List of Current Affairs

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand has held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused.

What was the Background of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Dwarika Mahto, alleging therein that his daughter Lakhiya Devi was married to the appellant one year ago as per Hindu rites and customs.
• After five months from the date of marriage, the appellant along with his family members started torturing her to enforce the demand of a color television and a motorcycle and on 24^th March 2011, she was found murdered in her matrimonial home.
• After investigation, the police found the occurrence to be true and submitted the chargesheet against the appellant under Section 304B of IPC.
• The Trial Court holding the appellant guilty of offence under Section 304B of IPC and thereby, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
• Against this judgment, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand.
• Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with modification of sentence.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Justices Ratnaker Bhengra and Ambuj Nath observed that the provision of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) manifests the intention of legislature making mandatory application on the part of the Court to presume that death has been committed by a person who had subjected her to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand of dowry.
• It was further held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of IPC is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused. At this stage, the burden shifts upon the accused to rebut this presumption of guilt and to prove his innocence.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 304B of IPC

• This Section deals with dowry death. It states that -

(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or har­assment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called dowry death, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprison­ment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

• In the case of Bansilal v. State of Haryana (2011), the Supreme Court held that, to attract the provision of Section 304B of the IPC, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.

Section 113B of IEA

• Section 113B of IEA deals with the presumption as to dowry death.
• This section was added by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 in order to provide speedy justice in case of dowry deaths.
• Whenever there is a question of dowry death and if it is proven that the woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in relation to any demand of dowry. The court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death under Section 304B of IPC.
• In such cases, the prosecution has to prove that dowry death has occurred, and then the burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove his innocence.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala summarized certain factors that the Courts considered while deciding convict’s period of sentence before remission could be sought.

What was the Background of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala Case?

• In this case, the Trial Court found the appellant (the sole accused) guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
• After committing the above said act, the accused attempted to commit suicide.
• The Trial Court sentenced the accused to death for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
• When the matter went for confirmation before the High Court of Kerala, the High Court, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence.
• The sentence of death was modified and reduced to imprisonment for life with a further direction that the accused shall not be released from prison for a period of 30 years including the period already undergone.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Partly allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices B.R Gavai, K.V Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta observed that illustratively in the process of arriving at the number of years as the most appropriate for the case at hand, which the convict will have to undergo before which the remission powers could be invoked, some of the relevant factors that the courts bear in mind are:-

(a) The number of deceased who are victims of that crime and their age and gender.

(b) The nature of injuries including sexual assault if any.

(c) The motive for which the offence was committed.

(d) Whether the offence was committed when the convict was on bail in another case.

(e) The premeditated nature of the offence.

(f) The relationship between the offender and the victim.

(g) The abuse of trust if any.

(h) The criminal antecedents and whether the convict, if released, would be a menace to society.

• The Court also listed the positive factors like the accused's age, possibility of reformation, and remorseful conduct. Some of the positive factors are:
  • Age of the convict.
  • The probability of reformation of convict.
  • The convict not being a professional killer.
  • The socioeconomic condition of the accused.
  • The composition of the family of the accused.
  • The conduct expressing remorse.
• The Court further held that there is no straitjacket formulae for deciding the period of sentence. The Court, however, also noted that this discretion should be exercised on reasonable grounds.

What is Remission?

About:

• Remission generally refers to the reduction or mitigation of a sentence that has been imposed on a person who has been convicted of a crime and allows for the reduction of the period of imprisonment or other penalties based on numerous factors and considerations in other words, without affecting the nature of sentence it is just a reduction in period of sentence to be served.

Statutory Provision:

• Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) deals with the power to suspend or remit sentences. It states that -

(1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.

(2) Whenever an application is made to the appropriate Government for the suspension or remission of a sentence, the appropriate Government may require the presiding Judge of the Court before or by which the conviction was had or confirmed, to state his opinion as to whether the application should be granted or refused, together with his reasons for such opinion and also to forward with the statement of such opinion a certified copy of the record of the trial or of such record thereof as exists.

(3) If any condition on which a sentence has been suspended or remitted is, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, not fulfilled, the appropriate Government may cancel the suspension or remission, and thereupon the person in whose favor the sentence has been suspended or remitted may, if at large, be arrested by any police officer, without warrant and remanded to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.

(4) The condition on which a sentence is suspended or remitted under this section may be one to be fulfilled by the person in whose favor the sentence is suspended or remitted, or one independent of his will.

(5) The appropriate Government may, by general rules or special orders, give directions as to the suspension of sentences and the conditions on which petitions should be presented and dealt with.

