List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently the Supreme Court observed that Appellate Courts must provide strong reasons when reversing a trial court's acquittal, as established in the Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar (1977) case. Higher Court criticized the High Court's hasty approach that overturned a well-reasoned acquittal without substantial grounds, and the importance of thorough evaluation in criminal justice. 

• This case emphasizes the need for a careful assessment of witness credibility before changing a trial court's decision. 

What was the Background of Ramesh and another v. State of Karnataka Case? 

• Two appellants were implicated in FIR No. 26 of 2005 registered under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The case was registered at Bannerghatta Police Station, Bangalore Rural District. 
• The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bangalore Rural District, along with three other accused persons. 
• The prosecution's case alleged that the five accused conspired to murder Babureddy (the deceased) and attacked him with deadly weapons on 7th February 2005, at about 7:30 AM near Hullahalli Gate Bus Stand. 
• The alleged motive stemmed from a dispute over a land sale transaction mediated by the deceased between Appellant No. 1 and one Narayana Reddy (PW-10). 
• The prosecution produced 25 witnesses and presented documents and material objects as evidence. 
• The Trial Court acquitted all five accused of all charges on 3rd May 2006. 
• The State of Karnataka appealed against the acquittal before the High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2006). 
• On 29^th March 2011, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted all five accused. 
• The accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, but it was initially dismissed as they failed to surrender. 
• Upon surrender of three accused (including the two appellants), the appeal was restored for them. 
• One appellant (Praveen Alexander) passed away during the proceedings, and the appeal was dismissed for him due to abatement. 
• The remaining two appellants were granted bail by the Supreme Court on April 29, 2019. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court noted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court must clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the trial court's reasoning to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt. 
• The Court expressed that it is insufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about witness credibility; rather, it must convincingly demonstrate that it was nearly impossible for the trial court to reject the testimony. 
• The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's approach in dealing with the appeal was brusque, resulting in the conviction of the appellants without providing substantive reasons for overturning the trial court's well-considered judgment of acquittal. 
• The Court observed that once the trial court found insufficient evidence to convict the accused, the burden was on the High Court to record clear findings in relation to each charge, particularly the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, which it failed to do. 
• The Supreme Court referenced the principles laid down in Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007), observed the appellate court's power to review evidence in acquittal appeals, but also states the double presumption of innocence that favors the accused in such cases. 
• The Court concluded that the High Court's cryptic observations and lack of reasoned analysis in reversing the acquittal did not meet the jurisprudential standards required for overturning a trial court's judgment of acquittal. 

What is Section 442 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• About: 
  • Section 442 of BNSS deals with the High Court's powers of revision. 
  • Previously Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 deals with High Court's powers of revision. 
• Revisional Powers of the High Court: 
  • The High Court has discretionary revisional powers over proceedings where it has called for the record, or which otherwise come to its knowledge. 
  • In exercising these powers, the High Court may utilize any powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 427, 430, 431, and 432 of the BNSS. 
  • The High Court may also exercise powers conferred on a Court of Session by section 344 of the BNSS. 
• Resolution of Divided Opinions:  
  • When the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of as provided in section 433 of the BNSS. 
• Safeguard for the Accused:  
  • No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless they have had an opportunity to be heard, either personally or through an advocate, in their own defense. 
• Prohibition on Converting Acquittals:  
  • The High Court is expressly barred from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction under its revisional powers. 
• Limitation on Revision When Appeal is Available:  
  • Where an appeal lies under the BNSS and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. 
• Treatment of Revision Application as Appeal:  
  • If an application for revision has been made to the High Court in a case where an appeal lies, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal. 
  • This is subject to the High Court being satisfied that: 
    • The application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies, 
    • It is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. 
• Scope of Revisional Powers:  
  • The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is supervisory in nature, aimed at ensuring that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence. 
• Procedural Flexibility:  
  • This provision allows the High Court to correct procedural errors made by parties who mistakenly file for revision instead of appeal, ensuring that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities. 
• Discretionary Nature: 
  • The use of the word "may" in subsections (1) and (5) emphasizes the discretionary nature of the High Court's powers under this section. 
• The section strikes a balance between the High Court's supervisory powers and the finality of lower court decisions, particularly in cases of acquittal. 

