Get flat 40% Off on all Online Courses, Pendrive Courses, & Test Series. The offer is valid from 24th to 26th January only.









List of Current Affairs

Home / List of Current Affairs

Criminal Law

Motive

 14-Aug-2024

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi held that where ocular evidence appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive assumes significance.    

  • The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Sunil v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 

What is the Background of Sunil v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case? 

  • On 15th July 2006 at about 9:30 pm complainant Vinod Kumar presented a tehrir containing the facts that occurred on the fateful day. 
  • According to this at 7:30 when the complainant was returning he saw that Sunil (Accused) after flinging his wife on the ground was inflicting blows on her head and face with a brick. 
  • On her shriek and wailing several other persons gathered on the spot. 
  • The investigation was set into motion and the accused was arrested. 
  • The chargesheet was filed under Section 304 and Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • The Prosecution presented the evidence and thereafter examination of the accused was done under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • The defence did not adduce any evidence. 
  • The present appeal was filed before the High Court against the order of conviction passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The High Court in this case held that where there are circumstantial evidences the complete chain must point towards the guilt of the appellant. 
  • The Court held that the prosecution has not examined independent witness despite their availability and presence on spot. 
  • While holding the above the Court reiterated certain points for appreciation of evidence. 
    • Delay in filing of FIR:  
      • The Court held that the law is well settled that when the delay in lodging the FIR is well settled it will not at all adversely affect the case of the prosecution.  
      • In case it is not explained the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded on this ground alone, rather a duty is cast on the Court to scrutinize the prosecution evidence with extra care and caution.   
    • Difference Between Related and Interested Witness:  
      • The Court held that ‘related’ witness is not equivalent to ‘interested’ witness.  
      • An interested witness is one who has an interest in the result of the litigation; in a decree of a civil case or in seeing the accused person punished.  
    • Motive: 
      • It was the case of the appellant that no motive was imputed on the accused and hence the case of prosecution should fail. 
      • The Court held in this regard that it is a established canon of law of criminal justice that motive is a sine qua none of a criminal act. 
      • Motive is an important element of committing a crime. 
      • The Court while relying on the precedents held that where there is direct and credible evidence, motive takes a back seat.  
      • However, where the ocular testimony appears to be suspected the existence or absence of motive, acquires some significance. 
      • In the present case there is no direct evidence. Even presence of so called eye witnesses, is doubtful. Therefore motive assumes some importance 
  • Thus, the High Court acquitted the accused. 

What is Motive?

  • Meaning: 
    • Motive is a desire prompting conduct. It is a desire transformed into a practical incentive or excitant to action. 
    • A motive is a mental state, a desire, necessarily precedes the act for which it furnishes the stimulus. 
    • Motive is the emotion that is supposed to have lead to an act. 
  • Difference Between Motive and Intent: 
    • Intent means a conscious objective or purpose to engage in the act which the law forbids. 
    • Intention refers to the immediate purpose with which the act is done. Motive, however, is the ulterior purpose of the act. 
    •  Intent refers to the purpose for which the act is committed and the motive is the reason or cause that impels one to perpetrate it. 
    • Intention refers to the goal or objective behind the act representing a person’s deliberate wish. For example a person buying a knife can buy it for any purpose – killing, cooking or anything else.   
    • Motive on the other hand refers to the underlying cause or impetus behind an action. Motive can be in the form of a person’s motivations or interests or worries. For example a person may commit theft due to financial desperation, greed etc. 
  • Relevancy of Motive:  
    • Relevancy of motive is provided for under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
    • As per Section 5 of IEA evidence may be given only of fact in issue and relevant fact. 
    • Section 8 of IEA provides that any fact is relevant which shows or constitute: 
      • Motive 
      • Preparation or 
      • Conduct 
      • Of any fact in issue or relevant fact 
    • With respect to conduct Section 8 provides following: 
      • Whose conduct relevant? 
        • Party 
        • Agent of the party 
        • The victim 
      • What kind of conduct relevant? 
        • Conduct in reference to suit or proceeding 
        • Conduct influencing or influenced by fact in issue or relevant fact 
        • It can be previous or subsequent conduct 
    • Explanation 1 of Section 8 provides the word “conduct” in this section does not include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act. 
    • Explanation 2 of Section 8 provides when the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant. 
    • This is contained in Section 6 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 

What are the Case Laws on Evidentiary Value of Motive? 

