List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Velthepu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) & Anr., has held that common intention under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) cannot be inferred mechanically merely based on the presence of accused near the scene of offence.

What was the Background of Velthepu Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the accused 1 to 4 belonged to the same family, and the deceased came from the same village.
• The sister of the deceased and the wife of the accused 4 were political aspirants.
• In the said elections, the sister of the deceased succeeded, and the wife of A-4 lost and that, unfortunately, led to animosity between the two groups, eventually leading to the murder of the deceased.
• The Trial Court found all four accused guilty for the murder of the deceased and convicted them under Section 302 of IPC.
• All the accused appealed to the Telangana High Court.
• The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the criminal appeals.
• Thereafter, a criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The Supreme Court held that the accused 3 did not share a common intention to commit the murder.
• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of accused 1, accused 2 and accused 4 under Section 302 of IPC and convicted accused 3 under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 10 years.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed that there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to attribute accused 3 with the intent to murder. The inference was drawn mechanically under Section 34 merely based on his presence near the scene of offence and his familial relations with the other accused.
• The Court further held that the prosecution has not been in a position to establish that accused 3 shared the common intention with the other accused to cause the murder of the deceased.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions?

Section 34 of IPC

• Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Under the ambit of this section, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held responsible by virtue of his or her participation in the criminal act.
• The following are the major ingredients of this section:
  • A criminal act must be done by several persons.
  • There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
  • Participation of all the persons is necessary in the commission of the common intention.
• In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993), it was held that it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence as well.

Section 304 of IPC

• Section 304 of IPC deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• Section 304 of IPC can be separated into two parts: Section 304 (Part I) and Section 304 (Part II).
  • Section 304(Part I) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
  • Section 304 (Part II) states that, Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Culpable Homicide

• Section 299 of IPC deals with Culpable homicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 100 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of ABC v. XYZ, has held that if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself.

What was then Background of ABC v. XYZ Case?

• The petitioner is the husband, and the respondent is his wife.
• The two get married on 13^th November 2011 and from the wedlock a child is born, now said to be aged 9 years.
• The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent appears to have floundered and the respondent is said to have left the matrimonial house.
• The discard between the two led them to file two petitions, one which is filed by the husband seeking a decree of divorce and the other is filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
• The concerned Court takes both the matrimonial cases together and by its common judgment rejects the petition for divorce filed by the husband on the allows the petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
• The concerned Court, on the interim application filed in the execution petition by the respondent invoking Sections 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), allowed the application in part, granting interim maintenance to the wife and the minor child.
• Aggrieved by this, a petition has been filed before the High Court of Karnataka by the petitioner which was later rejected by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that if this Court had granted an interim order of stay of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, then it was open to the learned counsel for the petitioner to urge that contention.
  • Since that has not happened and the husband has not taken the wife to the matrimonial house, it was open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself and the kid even at the stage of execution of the decree.
• The Court stated that no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court in directing payment of interim maintenance.
  • It was further held that the husband cannot escape maintenance merely because he has challenged the order of restitution of conjugal rights before the Court.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

About:

• The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.
  • Its objective is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage.
• Section 9 of the HMA deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. It states that -
  • When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
  • Explanation — Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society.

Case Law:

• In the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.

Section 24 of HMA

• Section 24 of the HMA deals with the provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
  • The term "pendente lite" means pending the litigation or during the pendency of the case.
• The said section governs interim maintenance to support livelihood and necessary expenses of any proceeding under HMA in case of insufficient or no independent income.
  • The provision provides a gender-neutral right to apply this remedy to both husbands and wives, as the case may be.
• This Section states that where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

• Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of M R Mohan Kumar & Others v. NIL, heard about issuance of probate in the case where executor has not been named.

What was the Background of M R Mohan Kumar & Others v. NIL Case?

• The appellants had applied for probate, claiming ownership of the property mentioned in the petition under the name of Sannarangappa, which was granted to them on 22^nd November 1978.
  • They asserted that they had been using and cultivating the property as owners.
• Sannarangappa, who was unmarried, was cared for by the father of the appellants and the appellants themselves during his lifetime. Sannarangappa's grandfather had drafted a Will on 14^th February 2001, which was registered on 15th February 2001. Sannarangappa passed away on 29th June 2001.
• The petitioners had applied to transfer the khatha to the Tahsildar, but the Tahsildar refused, citing a lack of necessary documents for the transfer.
• The appellants prayed for the issuance of a Probate/Succession Certificate, as per the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
  • Despite being cited in two newspapers, no respondents appeared to contest the matter.
• The Trial Court considered all evidence, including oral and documentary, and concluded that unless the executor was appointed in the Will by the testator, the granting of probate was not applicable.
  • Hence, the appellant approached the HC.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Justice H P Sandesh ordered that “When the Will was executed in favour of the beneficiary, admittedly, no executor has been appointed and mere non-appointment of an executor cannot be a ground to reject grant of probate”.
  • Hence, the single judge bench granted Probate/Succession Certificate in favour of the appellants as sought.

What is a Probate under Indian Succession Act, 1925?

• About:
  • Indian Succession Act, 1925 was enforced on 30th September 1925.
  • Probate under Indian Succession Act, 1925 is a legal process that validates and authenticates the last will and testament of a deceased person.
• Definition:
  • Section 2(f) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 defines “probate” means the copy of a will certified under the seal of a court of competent jurisdiction with a grant of administration to the estate of the testator.
• Initiating the Probate Process:
  • The probate process commences with the filing of a petition in the appropriate court by the executor or any interested party. This petition includes details such as the deceased's name, date of death, and a copy of the will.
• Examination of the Will:
  • During probate proceedings, under Section 61 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the court examines the validity of the will, ensuring it meets all legal requirements and is executed without undue influence or coercion.
• Notice and Opportunity to Contest:
  • The court issues a notice to heirs and interested parties, providing them with the opportunity to contest the will if they have objections.
• Granting of Probate:
  • If the court is satisfied with the validity of the will, it grants probate, officially recognizing the executor's authority to administer the estate according to the terms of the will.