List of Current Affairs

Source:   Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in matter of P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police has emphasized the criticality of Test Identification Parades (TIP) in criminal trials, stating that the identification of an accused in court, especially when the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP has been conducted, cannot be relied upon as strong evidence for conviction.  

• This directive aims to ensure fair and accurate identification processes, preventing potential misidentifications and emphasizing the need for cautious judicial scrutiny in such cases. 

What was the Background of P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police? 

• The case involves the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl inside her house on 13th November 2014. 
• Two accused were charged - Accused No. 1 (Yugadhithan) and Accused No. 2 (P. Sasikumar, the appellant in this case). 
• The prosecution's case was largely based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the murder. 
• 13th November 2014 ~7:15 PM: The victim's father (PW-1) returned home to find his daughter bleeding profusely.  
• He saw a man wearing a helmet coming down the stairs. 
• PW-5 (a neighbor) claimed to have seen two men enter the victim's house around 6:30-6:40 PM - one wearing a helmet and one wearing a green monkey cap. 
• November 15, 2014: Both accused were apprehended by police. 
• Recoveries were made based on the accused's statements, including weapons, clothes, and vehicles. 
• Identification issues:  
  • PW-1 and PW-5 had not seen the appellant (Accused No. 2) prior to the incident. 
  • They claimed to have seen him wearing a green monkey cap, which covered most of his face. 
  • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted by police. 
  • The witnesses identified the accused in the hospital while they were in police custody. 
  • Later, they identified the accused in court during the trial. 
• The Trial Court convicted both accused under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 (murder). 
• The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant (Accused No. 2). 
• The appellant challenged his conviction in the Supreme Court, primarily on grounds of doubtful identification. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) when the accused is unfamiliar to the witness. It highlighted that without a TIP, identification in court cannot serve as reliable evidence for establishing guilt. 
• The court observes that in cases where no TIP has been conducted and the accused is a stranger to the witness, the trial court must exercise utmost caution before accepting dock identification as conclusive evidence. 
• The Court pointed out that the absence of a TIP in the present case amounted to a critical flaw in the police investigation. This omission cast doubt on the reliability of the dock identification of the accused during trial. 
• The court states that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution. The Court found that the prosecution failed to meet this burden in the absence of a TIP. 
• The Court distinguished the present case from prior rulings, noting that insufficient corroboration and doubts about the appellant's identity precluded conviction based on unreliable evidence. 
•  The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale concluded that the doubt regarding the appellant's identity warranted acquittal, underscoring the principle that doubt must benefit the accused. 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

About: 

• The role of the witness is very important in establishing the identity of the accused. One of the methods of establishing the identity is the Test Identification Parade (TIP) which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• In Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 this provision is given under Section 7. 

Section 7 of BSA: 

• This section deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 
• It states that the facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose. 

Purpose of TIP: 

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence. 
• It has two major purposes: 
  • To satisfy the investigating authorities, a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime. 
  • To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. 

Mode of TIP: 

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible. 
• While making arrangements for the parade, the Police Officers should completely efface themselves, leaving it to the Magistrate to conduct the actual identification proceedings. 
• When a witness says that he can identify the accused persons or others connected with the case under investigation, the Investigating Officer shall record in the case diary their description in detail, noting the following points: 
  • Their descriptions 
  • The extent of prevailing light at the time of the offence (daylight, moonlight, flashing of torches, burning kerosene, electric or gas lights). 
  • Details of opportunities of seeing the accused at the time of the offence and anything outstanding in the features or conduct of the accused which impressed him (identifier). 
  • The distance from which he saw the accused. 
  • The extent of time during which he saw the accused. 
• When a parade has to be held for the identification of a person or persons by a witness such person or persons shall be carefully kept out of the view of the witnesses and mingled with a considerable number of other people of a like class. 
• The Magistrate or other persons conducting the parade should satisfy himself or themselves that no Police Officer takes part in the actual identification proceedings. 
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded. 
• After the completion of the identification parade and the drawing up of the proceedings, a certificate must be issued which is signed by the Magistrate who conducted the Parade. 

Evidentiary Value of TIP: 

• A TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in the Court. 

