List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the matter of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State, has held that irregularity caused by the misjoinder of charges doesn't vitiate conviction unless miscarriage of justice is proved.

What was the Background of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State Case?

• In this case, the appellant was the sole accused and was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant in a joint trial, and he has preferred to appeal before the High Court of Kerala alleging misjoinder of charges.
• It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that such a misjoinder of charges under Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) caused prejudice to the appellant and therefore the conviction is liable to be set aside.
• The High Court held that there was no illegality in the conviction by the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice P G Ajithkumar observed that from the nature of evidence let in by the prosecution, which is adverted to above, it is quite clear that separate evidence was brought in concerning each head of the charges. No occasion resulting in miscarriage of justice or prejudice to the appellant is pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae. On an anxious consideration of the evidence on record, I am convinced that there occurred no failure of justice on account of such a misjoinder of charge. In the circumstances, the conviction of the appellant is quite legal; in spite of such a misjoinder of charges. Hence, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction.
• It was further held that on a reading of sub-section (1) of Section 464 of CrPC it is explicit that misjoinder of charges is an irregularity. It is explained that unless their occasioned failure of justice, an irregularity on account of misjoinder of charges does not invalidate a conviction.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 218 of CrPC

• This Section deals with separate charges for distinct offences. It states that -

(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately.

Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.

Section 464 of CrPC

About:

• This Section deals with the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. It states that—

(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may —

(a) In the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge.

(b) In the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit.

Provided that if the Court is of the opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.

Case Law:

• In the case of Krishnan Kutty v. State of Kerala (2023), the Kerala High Court held that assuming that there was a legal impediment in clubbing of charges in the light of the provision contained in Section 464 of CrPC, the trial cannot be vitiated on account of the same, provided, no failure of justice has occasioned on account of the same.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jafar v. State of Kerala has held that the testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered as a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) to convict the accused.

What was the Background of Jafar v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and confirmed the conviction held by the Trial Court.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• The Trial Court and High Court convicted the appellant based on the testimony of the Prosecution witness, who admitted that police had shown him the appellant and as such, he had identified him.
• The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and the appellant was acquitted of all the charges.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta acquitted the appellant by stating that the identification of the accused by the witness at the police station cannot be considered a proper identification parade.
• It was further held that the prosecution witness identified the accused persons by seeing them at the police station. He has further admitted that no identification parade was conducted. As such, it can be seen that the identification of the appellant is quite doubtful as no identification parade has been conducted. Prosecution witness clearly states that he has identified the accused persons since the police had shown him those two people.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Test Identification Parade (TIP)

About:

One of the methods of establishing the identity of the accused is TIP which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

• Section 9 of the IEA deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.

Purpose:

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence.
• It has two major purposes:
  • To satisfy the investigating authorities that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime.
  • To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court.

Essential Elements:

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible.
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded.
• TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of witness concerned as given in the Court.

Case Law:

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime.

Section 395 of IPC

• This section deals with the punishment for dacoity.
• It states that whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
• The offence of dacoity has been described under Section 391 of IPC.

Section 397 of IPC

• This section deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• It states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held that adult head of a Hindu family does not require permission of court to dispose an undivided interest of Hindu minor.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the case of Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora and Another.

What is the Background of Smt Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora and Another Case?

• The plaintiff/appellant was a widow whose husband passed away, leaving her with three daughters and his mother.
• The plaintiff/appellant inherited a 70% share in a property after her husband's death, with the remaining 30% belonging to her three minor daughters.
• The plaintiff/appellant sought permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) to sell the property for the betterment of her minor daughters' future.
• The trial court rejected the plaintiff/appellant's application for permission to sell the property, citing reasons including the possibility of letting out the property for rental income.
• Both parties, including the defendants/respondents, have consented to the sale of the property.
• The plaintiff/appellant has disclosed her intentions to sell the property and settle in Punjab, where she is currently working, for the betterment of her daughters' education and future.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court found that the application (4-B) filed by the plaintiff/appellant under Section 8 of the HMGA was wrongly rejected by the lower court.
• The court pointed out that the trial court's rejection of the application was based on incorrect grounds, such as the lack of disclosure regarding the property the appellant would purchase in Punjab and the possibility of letting out the property for rental income.
• The court emphasizes that Section 8 of the HMGA does not apply when disposing of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property, as per Sections 6 and 12 of the HMGA.
• Therefore, the court set aside the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Saharanpur, and allowed the appeal.

What is Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956?

• Authority for Beneficial Acts:
  • The natural guardian of a Hindu minor possesses the authority, subject to the provisions of this section, to perform all acts necessary or reasonable for the minor's benefit or the protection and realization of the minor's estate. However, personal covenants cannot bind the minor.
• Restrictions on Property Transactions:
  • Sub-section 2 states that without prior court permission, the natural guardian shall refrain from:
    • Mortgage, charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange, or otherwise, any part of the minor's immovable property.
    • Leasing any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or beyond the minor's attainment of majority by more than one year.
• Voidability of Unauthorized Disposal:
  • Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of subsections (1) or (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under them.
• Court Permission for Acts:
  • Court permission for the acts mentioned in subsection (2) shall only be granted in cases of necessity or evident advantage to the minor.
• Application of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890:
  • The provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, shall apply to obtaining court permission under subsection (2) as if it were an application under section 29 of that Act. This includes:
    • Deeming proceedings as under the Guardians and Wards Act.
    • Observance of procedure and powers specified in subsections (2), (3), and (4) of section 31 of that Act.
    • The right to appeal from a court's refusal of permission to the natural guardian.
• Jurisdiction of Court:
  • The term "court" refers to the city civil court, district court, or a court empowered under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, within whose jurisdiction the immovable property subject to the application is situated. If the property lies within multiple jurisdictions, it refers to the court where any portion of the property is located.