List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, has held that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A of IEA is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.

What was the Background of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana Case?

• The deceased, Rani, was married to the appellant and the marriage was solemnized on 10^th May 1992.
• In the wedlock with the convict, Rani gave birth to a girl child.
• The case of the prosecution is that soon after marriage, the appellant started demanding money.
• Rani committed suicide on account of incessant harassment at the end of her husband (appellant).
• The appellant was charged with the offence of abetting the commission of suicide by his wife punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• He was convicted by the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
• Thereafter, a criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that the mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the IEA would not automatically apply. Therefore, before a presumption under Section 113A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard.
• It was further held that in the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court should look for cogent and convincing proof of the act of incitement to the commission of suicide and such an offending action should be proximate to the time of occurrence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 306 of IPC

About:

• This Section deals with the abetment of suicide.
• It states that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment.

Case Law:

• In the case of Ude Singh & Others v. State of Haryana, (2019), the Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability.

Section 113B of the IEA

About:

• This Section deals with the presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
• It states that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
• Explanation. For the purposes of this section, cruelty shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the IPC.
• This Section was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983.
• The Section requires that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage.

Case Law:

• In the case of Smt. Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the Supreme Court held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption, because of the words may presume. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case which is an additional safeguard.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan held that death threat is essential to constitute the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of William Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu.

What was the Background of William Stephen v. The State of Tamil Nadu Case?

• The victim, PW-2, an eight-year-old child in third standard, was kidnapped on 20^th October 2010, while returning from tuition.
  • Allegedly, the accused, in a Maruti Car, had claimed the child's father intended to buy a car and had lured him into their vehicle.
• The prosecution had contended that they demanded a Rs. 5 lakh ransom via phone call to Prosecution Witness PW-3.
• The police had arrested the accused at Pallikonda toll gate, Vellore District, rescuing the child.
• The prosecution had relied on call records and testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 and PW-19, the Investigating Officer.
• Accused nos. 1 and 2 had lodged appeals against the judgment dated 27^th July 2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which upheld their conviction and life sentences under Section 364A of the IPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Court carefully considered the evidence regarding the alleged kidnapping and threats presented by the prosecution.
• Section 364A of the IPC necessitates both kidnapping and a threat to cause death or harm for conviction.
• The Court found the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the death threats posed by the accused, despite evidence of ransom demands via phone calls.
• Although the conviction under Section 364A was overturned due to lack of evidence, the Court upheld the conviction under
• Section 363 of the IPC, pertaining to kidnapping.
• Notably, the Court acknowledged the appellants' prolonged incarceration exceeding the maximum sentence for the lesser offence. As a result, the appellants were ordered to be released immediately.

What is Kidnapping for Ransom?

• About:
  • Kidnapping for ransom is a grave offence that strikes at the personal freedom and security.
  • Section 364A of the IPC addresses this crime, providing provisions to deal with those who engage in such heinous acts.
• Provision:
  • The provision under Section 364A of IPC states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person, or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by their conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intergovernmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay shall be punishable.
• Essentials:
  • Kidnapping or abduction of a person.
  • Keeping the person in detention.
  • Threatening or causing death or hurt to the victim.
• Punishment:
  • The punishment for the offence under Section 364A is severe.
  • The offender shall be liable to either death penalty or imprisonment for life, in addition to being liable to pay a fine.
• Classification of Offence:
  • Punishment: Death penalty or imprisonment for life and fine.
  • Nature: Cognizable, meaning the police can arrest without a warrant.
  • Bail: Non-bailable, implying that the accused cannot be released on bail by the police.
  • Trial: Triable by Court of Session, indicating that the case will be heard in the Court of Session.
  • Compounding: Non-compoundable, meaning the offence cannot be settled out of court between the victim and the accused.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick & Ors., has held that once the Magistrate has called for the police report under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), then the magistrate couldn't issue a summon unless the report is submitted by the police.

What was the Background of Shiv Jatia v. Gian Chand Malick & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the Appellant is a Gas Supplier Company, whereas the Respondent is a Distributor Gas Company.
• The magistrate had issued summons to the appellant against the complaint lodged by the respondent who alleged that the appellant who had committed a breach of trust by not refunding the security deposit and not accepting the empty cylinders from respondent.
• The appellant alleged that the magistrate's summoning order was completely illegal.
• According to the appellant, the plain reading of the complaint discovers that there is no allegation against the appellant about the commission or omission of any acts which constitute any offence.
• As per the appellant, a report under Section 202 of CrPC was never submitted by the police.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh quashed the complaint.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the Magistrate cannot issue process to the accused without application of mind and ought to have waited to issue process against the accused until the report was received from the police.
• The Court also held that after recording the evidence of witnesses and perusing the documents on record, the learned Magistrate passed the order calling for the report under Section 202 of the CrPC. He postponed the issue of the process. The learned Magistrate ought to have waited until the report was received.
• The Court further restated that the Magistrate cannot issue the summons until there is satisfaction that the material was sufficient to pass the summoning order.

What is Section 202 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 202 of CrPC deals with the postponement of the issue of process on the part of the Magistrate. It states that -

(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made -

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub- section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub- section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer- in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.

Essential Elements of Section 202 of CrPC:

• Section 202 comes into play after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence.
• The Magistrate has the power to investigate or direct the police officer to investigate the matter kept for consideration under the complaint that they have received under Section 192 or Section 202 of CrPC.
• Upon receiving a complaint, a magistrate can postpone the issue of summons or the arrest warrant to the accused, and during this time, they can either conduct the inquiry by themselves or direct the police to carry out the investigation.

Case Law:

• In the case of Vadilal Panchal v. Dattaraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker and Anr.(1960), the Supreme Court held that the objective of Section 202 of CrPC is to determine the nature of the complaint for the purpose of justifying the issue of the process.