List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta acquitted the accused of case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) and held that “In absence of foundational fact not being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reliance placed upon presumption under Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act by learned Trial Court to base conviction, appears to be misplaced”.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of Veerpal @ Titu v. State.

What was the Background of Veerpal @ Titu v. State Case?

• The case relates to an appeal filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court POCSO, Saket Court, New Delhi.
• The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The victim, a girl aged around 12 years, alleged that on 10^th September 2016, when the appellant visited their house, he kissed her, pressed her chest, and threatened to kill her if she complained.
• The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including the victim, her grandmother, and police officials involved in the investigation.
• The defence claimed that the appellant was falsely implicated due to animosity arising from matrimonial disputes between the appellant's sister and her husband.

What were the Court’s Observation?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, acquitting him of the charges. The reasons given by the court are:

• The testimony of the victim was unreliable and full of contradictions regarding the date of informing her grandmother about the incident and the specific acts committed by the appellant.
• The delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the failure to disclose the incident to the police officials who visited the premises on the day of the alleged incident raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
• The court found gaps and inadequacies in the prosecution's case, and the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was discredited by the contradictions and discrepancies brought out in the cross-examination of witnesses.
• The prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the reliance placed on the presumption by the trial court was misplaced.
• The court recognized that a wrongful conviction is far worse than a wrongful acquittal, and the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

What are Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act?

• Section 29 of the POCSO Act:
  • Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.
• Section 30 of the POCSO Act:
  • In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
  • For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
  • Explanation.— In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau has held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) remains unchanged by the provisions of search and seizure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

What was the Background of Smt. Najmunisha, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu v. State of Gujarat, Narcotics Control Bureau Case?

• In this case, Smt. Najmunisha (Accused No. 01) was originally convicted under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court had sentenced her to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30, 000.
• This sentence was subsequently modified by the High Court of Gujarat while partly allowing her appeal to the effect that her fine was enhanced to the minimum prescribed fine of INR 1,00,000/ reduced the sentence in default of paying the fine from simple imprisonment of one­ year to simple imprisonment of three months.
• Abdul Hamid Chandmiya alias Ladoo Bapu (Accused No. 04) is the husband of Accused No. 01 who was convicted under the provisions of the NDPS Act 1985 and sentenced to thirteen years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100,000. The same was affirmed by the High Court ofGujarat while also dismissing his appeal.
• The instant criminal appeals have been filed before the Supreme Court assailing the common impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in criminal appeals moved by the Original Accused No. 01 and Accused No. 04.
• Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as that of the Trial Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih observed that in the instant case, we are primarily affected by virtue of the jurisprudence of the NDPS Act 1985, which begins from the power of search and seizure conferred by the State upon its executive or administrative arms for the protection of social security in any civilized nation.
• It was further stated that such power is inherently limited by the recognition of fundamental rights by the Constitution as well as statutory limitations. At the same time, it is not legitimate to assume that Article 20(3) of the COI would be affected by the provisions of search and seizure. Thus, such a power cannot be considered as a violation of any fundamental rights of the person concerned.

What is Article 20(3) of the COI?

About:

• Article 20 deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences.
• Article 20(3) affirms that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• The right conferred by this article is a right which gives a privilege to an accused to remain silent during a trial or investigation whereas the State has no claim on the confession made by him.

Case Laws

• In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court stated that the process of justice must be fair and on equitable grounds.
• In the case of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that Article 20(3) of the COI enjoys an exalted status. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities.

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., has held that the medical treatment cannot be denied to a pregnant minor girl by the hospital merely because no police complaint was filed in the matter.

What was the Background of XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case?

• In this case, a writ petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court by the petitioner to protect the legal rights and health interest of her daughter, who as on date is stated to be 17 years and 4 months old.
• As set out in the petition, sometime back it came to the petitioner’s knowledge that her daughter was about seven months pregnant.
• Her daughter has refused to disclose the details in that regard, stating that her relationship with the person concerned, who is also a minor, was consensual.
• The petitioner’s daughter, as also the petitioner, does not intend to take any legal action taken against such person, with whom she was in a relationship.
• The grievance of the petitioner is that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, whenever the petitioner approached a clinic or a hospital for medical treatment for her daughter, she was called upon to show a police complaint made by her.
• While disposing off the petition, the High Court held that medical treatment would be provided to the petitioner’s daughter independently or by a special method and confidentiality would be maintained including the name of the petitioner’s daughter and shall render all care and cooperation to her in regard to her medical condition till the child is born.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A Division Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Firdosh Pooniwalla observed that in these circumstances, there cannot be an insistence from any medical centres or hospitals, that nonetheless, the petitioner (minor girl's father) should register a police complaint as a condition to receive medical treatment. Merely for the reason that there is no police complaint, the petitioner’s daughter cannot be denied medical aid.
• It was also stated that the grant of medical aid to any person is a direct concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) which guarantees right to life and livelihood which includes the protection of one’s health by making available appropriate medical aid. In a civilized society no person can be deprived of medical aid/treatment, much less in the present circumstances.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

About:

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• The Supreme Court of India have described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance 10. Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Case Laws

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society.
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.