severity of the punishment varies depending on the circumstances of the case, including the age of the victim, the use of force or violence, and the presence of aggravating factors such as gang rape or repeat offenses.
• Amendments:
  • In 2013, significant amendments were made to the IPC regarding rape laws through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, following the Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors (2017).
  • These amendments introduced more stringent penalties, including the death penalty in cases of rape resulting in the victim's death or leaving her in a persistent vegetative state.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Keral High Court in the matter of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala, has allowed the plea of insanity as a defence under the provisions of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Shine Kumar v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the accused is the younger son of his parents (victims).
• The accused was aged about 40 years at that time. The incident occurred on 30^th September 2015, when the accused was home alone with the two victims.
• A case was registered, and after investigation, a final report was filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC by the accused.
• The accused denied the charge framed and read over to him by the Court of Session did not accept the plea of legal insanity set out by the accused.
• It was further stated that no motive has been proved for the accused to cause the death of his parents and the very fact that he had not made any attempt to run away would not indicate by itself that he was insane.
• Aggrieved by the said decision, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court of Kerala which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and Johnson John observed that even though the mere fact that no motive has been proved for the accused to cause the death of his parents and the very fact that he had not made any attempt to run away would not indicate by itself that he was insane, according to us, in the peculiar facts of this case, the same are also to be taken note of in the matter of deciding the entitlement of the appellant the benefit of Section 84 of IPC.
• The Court allowed the appeal and granted immunity under the provisions of Section 84 of IPC.

What is Section 84 of IPC?

About:

• Section 84 of IPC deals with the act of a person of unsound mind whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
• Section 84 IPC is one of the general defenses available under the IPC and provides for the defence of insanity.
• The foundation for the law of insanity was laid down by the House of Lords in 1843, in what is popularly known as the M’Naghten case.
• The word ‘insanity’ is not used in Section 84 of IPC.
• It uses the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’, which is not defined in the Code. However, the courts in India have treated the expression ‘unsoundness of mind’ as equivalent to ‘insanity’.
• This section is legal insanity and not medical insanity. The crucial point of time for deciding the legal insanity is the material time when the offence took place
• In order to seek protection under Section 84 of IPC, it is necessary for an accused to prove that he, because of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that the act was contrary to law.
• The crucial point of time of such incapability due to unsoundness of mind is the time when he committed the offence.
• His insanity prior to or subsequent to the commission of the offence is not in itself adequate to absolve him from the criminal liability.

Case Law:

• In Rattan Lal v. State of M.P(2002), Supreme Court held that the crucial point of time at which the unsound mind should be established is the time when the crime is actually committed and whether the accused was in such a state of mind as to be entitled to benefit from Section 84 of IPC can only be determined from the circumstances that preceded, attended and followed the crime.