List of Current Affairs

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Nisha Saket v. State Of Madhya Pradesh has held that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide.

What was the Background of Nisha Saket v. State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, a Criminal Revision has been filed against the order passed by Sessions Court, by which charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) has been framed against the applicant.
• The undisputed fact is that applicant is the wife of deceased Preetam Saket, whereas the respondent Smt. Radha Bai is mother-in-law of the applicant.
• It was alleged that the applicant did not maintain a good relationship with her in-laws and failed to adequately care for her husband. There were instances where she did not prepare meals for her husband on time, leading to him sometimes going on duty without eating.
• Setting aside the order of the Sessions Court, the High Court allowed criminal revision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that the wife's act of not preparing the food in time, compelling the husband to do household chores and going to the market along with other persons for shopping purposes does not attract the offence of abetment of suicide.
• It was further held that in cases of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts or incitement of commission of suicide. Acts involve multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and reactions or in the cases of abetment, Court must look for cogent and convincing proof of acts of incitement of commission of suicide.

What is Section 306 of IPC?

• About:
  • Section 306 of IPC deals with the Abetment of suicide whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 108 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
  • 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.
  • A bare reading of above provision would demonstrate that for an offence under Section 306 of IPC, there are twin requirements, namely, suicide and abetment to commit suicide.
  • Commission of suicide is not made punishable not because the commission of suicide is not culpable, but for the reason that the person culpably responsible would have departed from this world before he can face any indictment.
  • Whereas abetment of commission of suicide is viewed very seriously by law.
• Case Laws:
  • In the case of Randhir Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2004), the Supreme Court held that Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing.
    • A more active role, which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
  • In the case of Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010), the Supreme Court observed that the Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Krishna held that “Unless there is a specific legislative provision which puts a negative burden on the accused, there is no burden on the accused to lead evidence for proving his innocence. The accused may have some burden to discharge in case of a statutory prescription, such as Section 114A of the Evidence Act. In this case, the burden was on the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt”.

• The Supreme Court heard this in the case Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of Pankaj Singh v. State of Haryana?

• The trial court convicted the appellant-accused under Sections 342, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,00/- for the offence under Section 376.
• Charges were also framed for other offences, but the trial court acquitted the appellant-accused.
• Both the appellant-accused and the Prosecutrix were married, and the incident occurred when the Prosecutrix was 28 years old.
• Allegedly, the appellant-accused forcibly had intercourse with the Prosecutrix, threatening to disclose objectionable photographs.
• The court emphasized that minor contradictions in the victim's testimony should not undermine its credibility.
• The defence claimed the relationship was consensual and sought to discredit the Prosecutrix's evidence.
• However, the state supported the Prosecutrix's account, relying on WhatsApp conversations and legal presumptions.
• No interference was deemed necessary by the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court said that “Therefore, on the face of it, the presumption under Section 114A of the Evidence Act will not apply, and, therefore, the burden will be on the prosecution to prove that the sexual intercourse was without the consent of the Prosecutrix”.

What is Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape

• In a prosecution for rape under clause (a), clause (b), clause (c), clause (d), clause (e), clause (f), clause (g), clause (h), clause (i), clause (j), clause (k), clause (l), clause (m) or clause (n) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the IPC, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.
• Explanation. - In this section, "sexual intercourse" shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375 of the IPC.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health & Ors., has held that begar is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the petitioners were appointed on different dates between October 2012 to March 2013 on the post of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) at different Primary Health Centre in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
• The appointment was for a period of three years under the scheme namely National Rural Health Mission which was a scheme by the Union Health Ministry.
• The Director, National Rural Health Mission issued a letter that the Government of India shall only extend financial support for contractual appointments of such Male workers until 31^st March 2014 and not beyond that.
• This was challenged by filing a petition before the Allahabad High Court where an interim order was granted directing that such contractual Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) be allowed to continue to work beyond 31st March 2014 as the initial appointment was made for a period of 3 years from 2012.
• Thereafter, the Government of India wrote a letter to the State saying that the financial support regarding salaries of the workers will be provided till 30^th September 2014 and not beyond that.
• The petition was allowed by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Manish Kumar observed that held that the begar is prohibited under Article 23 of the COI.
• It was also held that non-payment of salary to them for the period they have served under the interim order or otherwise would be tantamount to taking begar from them, which is prohibited under Article 23 of the COI.
• It was further held that Article 23 of the COI has wider implications and scope regarding begar i.e. by taking work but not paying for the same which is linked with right to livelihood covered under Article 21 of the COI.

What is Article 23 of the COI?

About:

• This Article deals with the prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour. It states that-

(1) Traffic in human beings and beggars and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.

• The right is available to citizens of India as well as to non-citizens.
• It protects individuals against the State as well as private citizens.
• This article imposes a positive obligation on the State to abolish immoral practices of exploitation like human trafficking and other forms of forced labour.
• This article expressly prohibits the following practices:
  • Begar
  • Traffic in Human Beings
  • Forced Labour

Case Law:

• In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1983) the Supreme Court interpreted the ambit of Article 23 of COI. The scope of Article 23 is vast and unlimited. The word force has a very wide meaning under Article 23. It not only includes physical or legal force but also recognizes economic circumstances which compel a person to work against his will on less than minimum wage. It was directed by the court to the Government to take necessary steps for punishing the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 23 by private individuals.