Case Laws: 

• K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1962): 
  • The Supreme Court observed the options available to the High Court when dealing with acquittals in revision. 
  • The Court held that if an acquittal is passed by the trial court, the High Court may remit the matter back or order a retrial. 
  • If the acquittal is by the first appellate court, K. Chinnaswamy Reddy established that the High Court can either remit for rehearing of the appeal or order a retrial in appropriate cases. 
• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019): 
  • This case clarified that a victim's right to appeal under Section 372 CrPC does not require special leave to appeal, unlike a complainant's right under Section 378(4) CrPC. 
• Joseph Stephen v. Santhanasamy (2022): 
  • The Supreme Court observed that under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisional powers.  
  • The Court emphasized that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 CrPC grants victims an absolute right to appeal against acquittals, impositions of inadequate compensation, or convictions for lesser offenses.

Source: Kerela High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice A. Badharudeen directed the authorities to consider the legislative vacuum for application of Section 250 (1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in cases where committal is not possible.                 

• The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Sajith v. State of Kerela. 

What was the Background of Sajith v. State of Kerela Case? 

• The prosecution has alleged that the accused offered to marry the victim after maintaining a love affair. 
• The accused took the victim to the rental house and had sexual intercourse with her promising to marry her. 
• Again, she was subjected to sexual intercourse in another instance with repeated promise of marriage. 
• Thus, it was alleged that the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) has been committed by the accused. 
• The First Information Report was registered and a final report in this matter was filed justifying the allegation. 
• The petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking discharge even before the trial could start. 
• This petition was dismissed by the learned Special Judge. 
• Hence, a criminal revision petition was filed under Section 438 and Section 442 of BNSS challenging the order of the Special Judge. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Section 250 (1) is a new provision introduced in BNSS which provides that the application for discharge may be filed within 60 days from the date of commitment under Section 232. (There was no such time limit under CrPC) 
• Section 250 of BNSS- Mandatory or Directory: 
  • The Court in order to interpret this provision referred to Section 330 of BNSS which is a pari materia provision to Section 294 of CrPC.  
  • The Court compared the two provisions as follows:

• Section 330 (1) of BNSS has been included by the Legislature and a time limit of 30 days has been provided and the words used are ‘shall’. 
  • Thus, the Court observed that Section 330 (1) is mandatory and there is a provision to relax the time limit provided within the provision itself. 
• While comparing Section 250 (1) of BNSS with Section 330 (1) of BNSS the Court held that in the former case the words used are ‘may’ which gives the discretion to the Court to relax the time limit and therefore, no proviso to relax the time limit is provided. 
• Therefore, the Court held that even after the expiry of 60 days the petition for discharge can be considered because the provision is directory and not mandatory. 
• 60 Days in Section 250 (1) - Counted from which day in cases where committal not possible: 
  • The Court further observed that there was a legislative vacuum as to the time from which the period of 60 days should be calculated. 
  • In those cases where the committal is done the statutory wordings of Section 250 (1) are sufficient, however, nowadays, there are several Special Courts where the question of committal does not arise. It is in relation to such later cases that there is a legislative vacuum. 
  • For the purposes of these cases the Court took help of Section 262 of BNSS which delas with discharge of accused in warrant cases which is pari materia to Section 239 of CrPC. 
  • Section 262 (1) of BNSS provides that the accused in a warrant case may prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of supply of copies of document under Section 230. 
  • Thus, in those cases where committal doesn’t arise the starting point would be counted from the date of supply of copies of document.  
• In the present facts the Court held that the question as to whether the consent was vitiated by misconception of fact is a matter of evidence and can only be addressed after the trial. 
• Therefore, the Court held that the dismissal of plea of discharge is justified. 
• Further, the Court also asked the Department of Home Affairs and Department of Law and Justice to consider the legislative vacuum for application of Section 250 (1) of BNSS.

What is Section 250 of BNSS? 

• Section 250 of BNSS finds place in Chapter XIX of BNSS which provides for Trial Before a Court of Session. 
• The provision deals with Discharge. 
• Section 250 (1) provides the time limit for filing an application for discharge. 
  • The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of commitment of the case under Section 232.  
• Section 250 (2) is a reproduction of Section 227 of CrPC. 
  • It provides that the judge shall discharge and record reasons for the same if: 
    • Upon consideration of the record of the case and the document submitted therewith and 
    • After hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution  
    • The Judge considers there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 
• It is to be noted that the time limit of 60 days is a new addition done in BNSS. There was no such time limit in CrPC.