List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal granted bail to Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS) director in attempt to murder case.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of UP.

What was the Background of Vinod Bihari Lal v. State of UP Case?

• The dispute arose from the applicant's position as the Director of Administration at Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology & Sciences, where the first informant, an ex-student, sought a degree without fulfilling examination requirements.
• Allegations suggest that the applicant's refusal to comply led to personal animosity from the first informant, culminating in false implications against him.
• Furthermore, inconsistencies in witness statements and CCTV footage cast doubt on the applicant's involvement in the alleged incident.
• Despite these claims, the prosecution asserts that the injuries sustained by the first informant were serious, indicating an attempt to murder.
• Additionally, statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). allegedly implicated the applicant in confessing to the crime and producing forged documents.
• The applicant approached the High Court for bail.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court granted bail but refused to enter the merits of the case.

What were the Judgments Cited in this Case?

• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Another (2014):
  • The Supreme Court held that when considering bail applications involving individuals with a history of criminal offences, it is imperative to scrutinize every aspect carefully.
  • Merely granting bail on grounds of parity without considering the seriousness of the charges and the accused's criminal record would amount to a travesty of justice.
  • The court emphasized the need to consider all relevant factors, including the nature and gravity of the offences and the accused's criminal antecedents, before granting bail.
• Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U P & Another (2020):
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that bail applications should not be rejected solely based on the accused's criminal history.
  • Instead, a holistic consideration of the circumstances is necessary.
  • The court underscored the importance of assessing each case on its merits, without disregarding the principle of innocence until proven guilty, even in the presence of a criminal record.

What is the Position of Attempt to Murder in New and Old Criminal Law?

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol held that the Court must strike a balance between the testimony of the injured witness and that of an interested witness.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Periyasamy v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police.

What was the Background of Periyasamy v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police Case?

• The case stems from a 26^th November 2014 judgment by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, confirming a 31^st July 2014 decision by the Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli.
• The appellants, Periyasamy and R. Manoharan, were convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The incident involved the fatal stabbing of two individuals allegedly by Periyasamy, instigated by R. Manoharan.
• Periyasamy fatally injured Dharmalingam and another individual, Thangavel, while R. Manoharan reportedly handed Periyasamy the knife.
• Both deceased individuals succumbed to their injuries en route to the hospital.
• Sakthivel, who was also injured, reported the incident to the police.
• The trial court relied on witness testimonies and medical evidence to convict the appellants.
• The High Court upheld the convictions, rejecting challenges regarding the absence of A-2's name in the FIR and other arguments presented by the defence for accused no. 1.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Firstly, the court examined the right of private defence claimed by accused no. 1, emphasizing the principles governing its applicability, emphasizing the need for a reasonable apprehension of danger and proportionality in force used.
• Regarding witnesses, the court scrutinized the distinction between interested and independent witnesses.
• It highlighted the significance of injured witnesses' testimony but criticizes inconsistencies and lapses in their statements, raising doubts about their credibility.
• Additionally, the court questioned the lack of independent witnesses, essential for corroboration.
• Furthermore, the court criticized the quality of police investigation, pointing out deficiencies and contradictions in the investigative process.
• Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies, lapses in investigation, and lack of corroborative evidence.
• Consequently, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.

Who is the Injured Witness in Law?

• About:
  • The term "injured person" refers to the person who suffered harm, injury, or damage due to an offense or incident.
  • This term is often used in the context of providing evidence in criminal cases where the testimony or statements of the injured person can be crucial in establishing the facts of the case.
  • The SC has at several times gave judgment upon the significance of testimony of injured witness.
• Case Law:
  • In the case of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. the State of Maharashtra (2023) the SC held that when the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the under noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
    • The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
    • Unless it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
    • The evidence of an injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
    • The evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
    • If there is any exaggeration or immaterial embellishment in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration, or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
    • The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.

Who is an Interested Witness in Law?

• In law, an interested witness refers to someone who has a stake or interest in the outcome of a legal proceeding.
• This interest could be financial, personal, or related to their relationship with one of the parties involved in the case.
• Interested witnesses are considered less credible or impartial compared to disinterested witnesses, who do not have a direct interest in the case's outcome.
• The SC explained the concept of independent witness and interested witness in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979).