List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale converted a punishment for murder into punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra.

What was the Background of Dattatraya v. The State of Maharashtra Case?

• The incident occurred in 2007, where the appellant, in an inebriated state, had a fight with his pregnant wife and poured kerosene on her while she was cooking, resulting in 98% burn injuries.
• The wife gave a dying declaration accusing the appellant of the act.
• A case was registered under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which was later converted to Section 302 IPC along with the addition of a charge under Section 316 IPC.
• The appellant faced trial and was convicted by the Trial Court, upheld by the Bombay High Court.
• Hence, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court found that while the appellant had knowledge of the consequences of his act, there was no intention to cause death.
• The Court considered the incident as a sudden fight in the heat of passion, converting the findings of Section 302 IPC to that of Section 304 Part-II IPC.
  • The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
• Considering the time served in jail, the Court ordered the appellant's immediate release unless required in another offence.
  • The Court directed the appellant's release.

What are the Key Differences Between Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder?

In this Case, the Supreme Court aligned certain key differences between murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder:

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Anr., has held that when the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.

What was the Background of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Anr. Case?

• In this case, two appeals were filed before the Allahabad High Court by Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee (Masjid Committee) challenging the orders passed by the Varanasi Court, directing the District Magistrate to make appropriate arrangements within seven days for Hindus to conduct worshipping rituals inside one of the sealed basements called Vyas ji tehkhana , inside the mosque premises.
• These appeals were heard together with the consent of both the parties and were dismissed later.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that CPC is not exhaustive, the simple reason being that the Legislature is incapable of contemplating of all the possible circumstances which may arise in any future litigation and consequently, for providing the procedure for them. It is well established that CPC is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of CPC can come to its aid for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.
• It was further held that Section 151 and Section 152 of CPC must be taken as procedural laws exist to do substantial justice between the parties. It was held that Section 152 not only provides an opportunity to correct an omission on the part of the Court but also enables corrections of inadvertent mistakes made by the parties in their pleadings.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 151 of CPC

About:

• This section deals with the saving of inherent powers of Court.
• It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
• This section does not confer any substantive rights on parties but is meant to get over the difficulties arising from rules of procedure.

Case Law:

• In Ram Chand v. Kanhayalal (1966), the Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC can also be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of court.

Section 152 of CPC

About:

• This section deals with the amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.
• It states that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
• This section is based on two important principles:
  • An act of court should not prejudice any party.
  • It is the duty of the courts to see that their records are true, and they represent the correct state of affairs.

Case Law:

• In the case of Sampuran Singh v. Nandu (2004), the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 152 of CPC is based on a laudable principle that an act of the Court shall prejudice no party and that the Courts have a duty to see that their records are true and represent the correct state of affairs.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors., has held that while exercising the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) the Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.

What was the Background of State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the Trial Court convicted all the accused for the offences under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• All of them were sentenced to life imprisonment.
• The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh acquitted all four accused of the charges.
• Aggrieved by the judgement of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• The appeal was later dismissed by the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan observed that under Article 136 of the COI, the Supreme Court does not routinely interfere with an order of acquittal except when the prosecution's case proves the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• It was further held that if the acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds, if the High Court allows itself to be misled by distractions, if the High Court dismisses the evidence accepted by the Trial Court without proper consideration, or if the High Court's flawed approach leads to the neglect of vital evidence, this Court is obligated to intervene to uphold the interests of justice and address any concerns within the judicial conscience.

What is Article 136 of the COI?

About:

• This Article deals with the special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court. It states that -

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Essential Characteristics:

• This Article gives discretion to the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
• This article applies to both final and interlocutory orders and also applies to Tribunals invested with a part of the judicial power of the State meaning thereby quasi-judicial authorities.
• This Article does not confer a right to appeal but only a right to apply for special leave which, if granted, confers a right to appeal so long as the leave is not revoked.
• The Supreme Court invokes the power under Article 136 in exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises.

Case Law:

• In Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), this Court has outlined the principles guiding its intervention in acquittal orders under Article 136 of the COI. These are:
  • An intervention is warranted when the High Court's approach or reasoning is deemed perverse. This occurs when the High Court, based on suspicion and surmises, rejects evidence or when the acquittal is primarily rooted in an exaggerated adherence to the rule of giving the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.
  • Another circumstance for intervention arises when the acquittal would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice. This refers to situations where the High Court, through a cursory examination of evidence, serves the connection between the accused and the crime.