Provided that in the case of any sentence (other than a sentence of fine) passed on a male person above the age of eighteen years, no such petition by the person sentenced or by any other person on his behalf shall be entertained, unless the person sentenced is in jail, and—

(a) Where such petition is made by the person sentenced, it is presented through the officer in charge of the jail; or

(b) Where such petition is made by any other person, it contains a declaration that the person sentenced is in jail.

(6) The provisions of the above sub-sections shall also apply to any order passed by a Criminal Court under any section of this Code or of any other law, which restricts the liberty of any person or imposes any liability upon him or his property.

(7) In this section and in section 433, the expression “appropriate Government” means, —

(a) In cases where the sentence is for an offence against, or the order referred to in sub-section (6) is passed under, any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government.

(b) In other cases, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced, or the said order is passed.

• 433A of CrPC deals with the restriction on powers of remission or commutation in certain cases.
  • It states that notwithstanding anything contained in section 432, where a sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on conviction of a person for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law, or where a sentence of death imposed on a person has been commuted under section 433 into one of imprisonment for life, such person shall not be released from prison unless he had served at least fourteen years of imprisonment.

Constitutional Provisions:

• Both the President and the Governor have been vested with sovereign power of pardon by the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• Under Article 72 of the COI, the President has the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence, on consultation with the Council of Ministers.
• Similarly, under Article 161 of the COI, these powers are conferred on the Governors of States.

Case Law:

• In the case of State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh (2007), the Supreme Court observed that, even though no convict has a fundamental right of remission, but the State in exercise of its executive power of remission must consider each individual case keeping in view the relevant factors. Further, the Court was also of the view that a right to be considered for remission must be held to be legal one.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta held that arbitration clause to refer dispute to arbitration must be mentioned in the main contract.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of NBCC (India) Limited v. Zillion Infra Projects PVT. LTD.

What was the Background of NBCC (India) Limited v. Zillion Infra Projects PVT. LTD Case?

• NBCC (India) Limited, formerly known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd., is a Public Limited Company and a Government of India undertaking engaged in construction projects.
• Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., formerly known as Durha Constructions Pvt. Ltd., is a Private Limited Company operating in the construction and infrastructure sector.
• NBCC issued an invitation for tender for the construction of a Weir across river Damodar at DVC, CTPS, Chandrapura, Dist – Bokaro, Jharkhand – Package “A”.
• Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. submitted its bid and was awarded the contract for the construction of the Weir by NBCC.
• Disputes arose between NBCC and Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., leading to Zillion invoking arbitration.
• NBCC did not respond to Zillion's notice invoking arbitration, prompting Zillion to file an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act in the High Court.
• The High Court allowed the application, appointing a former Judge of the High Court as the Sole Arbitrator.
• NBCC appealed against the High Court's decision, challenging both the interim and final orders.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court examined Section 7(5) of the A&C Act and reiterated principles established in M.R. Engineers case regarding incorporation of arbitration clauses.
• It noted that Clause 7.0 of the L.O.I. specifically stated that disputes must be resolved through civil courts in Delhi, indicating the parties' intention.
• The Court concluded that the present case was a reference case, not an incorporation case, and upheld NBCC's argument.
• The High Court's orders were quashed, and the appeals were allowed with no costs awarded.

What are the Landmark Judgments on Arbitration Clause in Contract?

• M.R. Engineers and Contractors Private Limited v. Som Datt Builders Limited (2009):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that for an arbitration clause in one document to be incorporated into another contract by reference, specific conditions must be met.
  • It clarified that a general reference to another contract would not automatically incorporate the arbitration clause unless there is a specific mention.
  • The Court laid down criteria for incorporation and emphasized the importance of clear intention between parties.
• Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Limited (2017):
  • The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the principles established in M.R. Engineers case regarding the incorporation of arbitration clauses.
  • It emphasized the need for specific reference to arbitration clauses for their incorporation into a contract by reference.
• Elite Engineering and Construction (Hyderabad) Private Limited v. Techtrans Construction India Private Limited (2018):
  • Following the precedent set in M.R. Engineers case, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that a general reference to another contract would not suffice for the incorporation of an arbitration clause.
  • It reiterated that there must be a specific mention or reference to the arbitration clause for it to be incorporated into the contract.
• Inox Wind Limited vs Thermocables Limited (2018):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court distinguished from the principles laid down in M.R. Engineers case.
  • It held that a general reference to a standard form of contract, along with those of trade associations and professional bodies, would be sufficient to incorporate the arbitration clause.
  • However, the Court stressed the importance of examining the specific circumstances of each case to determine the applicability of arbitration clauses.