  • Badam Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) 
    • The Supreme Court in this case held that “Even though existence of motive loses significance when there is reliable ocular testimony, in a case where the ocular testimony appears to be suspect the existence or absence of motive acquires some significance regarding the probability of the prosecution case.” 
  • State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 
    • The Supreme Court in this case held that it is well settled that where direct evidence of eye witness is available the motive loses all it’s significance. 
    • Thus, where there is not an apparent motive to commit the offence the prosecution can still succeed on the basis of clear and reliable testimony of an eye witness.  
  • Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 
    • The Supreme Court in this case held that it is not as if motive alone is a crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in it’s absence the case of prosecution will fail. 
      • However, complete absence of motive definitely weighs in favour of the accused. 
  • Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 
    • The Supreme Court in this case observed the principles laid down in various judgments regarding motive as a circumstance for conviction. 
    • The Court observed that in the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995) it was held that if motive is proved that would provide a link in the chain of circumstances of evidence, but the absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case. 
      • At the same time in Babu v. State of Kerela (2010), the Court held that motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favour of accused.

Criminal Law

Narrated Statement and Actual Statement

 14-Aug-2024

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India has held that the witness narration in the charge sheet was different from the narration before the Magistrate and the Investigating Agencies must be fair while making charges against anyone. 

What was the Background of the Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India   Case? 

  • In the present case, the appellant was prosecuted under Sections 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 13, 18, 18A and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). 
  • The appellant was referred to as respondent no.2 in the chargesheet. 
  • It was stated in the chargesheet that the witnesses made the following statements: 
    • That the appellant’s wife used to own the building named Ahmad Palace and that the appellant had clandestinely shown that premises on the first floor of the said building were given for rent to one Athar Parwez – accused no. 1. 
    • That, the premises was used to conduct objectionable activities of an organization called Popular Front of India (PFI). 
    • That, the discussion allegedly involved the expansion of PFI, training of its members, Muslim empowerment, and plans to target individuals who made derogatory remarks about Islam. 
    • That the sum of Rs. 25,000 transferred to the appellant's son's account from the co accused. 
    • That the appellant was found removing certain goods from the premises right before the raid of the police. 
  • The appellant along with the co accused applied for bail before the Special court which was rejected. 
  • When an appeal was filed by the appellant and the co- accused before the Patna  High Court, the High Court granted bail to the other co-accused but rejected the bail of the appellant. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The Supreme court in this case observed that the statement given by the witness in the charge sheet and before the magistrate differs from each other and has various discrepancies. 
  • The Supreme Court also mentioned that the statement by the witness did not include the name of the appellant for her involvement in the alleged offence. 
  •  It was also noted that there were no inferences that shows that the appellant gave any direction for attacks mentioned in the chargesheet. 
  • It was also noted that the amount transferred to the bank account of the appellant son was the advance payment of the rent. 
  • It was also noted by the Supreme Court that the goods removed before the police raid had no connection with the attacks as the nature of the goods were not specified in the charge sheet. 
  • The Supreme court held that there was no evidence to show that the alleged crime was having involvement of the appellant. 
  • Therefore, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant. 

What is a Statement? 

    • As per Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the statement is recorded to collect the evidence for or against the alleged crime. 
    • The statement made before the police is not admissible as conclusive evidence and needs to be corroborated with the facts and circumstance of the case. 
    • The object of recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 of CrPC is that the person making statements comes under moral obligations and the chances to turn hostile reduce. 
    • The purpose of contradiction between the evidence of a witness before the court and the statement recorded under section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C is primarily to shake credit of the witness. 
    • It is the duty of the judiciary to closely scrutinize each and every aspect of the statement in consideration of the provisions and the circumstances of the case. 

Landmark Judgements:  

  • NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019): In this case elaborated guidelines were laid down on the approach that courts must partake in, in their application of the bail limitations under the UAP Act. 
  • Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra and another (2024): It was held that to confirm the accusation under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA the test laid down must be fulfilled. 

Civil Law

Surrogacy Agreement

 14-Aug-2024

Source: Bombay High Court  

Why in News? 

The Bombay High Court has ruled that donating eggs or sperm does not grant parental rights over children born via IVF. This decision came after a woman, who had donated eggs to her sister and brother-in-law, claimed maternal rights over the twins born through surrogacy. The court clarified that parental rights are not conferred solely based on genetic contribution but involve legal and contractual considerations. 

  • Justice Milind Jadhav held in the matter of Shailaja Nitin Mishra v. Nitin Kumar Mishra  

What was the Background of Shailaja Nitin Mishra v. Nitin Kumar Mishra? 

  • The petitioner (wife) and respondent no. 1 (husband) are a legally married couple whose marriage is still in effect. 
  • The couple was unable to conceive naturally due to medical issues, so they pursued surrogacy with the wife's younger sister as an egg donor. 
  • A surrogacy agreement was signed on 30th November 2018 between the couple, a surrogate mother, and a doctor at a fertility clinic in Bangalore. 
  •  Twin daughters were born through surrogacy on 25th August 2019. 
  •  In April 2019, before the birth, the wife's sister (egg donor) was in a serious accident that killed her husband and child and left her disabled. 
  • From August 2019 to March 2021, the couple lived together with their twin daughters. 
  • In March 2021, the husband took the daughters and moved to Ranchi without informing the wife.  
    • The wife's sister began living with them and caring for the children. 
  • The wife filed a police complaint and then a custody application in court seeking custody of the daughters. 
  • The wife also filed an interim application seeking visitation rights, which was rejected by the trial court in September 2023. 
  • The wife has now filed this writ petition challenging the rejection of her interim visitation rights application. 
  • The twin daughters are now 5 years old and reportedly recognize the wife's sister as their mother. 
  • The husband and wife's sister argue that the sister, as egg donor, should be considered the biological mother of the children. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

  • The National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India, enacted in 2005, are applicable to this case. 
  • As per Guideline 3.12.1, a child born through ART shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the couple, born within wedlock and with the consent of both spouses. 
  • Guideline 3.16.1 clearly states that the sperm/oocyte donor shall not have any parental right or duties in relation to the child. 
  • The court stated that the younger sister of the Petitioner, being the oocyte donor, has no legal right to claim she is the biological mother of the twin daughters. 
  • The Surrogacy Agreement is a contract between the intending parents (Petitioner and Respondent No.1), the surrogate mother, and the Doctor.  
    • The egg donor is not a party to this agreement. 
  • The impugned order of the trial court was passed with complete non-application of mind and is clearly unsustainable. 
  • The limited role of the Petitioner's younger sister is that of an oocyte donor, and at most, she may qualify as a genetic mother, but this gives her no legal right to claim to be the biological mother. 
  • The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are the intending couple as defined under the Guidelines and the Surrogacy Act, and therefore qualify to be the biological father and mother of the twin daughters. 

What is Surrogacy? 

  • Surrogacy is an arrangement in which a woman (the surrogate) agrees to carry and give birth to a child on behalf of another person or couple (the intended parent/s). 
  • A surrogate, sometimes also called a gestational carrier, is a woman who conceives, carries and gives birth to a child for another person or couple (intended parent/s). 
  • Surrogacy, which involves no monetary compensation to the surrogate mother other than the medical expenses and insurance coverage during the pregnancy is often referred to as Altruistic surrogacy. 
  • Surrogacy undertaken for a monetary benefit or reward (in cash or kind) exceeding the basic medical expenses and insurance coverage is termed Commercial surrogacy. 

What is a Surrogacy Agreement? 

  • A surrogacy agreement is a legal contract that defines the terms and conditions between the intended parents and the surrogate mother who carries and delivers a child for the intended parents.  
  • This agreement includes details about medical procedures, parental rights, and financial arrangements. 
  • The parties declare their intent to enter a surrogacy agreement, with the Surrogate agreeing to carry and give birth to a child for the Intended Parents. 
  • This agreement sets forth the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of both the Surrogate and the Intended Parents throughout the surrogacy process and thereafter. 
  • The Surrogate (and spouse, if applicable) hereby affirms and acknowledges the full parental rights of the Intended Parents to any child(ren) resulting from this surrogacy arrangement. 
  • The Intended Parents express their unequivocal intention to assume all parental rights and responsibilities for any child(ren) born because of this surrogacy arrangement. 
  • The agreement shall specify the compensation to be provided to the Surrogate, including enumeration of covered expenses such as living costs and medical expenses not otherwise insured. 
  • A financial mechanism (e.g., escrow account or trust) shall be established to facilitate payments from the Intended Parents to the Surrogate in accordance with the terms herein. 
  • The agreement shall delineate health insurance coverage for the Surrogate, the child(ren), and the Intended Parents throughout the surrogacy process and immediate postpartum period. 
  • The parties agree to a communication protocol, including frequency and method of contact, to be maintained throughout the pregnancy. 
  • The extent of the Intended Parents' involvement in medical decision-making during the pregnancy shall be clearly defined herein. 
  • The Surrogate agrees to adhere to specified health and lifestyle choices throughout the pregnancy, including dietary restrictions, exercise regimens, travel limitations, and abstention from high-risk activities. 
  • The agreement shall provide resolutions for potential contingencies, including multiple pregnancies, selective reduction, chromosomal abnormalities, and health risks to the Surrogate. 
  • The parties agree to abide by mutually agreed-upon privacy protocols, including limitations on social media disclosures related to the surrogacy arrangement. 
  • The agreement shall specify consequences for breach of contract by either party, including potential remedies and dispute resolution mechanisms.