List of Current Affairs

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Karnataka High Court held that there can be two trials under Section 224 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) when both the incidents are in respect of different crimes.

What was the Background of Sri Somashekar v. State of Karnataka & Ors. Case?

• Sadappa, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASP), received incident’s credible information about iin Hosahudya Village on 09^th April 2012.
• ASP and three other police officers went to the village where incident had taken place between two groups.
• The police officers pacified and controlled the situation and arrested the petitioner and other accused. And handed over the petitioner and other accused to Sadappa (ASP) to take them to police station.
• The petitioner pulled ASP and escaped from custody. Police tried to trace him, but they were unable to find him.
• ASP lodged the complaint and on the basis of this police registered Crime No.12/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• Being aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court and this court also, on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.
• After that the present revision petition is filed before the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The petitioner escaped from custody in which he was lawfully detained for a cognizable offence in 2012, it is confirmed that he committed an offence punishable under Section 224 of IPC.
• The main contention of the petitioner is that he was not in lawful custody, and the Court rejected the contention and said when investigating officer received the credible information regarding the offence, immediately rushed to the spot and arrested and brought him to the police station. This was the lawful custody.
  • Section 41(g) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states that on credible information, a person can be arrested by the Police officer when a cognizable offence is committed.
• The other contention is that under Section 224 of IPC, there cannot be two trials. The court held that in this situation Section 220 CrPC is not attracted. The petitioner was arrested for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC, but in the present case he was charged for the offence committed under Section 224 IPC.
  • When series of acts are not so connected together and there cannot be one trial in respect of another incident.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in this Case?

Section 224 of IPC

• This Section deals with the resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension.
• It states that whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained or any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 262 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with a similar concept.

Section 220 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the trial for more than one offence. It states that-
• If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
• When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 212 or in sub-section (1) of Section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
• If the facts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
• If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
• Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently the Delhi High Court in the matter of Soukin v. The NCT State New Delhi has held that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace.

What was the Background of Soukin v. The NCT State New Delhi Case?

• The FIR in the present case was registered at the instance of the complainant namely, Dewan Singh Malik who alleged that on 10^th October 2022, he received a WhatsApp video call from an unknown lady, who insisted for private video call and later recorded the video call.
• Thereafter, the complainant received several calls from different mobile numbers who introduced themselves as police officers/YouTube employees and extorted a total amount of ₹16 Lakhs on the pretext of removing the video from YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and by threatening him of false accusation in the murder case of the lady in the video and on the pretext of settling the matter with her family.
• During interrogation, the accused persons disclosed the names of the present applicants along with other accused persons. They stated that they used to commit such offences along with the present applicants.
• Thereafter, the applicants filed a pre-arrest bail application before the Delhi High Court for offences punishable under the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Considering the nature of the offence, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants is made out.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Amit Mahajan observed that sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favors from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma.
• This cyber-enabled crime not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.

What is Sextortion?

About:

• Sextortion derives its etymology from the combination of the words sex and extortion.
  • Section 383 of IPC deals with extortion and states that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
  • Section 384 of IPC provides punishment for extortion and states that whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• It is a form of sexual abuse in which a person blackmails or intimidates another person by threatening them to publicly post images or videos of them engaging in compromising situations.
• It involves pressurizing a person to give money or any other property to the extorter, failing which the extorter threatens them to leak their private images and videos on the Internet.
• In India, we still do not have a law that deals specifically with the crime of Sextortion. However, it has various laws to deal with sexual abuse.

Laws Governing Sexual Abuse:

• In India the following legal provisions govern sexual abuse:

Ways of Battling Sextortion:

• One should refrain from sharing his private data, images, or videos publicly on the Internet.
• Use enhanced security and privacy settings for data safety.
• Avoid entertaining strangers by accepting their requests on different social media platforms.
• Do not allow forced signs of intimacy by any person.
• Never allow any person, however close he may be, to capture any photograph or video of any intimate activity.
• Report to the user if you notice any suspicious activity.
• Use two-step verification measures to protect your data.
• Avoid clicking on suspicious pop-ups that claim to offer dating services.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that A mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of the requisite ceremonies being performed does not constitute a valid Hindu marriage.

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal,

What was the Background of Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal Case?

• The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) were trained commercial pilots.
• They were engaged to be married on 07th March 2021 and claimed to have solemnized their marriage on 07th July 2021.
• They obtained a "marriage certificate" from Vadik Jankalyan Samiti (Regd.) and a "Certificate of Registration of Marriage" under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
• However, the actual marriage ceremony as per Hindu rites and customs was scheduled for 25th October 2022, but it did not take place.
• Differences arose between the parties, and the petitioner alleged dowry demands and harassment by the respondent's family.
• The petitioner filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondent and his family members under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• On 13th March 2023, the respondent approached the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur, Bihar by filing a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The petitioner-wife, being aggrieved by this fact as she was currently residing in Ranchi, Jharkhand with her parents, filed the present transfer petition seeking to transfer the divorce petition to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
• During the pendency of the transfer petition, the parties agreed to file a joint application under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking a declaration that their marriage dated 07th July 2021 was not valid in the eyes of the law, and consequently, the marriage certificates issued were null and void.
• The parties admitted that no marriage was solemnized as per customs, rites, and rituals, and they obtained the certificates due to exigencies and pressures.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that for a valid Hindu marriage under the Act, the requisite ceremonies have to be performed, and there must be proof of the performance of such ceremonies.
• The court stated that a Hindu marriage is a sacrament and has a sacred character.
  • It emphasized the importance of the institution of marriage in Indian society and the significance of the customary ceremonies and rituals associated with it.
• The court deprecated the practice of couples seeking to acquire the status of husband and wife without a valid marriage ceremony under the provisions of the Act, such as in the present case where the marriage was yet to take place.
• The court declared that the 'marriage' between the parties was not a 'Hindu marriage' under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and consequently, the certificates issued by the entities involved were declared null and void.
• The court further declared that the petitioner and respondent were not married in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and had never acquired the status of husband and wife.

What are Ceremonies for Marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

• About:
  • Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with the ceremonies and rituals that are essential for a Hindu marriage to be considered valid and legally binding.
• Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
  • A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.
  • Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
    • The Saptapadi is a symbolic ritual that represents the couple's commitment to each other and their journey together in life.
• Landmark Cases:
  • Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2007):
    • In this case, the Supreme Court noted that under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registration of marriages is left to the discretion of the parties, they can either solemnize the marriage before the Sub-Registrar or register it after performing the marriage ceremony according to customary beliefs.
  • Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh (1971):
    • The Supreme Court ruled that it is essential that the marriage was celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form as per law or established custom applicable to the parties.