List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Anees v. The State Govt of NCT has expounded the principles relating to the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

What was the Background of Anees v. The State Govt of NCT Case?

• In this case, the deceased, namely, Saira was married to the appellant.
• On the fateful night of the incident, an altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased and as a result, the appellant is alleged to have inflicted stab injuries indiscriminately with a knife all over the body of the deceased.
• It is also the case of the prosecution that the minor daughter Shaheena was the sole eyewitness to the incident.
• Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, which culminated in the Sessions Case.
• The Session Judge holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court and the High Court dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra expounded the principles relating to the application Section 106 of IEA which are as follows:
  • The Court should apply Section 106 of the IEA in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases.
  • This Section cannot be invoked to make up for the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
  • This Section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence.
  • It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden on the accused to show that no crime was committed.
  • This Section has no application to cases where the fact in question, having regard to its nature, is such as to be capable of being known not only to the accused but also to others, if they happened to be present when it took place.
  • This Section would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of the accused.

What is Section 106 of IEA?

About:

• This Section deals with the burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
• It states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
• The word “especially” means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused.
• This Section comes into play in cases of custodial death, dowry death and in cases of alibi.
• It is only an exception to Section 101 of IEA.

Objectives:

• This Section promotes the idea of a fair trial where it becomes easy to prove all the possible facts and have no burden to prove something that is impossible and benefits the accused.
• It provides the opportunity for the accused to rebut the presumption of facts which is derived from the series of facts.

Illustration:

• When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

Case Law

• In Nagendra Shah v. State of Bihar (2021), the Supreme Court reinforced that, in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, an accused's failure to provide a reasonable explanation as required by Section 106 of IEA could serve as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
• In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer (1956), the Supreme Court held that word especially stresses that it means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar has held that the defence of juvenility can be raised at any stage of trial, even after a case is dismissed. Such a plea of juvenility couldn't be rejected without conducting a proper inquiry.

What was the Background of Rahul Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar?

• Rohit Yadav and the co-accused were tried by Sessions Judge, Darbhanga under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. Court convicted both the accused and awarded death sentence to them.
• They filled an appeal before the Patna High Court under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for confirmation of the death sentence. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court gave a split opinion.
• Then the matter was referred to the third learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court who dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 29^th June 2017 but commuted the death sentence awarded to the appellant and the co-accused to life imprisonment.
• Before the case was committed, the appellant moved an application under Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. claiming that he was a juvenile as on the date of the incident, i.e., 27^th July, 2011. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded to reject the said application.
• On 28^th November 2011, a fresh petition was rejected, on similar grounds.
• An appeal to Supreme Court which preferred accused assailing the judgments of trial Court and High Court. The Court directed lower Courts to carry out a comprehensive investigation to establish the age or date of birth of the appellant, following the procedure outlined in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that proper inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, 2000 or the JJ Act, 2015 was not carried out so to consider the prayer made by the appellant to be treated as juvenile on the date of the incident even though the plea was raised at the earliest opportunity. It can be said without a cavil of doubt that the plea of juvenility raised by the appellant could not have been thrown out without conducting proper inquiry.
• Further it was held that the proviso to Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 clearly enumerates that plea of juvenility may be raised before any Court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case. The High Court, however, did not consider and decide the prayer of juvenility raised on behalf of the appellant.

What is Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015?

JJ Act, 2015

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 came into force on January 15, 2016.
• It repealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
• This Act seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children as ratified by India on December 11, 1992.
• The Act further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years
• According to Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Amendment Act, 2021, crimes against children which are mentioned in the chapter “Other Offences Against Children” of the JJ Act, 2015 and that allows imprisonment between three and seven years will be deemed non-cognizable.
• The provision outlined in Section 7A of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is now incorporated in Section 9 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015

About:

• This Section states that in case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.
• Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act.

Case Law

• Abuzar Hossain v. State of West Bengal (2012), in this case the Supreme Court held that the plea for juvenility may be raised at any stage of trial, even after the disposal of the case. Further, delay in raising the plea of juvenility cannot be grounds for rejection of such a claim.