Case Laws: 

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime. 
• In George v. State of Kerala (1996), the Supreme Court held that the admissibility of the identification of the accused in the Court is not affected for want of evidence of earlier identification in the TTP. 
• Jayan v. State of Kerala (2021), the court stated that if there was sufficient corroboration to the testimony of the witness then the testimony of a witness who has identified the accused in the Court cannot be discarded merely because the Test Identification Parade was not conducted. The Court observed that since the identity of the appellant was in doubt and there was no sufficient corroboration to the witness testimony, thus the appellant could not be convicted based on very doubtful evidence as to the appellant's identity. 

Source: High Court of Delhi 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Amit Bansal and Rajiv Shakdher held that in custody matters, a parent without the custody of their child is entitled to visitation rights so as to maintain the bond with their child.    

• The High Court of Delhi held this in the case of Amit Sharma v. Sugandha Sharma. 

What is the Background of Amit Sharma v. Sugandha Sharma Case? 

• In the present case the Appellant (Husband) and the Respondent (Wife) were married, and they had a son. Later they divorced. 
• The Family Court directed that the appellant would be allowed to meet the child on the first and third Saturdays of every mosnth in the Children’s Room, Dwarka Courts from 3.00 pm to 4.00 pm.   
• This was objected to by the respondent but the same was dismissed and the Court directed the meetings in the Children’s room in the presence of a counsellor. 
•  The appellant expressed his grievance that the aforesaid meetings could not take place due to the absence of a counsellor on various dates 
• This grievance was addressed by this Court by directing the concerned Family Judge to ensure that a counsellor is present in all such interactions between the child and the appellant. 
• In the report submitted by the Family Court Counsellor it was observed that the child was not ready to meet the father and was apprehensive. 
• An interim report was also submitted by an independent NGO which said that  the child in his interaction stated that he did not like to meet his father or visit Court on a regular basis as it makes him feel uncomfortable. 
• The issue before the Court was whether interim custody of the child should be granted to the appellant. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that it is a settled position of law that in matters of custody the Court has to look into the best interests of the child. 
  • The best interest of the child has to be determined taking into account all relevant circumstances. 
• It cannot also be disputed that a minor child requires the love and affection of both his parents. 
• Therefore, even if the custody of the child is with one parent, the other parent must have visitation rights so as to ensure that the child maintains contact with the other parent. 
• The Court observed that joint parenting is the norm and if the Court moves away from it, it must articulate reasons for the same. 
• The Court held that there is a clear finding that the child was uncomfortable in the presence of the appellant. Considering the tender age of the child the Court held that the interim custody of the child should not be granted to the appellant. 

What is the law Regarding Interim Custody of a Child?  

Section 12 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 

• This section deals with the power to make interlocutory orders for production of minor and interim protection of person and property. 
• Sub-section(1) of this Section provides the Court may direct that the person, if any, having the custody of the minor, shall produce him or cause him to be produced at such place and time and before such person as it appoints, and may make such order for the temporary custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it thinks proper.  
• Sub-section (2) of this Section provides that if the minor is a female who ought not to be compelled to appear in public, the direction under sub-section (1) for her production shall require her to be produced in accordance with the customs and manners of the country. 
• Sub-section (3) provides that nothing in this section shall authorize- 
  • The Court to place a female minor in the temporary custody of a person claiming to be her guardian on the ground of his being her husband, unless she is already in his custody with the consent of her parents, if any, or 
  • Any person to whom the temporary custody and protection of the property of a minor is entrusted to dispossess otherwise than by due course of law any person in possession of any of the property. 

What is the Principle of Welfare of Child? 

• Section 13 of Hindu Minorities and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA)  
  • This Section provides that the in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration. 
• Section 17 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890  
  • This Section provides matters to be considered while appointing a guardian. 
  • Section 17 (1) provides that in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. 
  • Section 17 (2) provides that In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. 
  • Section 17 (3) provides that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference. 
  • Section 17 (5) provides that the Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will.   

What are the Case Laws Relating to Custody of Child? 

• Shazia Aman Khan and Another v. The State of Orissa (2024): 
  • Stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for full development of a child’s talent and personality. 
  • Another principle of law which is settled with reference to custody of the child is the wish of the child, if she is capable of. 
  • The Court held that the welfare of the child has to be seen and not the rights of the parties. 
• Ashish Ranjan v. Anupam Tandon (2010): 
  • It is a well settled principle that while determining the question of custody the welfare of the child should be given paramount importance and not the rights of the parents under the statute.  
  • While considering the welfare of the child, the "moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as his physical well- being" 
  • The child cannot be treated as a property or a commodity and, therefore, such issues have to be handled by the court with care and caution with love, affection and sentiments applying human touch to the problem.  
• Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal (2024): 
  • The Court held that the matter of custody should be decided by taking into consideration the following factors: 
    • The socioeconomic and educational opportunities which may be made available to the Minor Children; 
    • Healthcare and overall well being of the children 
    • The ability to provide physical surroundings conducive to growing adolescents but also take into consideration the preference of the Minor Children.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of X v. Y has held that the noncompliance of restitution of a conjugal right can be considered as a ground of granting divorce by the Court. 

What was the Background of the X v. Y Case? 

• In the present case, the husband (appellant) and the wife (respondent) got married in 1999. They had two children, both adults now. 
• In 2006, disputes arose between the couple, after which the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights in 2008. 
• The trial court passed the decree of restitution of conjugal right and directed the wife to join the husband’s company within 3 months. 
• The wife also filed an appeal to the High court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the court and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court of Restitution of Conjugal rights. 
• The husband again filed the suit for divorce in 2016 as the wife did not abide by the decree on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the Family Court, Barnal which passed the decree in favor of the husband and granted divorce. 
• The wife filed an appeal to the High court of Punjab and Haryana which was allowed by the court and decree of divorce was set aside by the High Court. 
• There was other two litigations between the parties: 
  • The wife filed for maintenance before the trial court which was partly allowed by the court with respect to children’s maintenance and denied for the wife’s maintenance as she refused to abide by the decree of restitution of conjugal rights without any sufficient cause. 
  • Another suit was filed by the wife before Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Sections 406 and Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) which was dismissed by the court. 
  • Respondent filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• The dispute was referred to the Supreme Court mediation center which also got failed in making the report and no conclusion was drawn after such mediation. 
• The husband filed an appeal to the Supreme Court aggrieved by the decision of the High Court setting aside the decree of divorce. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the marriage was a dead marriage for 16 years. 
• It was also stated by the court that respondent’s noncompliance with the decree passed by the High Court of Restitution of Conjugal Rights without any reasonable cause must be noted while passing and order or decree. 
• It is also to be noted that from 2008 till the filing of the divorce petition the respond is not living with the appellant which is desertion. 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court granted divorce on the ground of desertion as there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties and hence, reversed the decision of the High Court. 

What is restitution of Conjugal Rights? 

• About: 
  • The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.  
  • Restitution of Conjugal Rights provided under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).  
• Section 9 of HMA: 
  • The objective of Section 9   is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage. 
  • This Section states that when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. 
  • Explanation —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society. 
• Application: 
  • The aggrieved party may apply to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights if the husband or wife is withdrawn from the other partner's company without any reasonable ground. 
  • The burden of proof is on the person who has withdrawn from society of the other person to prove that there has been a reasonable excuse to withdraw. 
• Essential Requirements: 
  • The parties must be legally married to one another. 
  • One should exclude themselves from another's social circle. 
  • This withdrawal must be made without valid justification. 
  • The assertion that there is no legal justification for rejecting the decree must be proven to the court's satisfaction. 
• Landmark Judgements: 
  • Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.  
  • R. Natarajan v. Sujatha Vasudeva (2010),it was held that the wife's decision to leave her husband's society because she finds it difficult to live with his parents does not constitute a reasonable reason to do so. 

What are the Provisions of Indian Penal Code Referred to in this Case? 

Section 406 of IPC: 

• This Section deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust.  
• It states that whoever commits criminal breach of trust 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 now Section 316 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (BNS) 

Section 498-A of IPC: 

• Introduced in the year 1983, this section contains provisions in relation to the situations when the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty. It states that -  
• Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, cruelty means 
  (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 
• In the case of Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), the SC held that Section 498-A of IPC has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property.