List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News?

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only the portion of an accused's statement directly linked to the discovery of evidence is admissible, excluding any confession of guilt. It expressed concerns over trial courts being influenced by inadmissible confessions included in the prosecution's examination-in-chief. This ruling arose during an appeal in a murder case where the investigating officer improperly included the accused's confession while testifying. 

What was the Background of Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. Case? 

• The case involved charges against eight accused persons under Sections 364 (kidnapping), 302 (murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 212 (harboring offender), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The incident occurred on July 8, 2013, when the deceased Gurpal Singh left his house in a Ford Fiesta car around 6:30 PM after visiting his sister Paramjeet Kaur. 
• According to the prosecution, when the deceased reached the main gate of Prabhu Prem Puram Ashram, unknown persons in a white car stopped his vehicle and abducted him. The perpetrators took both the victim and his car. 
• The victim's son, Jagpreet Singh (PW-8), filed a First Information Report after being unable to locate his father. 
• On 9th July, 2013, the victim's dismembered body parts were recovered from a canal. 
• The prosecution presented multiple pieces of evidence including:  
  • CCTV footage from Bank of Baroda near the crime scene 
  • Testimony from an eyewitness (PW-26, victim's sister) 
  • Recovery of the Maruti car used in the crime 
  • Recovery of the murder weapon 
  • Recovery of the victim's personal items including driving license 
• The Sessions Court initially convicted all eight accused persons, sentencing them to:  
  • