List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court granted bail in the matter of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. to a juvenile held for over a year, criticizing lower courts for not specifically applying the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. This provision allows for bail unless there are specific concerns about the juvenile's safety or justice.  

• Justice Abhay Oka and justice Augustine George Masih held in the matter of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.    

What was the Background of Juvenile in Conflict with Law V v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.? 

• A juvenile who was charged with offenses under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,1860(IPC) as well as Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 
• The juvenile was taken into custody on 15th August, 2023 and sent to a Juvenile Care Home. 
• A charge sheet was filed against the juvenile on 25th August, 2023. 
• On 23thAugust, 2023, two days before the charge sheet was filed, the juvenile's application for bail under Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) was rejected. 
• A second application for bail was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on 11th December 2023. 
• The juvenile appealed the JJB's decision to deny bail, but this appeal was dismissed by the Special Judge under the POCSO Act. 
• Subsequently, the juvenile filed a Revision Petition in the High Court of Rajasthan, challenging the decisions of the lower courts. 
• The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, upholding the denial of bail to the juvenile. 
• Throughout this process, the juvenile remained in custody for over a year. 
• A Psychological Assessment Report of the juvenile was conducted, which formed part of the case record. 
• The juvenile, through his guardian-father, filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the decisions of the lower courts and seeking bail. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates the release of a juvenile in conflict with law on bail, with or without surety, unless the proviso to this section is applicable. 
• The Court observed that the proviso to Section 12(1) allows for denial of bail only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals, expose them to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice. 
• The Court found that neither the Juvenile Justice Board, nor the Special Court, nor the High Court had recorded any finding that the proviso to Section 12(1) was applicable in this case. 
• The Court emphasized that without recording such a finding, bail could not have been denied to the juvenile in conflict with law. 
• The Court took note of the Psychological Assessment Report of the juvenile, which indicated that the juvenile did not belong to a high-risk category and had "no worry" listed against the column "worry list of child". 
• The Court observed that the report was signed by a qualified Clinical Psychologist, lending credence to its findings. 
• The Court expressed concern that despite the absence of any finding justifying the application of the proviso to Section 12(1), the juvenile had been denied bail for over a year. 
• The Court held that the phraseology of Section 12(1) necessitates the release of a juvenile on bail unless the proviso is applicable, which was not established in this case. 
• The Court found that the continued detention of the juvenile for a year without proper justification under the law was unwarranted. 
• The Court deemed it necessary to intervene and correct the error in the application of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act by the lower courts. 

What is Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015? 

• Section 12 of JJ Act,2015 deals with Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with law. 
• Applicability: 
  • This section applies to any person who appears to be a child. 
  • It covers situations where such a person is alleged to have committed any offense, whether bailable or non-bailable.  
  • The section is applicable when the child is apprehended, detained by police, appears before a Board, or is brought before a Board. 
• Overriding Effect:  
  • This section has an overriding effect on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and any other law in force.  
  • The provisions of this section take precedence over conflicting provisions in other laws. 
• Primary Rule for Release:  
  • The default position is that the child shall be released.  
  • Release can be on bail with or without surety. 
  • Alternatively, the child can be placed under the supervision of a probation officer.  
  • The child to be placed under the care of any fit person. 
• Exceptions to Release (Proviso):  
  • Release can be denied if there are reasonable grounds to believe: 
    • The release is likely to bring the child into association with known criminals, or  
    • The release may expose the child to moral, physical, or psychological danger, or  
    • The release would defeat the ends of justice. 
  • If bail is denied, the Board must record the reasons for denial and the circumstances leading to this decision. 
• Procedure When Not Released by Police:  
  • If the officer-in-charge of a police station does not release the child on bail under sub-section (1),  
  • The officer must ensure the child is kept only in an observation home. 
  • This detention in the observation home must be in the prescribed manner.  
  • The child must be kept there only until they can be brought before a Board. 
• Procedure When Not Released by Board:  
  • If the Board does not release the child on bail under sub-section (1),  
  • The Board must make an order sending the child to an observation home or a place of safety. 
  • This order specifies the period of stay during the pendency of the inquiry regarding the child. 
• Failure to Meet Bail Conditions:  
  • If a child in conflict with the law cannot fulfill the conditions of the bail order within seven days of the order,  
  • The child must be produced before the Board.  
  • The purpose of this production is for modification of the bail conditions. 
• Section 12(1) of Act states that when any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit person. 
  • Proviso provide that such person shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.

Source:   Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court recently quashed perjury proceedings against a litigant, establishing guidelines for such actions under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a false affidavit in a bail cancellation matter. The ruling clarifies the standards needed to prove perjury, overturning the Uttarakhand High Court's directive. 

• Justice BR Gavai, Justices Sanjay Karol, and KV Viswanathan held in the matter of James kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. 

What was the Background of James kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr? 

