List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal sentenced an accused of rape to an imprisonment for a term of 30 years.

• The Supreme Court gave this sentence in the case of Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What was the Background of Bhaggi @ Bhagirath @ Naran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• On 21^st February 2018, the complainant Munni Bai (Prosecution Witness-8) who is the grandmother of the victim lodged a report that her granddaughter X, who was examined as PW-1, aged 7 years was kidnapped and raped by the petitioner-convict.
• After the trial, the Trial Court found that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing damning evidence to establish that the victim, aged 7 years was taken to temple by the petitioner-convict and there upon making her and himself nude he committed rape.
• The oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses (PWs-1, 2 and 14) on the culpability of the convict got credence from the medical evidence unerringly pointing to his guilt.
• The consequential conviction brought him capital sentence.
• Though, the petitioner was also convicted under Section 376 (2) (i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Sections 3/4, Sections 5(d)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) taking note of his conviction under Section 376 AB, IPC, no separate sentences were awarded for the aforesaid offences by the trial Court.
• The High Court commuted the death sentence into imprisonment for life though another alternative punishment was also possible which is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years with fine.
• Hence, the petitioner approached SC against the order of HC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC held that “It is noted that if the victim is religious, every visit to any temple may hark back to her the unfortunate, barbaric action to which she was subjected. So also, the incident may haunt her and adversely impact her future married life”.
  • The petitioner-convict shall not be released from jail before completion of an actual sentence of 30 years.

What were the Landmark Cases Cited in this Case?

• Mulla v. State of U.P (2010);
  • SC held that "It is open to the sentencing court to prescribe the length of incarceration. This is especially true in cases where death sentence has been replaced by life imprisonment”.
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Ors. (2016):
  • SC held that, in cases where death penalty or life imprisonment is imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the Division Bench of the HC, the convict may appeal to this Court.
  • The HC, empowered by IPC, can modify the punishment to life imprisonment for a specified period, based on the gravity of the crime and judicial discretion.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2023):
  • SC held that, even in a case where capital punishment is not imposed or is not proposed, the Constitutional Courts can always exercise the power of imposing a modified or fixed-term sentence by directing that a life sentence, as contemplated by “secondly” in Section 53 of the IPC, shall be of a fixed period of more than fourteen years, for example, of twenty years, thirty years and so on.
  • The fixed punishment cannot be for a period less than 14 years in view of the mandate of Section 433A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Source: Orissa High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Orissa High Court in the matter of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha, has held that evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.

What was the Background of Pata @ Pratap Puri v. State of Odisha Case?

• In this case, the appellant Pata @ Pratap Puri faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack for commission of offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the accusation that on 09^th June 2003 at village Tilada under Salipur police station, Cuttack, he committed murder of Pabitra Kumar Das, (the deceased) by means of a sword and that on the same day he was in illegal possession of a sword without any authority.
• The Trial Court acquitting the appellant of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 found him guilty under section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Orrisa High Court.
• The High Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed that the evidence adduced from the microscopic hair comparison cannot be solely used to record a conviction for murder against an accused person.
• It was further stated that even though microscopic hair comparison has been found to be a valid and reliable scientific methodology, it cannot solely form the basis upon which a conviction can be recorded against an accused.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Himangshu Pahari v. The State (1986).
  • In this case, the Calcutta High Court held that the science of comparison of hairs has not yet reached perfection like the science of comparison of fingerprints. Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon such a report.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 302 of IPC

• Section 302 of IPC deals with the punishment for murder whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 103 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 300 of IPC deals with Murder.

Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959

• This Act consolidates and amends the law relating to Arms and Ammunition.
  • The main objective of this Act is to regulate and restrict the circulation of arms and ammunition, which were illegal.
  • This Act recognized the necessity for certain law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms for certain specific purposes including self-defence.
  • It came into force on 1^st October 1962.
• Section 27 of this Act deals with the punishment for using arms, etc. It states that

(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that an independent decision must be made as to whether the prosecution of an accused is to be withdrawn or not although a public prosecutor is entitled to move an application under Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for withdrawal of prosecution.

What was the Background of the Case?

• A petition has been filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in public interest questioning the Government Order whereby, a decision has been taken to withdraw the prosecution in as many as six cases registered against the accused and directions have been issued to the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh to instruct the Public Prosecutor concerned to file a petition under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution of the said six cases.
• Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to withdraw lies exclusively with the Public Prosecutor in terms of Section 321 of CrPC and that no Government’s interference in that power is either envisaged or warranted.
• The State contended that merely because a Government Order was issued, it does not vitiate the power exercisable by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw under Section 321 of CrPC.
• The High Court has provided for an interim measure while listing the matter for further proceedings.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed that although a public prosecutor is entitled to move an application under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution, an independent decision must be made as to whether the prosecution of an accused is to be withdrawn or not.
• The Court stated that as an interim measure, we direct that while the Public Prosecutor is vested with the power to move an application under Section 321 of CrPC yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Government Order has been issued, and the Public Prosecutor would be entitled to take an independent decision as to whether the prosecution has to be withdrawn or not.

What is Section 321 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 321 of CrPC deals with the withdrawal from prosecution whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 360 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It states that

The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried; and, upon such withdrawal, —

(a) If it is made before a charge has been framed, the accused shall be discharged in respect of such offence or offences.

(b) If it is made after a charge has been framed, or when under this Code no charge is required, he shall be acquitted in respect of such offence or offences.

Provided that where such offence—

(i) Was against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, or

(ii) Was investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or

(iii) Involved the misappropriation or destruction of, or damage to, any property belonging to the Central Government, or

(iv) Was committed by a person in the service of the Central Government while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, and the Prosecutor in charge of the case has not been appointed by the Central Government, he shall not, unless he has been permitted by the Central Government to do so, move the Court for its consent to withdraw from the prosecution and the Court shall, before according consent, direct the Prosecutor to produce before it the permission granted by the Central Government to withdraw from the prosecution.

Case Law

• In State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith & Ors. (2021), the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles in respect Section 321 of CrPC:
  • Section 321 of CrPC entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for a withdrawal of the prosecution.
  • The public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice.
  • The public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion before seeking the consent of the court to withdraw from the prosecution.
  • While the mere fact that the initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal, the Court must make an effort to elicit the reasons for withdrawal so as to ensure that the public prosecutor was satisfied that the withdrawal of the prosecution is necessary for good and relevant reasons.
  • In deciding whether to grant its consent to a withdrawal, the Court exercises a judicial function, but it has been described to be supervisory in nature.
  • While determining whether the withdrawal of the prosecution subserves the administration of justice, the Court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence and its impact upon public life especially where matters involving public funds and the discharge of a public trust are implicated.