List of Current Affairs

Source: Gauhati High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in the matter of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr., has held that the accused has a right to remain silent and the burden of proof cannot be shifted upon the accused under the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) when multiple witnesses to the crime were present.

What was the Background of Sri Rajen Nayak v. The State of Assam & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant had killed the 26 year old son of Smti. Sukurmoni Nayak by hacking him with a dao over the catapult and she had prayed to take necessary action against the appellant.
• A case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellant.
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal has been filed before the Gauhati High Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The division bench comprising of Justices Kalyan Rai Surana and Mridul Kumar Kalita observed that when the offence of murder was allegedly committed in daylight in the presence of witnesses, by applying the provisions of Section 106 of IEA, the burden of proof cannot be put upon the appellant to disprove the allegations and explain the circumstances relating to death of the deceased. Thus, the judgment of the learned Trial Court is found to be perverse.

What is Section 106 of IEA?

About:

• This Section deals with the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
• It states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• This Section comes into play in cases of custodial death, dowry death and in cases of alibi.
• It is only an exception to Section 101 of IEA.

Objectives:

• This Section promotes the idea of a fair trial where it becomes easy to prove all the possible facts and have no burden to prove something that is impossible and benefits the accused.
• It provides the opportunity for the accused to rebut the presumption of facts which is derived from the series of facts.

Illustration:

• When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

Case Law:

• In Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021), the Supreme Court reinforced that, in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Junaid B v. State of Karnataka has held that the minor offence within the provisions of Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should essentially be a cognate offence of the major offence and not entirely a distinct and different offence constituted by altogether different ingredients.

What was the Background of Junaid B v. State of Karnataka Case?

• In this case, the appellant was initially charged with attempt of murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) but later he was convicted of offence under Section 326 of IPC.
• The Trial Court sentenced the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
• For the purpose of setting aside the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court.
• The High Court held that in the case on hand also punishment provided for offence under Sections 307 and 326 IPC is same and therefore, the offence under Section 326 IPC is not a minor offence to offence under Section 307 of IPC so as to invoke Section 222(2) of CrPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar observed that minor offence within the meaning of Section 222 of CrPC would not be something independent of the main offence or an offence merely involving lesser punishments. The minor offence should be composed of some of the ingredients constituting the main offence and be a part of it.
• The Court further distinguished that the term minor offence has to be interpreted in its ordinary sense and not technical sense. The test is not the gravity of punishment. When a person is charged with an offence, consisting of several particulars and if all the particulars are proved then it will constitute the major offence, while if some of those particulars are proved and their combination constitutes a minor offence, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence though he was not charged with it.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 326 of IPC:

• This Section deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• It states that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to re­ceive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be pun­ished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 222 of CrPC:

• This Section deals with the offence proved included in offence charged.
• It states that—

(1) When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.

(2) When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.

(3) When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction.

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board.

What was the Background of M/s Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. v. The Assam State Electricity Board Case?

• The case concerns multiple appellants aggrieved by the Registrar (J-IV) of the Court's order of 31st October 2022, which refused to register a set of petitions labeled as “curative petitions”.
• The order, common to six similar petitions, including one from Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries, cited Rule 5 of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, allowing appeals against such refusals.
• The dispute originates from a suit filed under The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993.
• The suit, decreed by the Trial Court, was dismissed by the High Court, holding it not maintainable for transactions dating 23^rd September 1992, when the Act came into effect.
• Despite subsequent appeals and reviews, including one dismissed on 18th December 2019, the Registrar declined the curative petitions.
• Hence, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
  • The main point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the Registrar has no power or jurisdiction to decline registration of a curative petition and it should be decided by a Bench of this Court

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court deliberated on the Registry's role in handling curative petitions lacking specific averments regarding review petition dismissal in open court.
• It emphasized that the Registry lacks authority to determine the merit of such petitions post-dismissal.
  • While the Registry typically handles defects in petitions, the absence of a necessary averment requires judicial consideration.
• Refusal to entertain curative petitions does not align with Order XV Rule 5, of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 nor does it fall under Registry's purview.
• The court cited Order LV Rule 2, emphasizing communication with the chamber judge for instructions.
• In the case discussed, the court overturned the impugned order but declined to remand, finding no grounds to invoke curative jurisdiction, thus disposing of the appeal accordingly.

What is a Curative Petition?

• About:
  • A curative petition serves as a unique judicial remedy available to rectify a perceived miscarriage of justice after the exhaustion of all other legal remedies.
• Origin:
  • The concept of the curative petition in India originated from the SC's judgment in the Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), which established the necessity for an additional safeguard against judicial errors.
  • The court recognized that even its judgments might be susceptible to oversight or error and therefore instituted the curative petition as a remedy of last resort.
• Constitutional Validity:
  • The curative petition finds its basis in Articles 137 and 142 of the Constitution of India, which empower the SC to review its own judgments or pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it.

What are Landmark Judgments Related to Curative Petition?

• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Another (2002):
  • In this case SC gave the conditions for entertaining curative petition that are:
    • Specification of Requirements: Identify criteria for a curative petition under the court's inherent power to prevent floodgates for filing second review petitions in disguise.
    • Discretionary Review: Generally, the court should not reconsider a finalized order unless strong reasons exist to do so, avoiding enumerating all grounds for petition consideration.
    • Entitlement to Relief: Petitioners can seek relief if there's a violation of natural justice or apprehension of bias by a judge adversely affecting their interests.
    • Averments in Curative Petition: Grounds must be reiterated from the review petition, certified by a Senior Advocate.
    • Circulation and Review Process: Curative petitions are first circulated to senior judges and judges involved, then listed for hearing based on majority agreement, with the option for amicus curiae. Vexatious petitions may incur costs.
    • Registry Processing: The registry must process writ petitions even if lacking specific averments from review petitions.
• Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. (2010):
  • In this case Constitution Bench of SC chose to examine the curative petition in spite of there being dismissal of the review petition in open Court hearing though ultimately the curative petition stood dismissed.