• James Kunjwal (the Appellant) was accused in FIR No. 109 of 2021 under Sections 376 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The FIR was filed by a complainant referred to as 'X', alleging that James Kunjwal had established relations with her on the false promise of marriage. 
• James Kunjwal initially applied for bail before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital, which was rejected. 
• He then appealed to the High Court of Uttarakhand, which granted him bail on 8th June, 2021. 
• The complainant subsequently filed an application (No. 24/2022) seeking cancellation of James Kunjwal's bail. 
• In the bail cancellation application, the complainant alleged that James Kunjwal was pressuring her to settle the case, sending her obscene messages, and abusing her and her family. 
• The complainant claimed she had filed a police complaint about James Kunjwal's behavior on 24th July, 2022. 
• In response to the allegations, James Kunjwal filed an affidavit denying the complainant's claims and providing his own version of events. 
• The High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application but took issue with perceived contradictions between the affidavits filed by James Kunjwal and the complainant. 
• The High Court subsequently directed the Registrar (Judicial) to file a complaint against James Kunjwal for allegedly filing a false affidavit, leading to a case under Section 193 of the IPC. 
• James Kunjwal then appealed this decision to file a perjury case against him to the Supreme Court of India. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court examined whether the contents of the affidavit filed by James Kunjwal before the High Court constituted an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. 
• The Court referred to several precedents to establish the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 193 IPC. 
• The Court observed that mere denial of statements made in the complainant's affidavits does not meet the threshold for perjury. 
• It was noted that no malafide intention or deliberate attempt could be understood from James Kunjwal's statements in his affidavit. 
• The Court emphasized that mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under Section 193 IPC. 
• The Supreme Court opined that James Kunjwal's statements did not make it expedient in the interest of justice to invoke Section 193 IPC. 
• The Court found that the circumstances did not constitute exceptional grounds warranting the invocation of perjury proceedings. 
• It was observed that at least three of the established criteria for justifying perjury proceedings appeared to be unmet in this case. 
• The Court noted that the respondent's counter-affidavit before the Supreme Court did not provide any specific allegations or material that was allegedly placed before the competent prosecuting authorities or the Court. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that prosecution for perjury in this case would be unjust based on the available facts and circumstances. 

What is Section 227 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• Section 227 deals with offense of giving false evidence (earlier it was given under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code,1872 ) 
• It applies to a person who is legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. 
• It also applies to a person bound by law to declare on any subject. 
• The offence occurs when such a person makes any statement which is false. 
• The person must either know the statement to be false, or believe it to be false, or not believe it to be true. 
• Explanation 1 clarifies that a statement within the meaning of this section can be made verbally or otherwise. 
• Explanation 2 states that a false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section. 
• A person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that they believe a thing which they do not believe. 
• Similarly, a person may be guilty by stating that they know a thing which they do not know. 
• The essence of the offence is making a false statement when under a legal obligation to tell the truth. 

Legal Provision  

• Section 227  
  • Section 227 states that Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.  
  • Explanation 1 states that a statement is within this section's meaning whether verbally or otherwise. 
  • Explanation 2 states that a false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. 
• Section 229 
  • Section 229 deals with Punishment for false evidence. (earlier it was given under Section 193 of IPC) 
  • It states that under Section 229 (1) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. 
  • Sub-Section (2) states that whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any case other than that referred to in subsection (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees 

What are the Essential Elements of this Offense? 

• The accused must be legally bound by oath, affirmation, or statutory provision to state the truth. 
• The accused must have provided false evidence or testimony. 
• Such false evidence must be knowingly and intentionally given. 
• Alternatively, the accused must have willfully concealed material facts. 
• The false evidence must be provided in a judicial proceeding. 
• Judicial proceedings include, but are not limited to, trials, hearings, and depositions. 
• The offense extends to other quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings where evidence is legally taken. 
• Such proceedings may include departmental inquiries, tribunals, or statutory bodies empowered to receive evidence. 
• The falsehood must be material to the proceeding in question. 
• The accused's mens rea must encompass knowledge of the falsity or disbelief in the truth of their statement. 

When Can Perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against a Litigant?    

• The word 'Perjury' is derived from the Latin word Perjurium.  
  • 'Perjurium' was referred to as a sin but not as a public wrong. 
• Perjury proceedings can be initiated against a litigant when they knowingly make false statements under oath in legal proceedings, provided that the false statements are material to the case and are proven to be deliberate falsehoods rather than mere errors or inaccuracies. 
• Section 191 IPC, applies to individuals who, being under oath or under an express legal obligation to provide truthful information, knowingly make false statements, or statements that they either believe to be false or do not believe to be true. 
• Such false evidence can be delivered in either written or oral form. 

Case Law  

• Abdul Majid v. Krishna Lal Nag,(1893) 
  • The court held that false evidence must be given in a proceeding in which the accused was bound by law to speak the truth.  
  • If the court has no authority to administer an oath the proceeding will be coram non-judice and prosecution for false evidence cannot stand.  
  • Similar will be the case where a court is acting beyond the jurisdiction.”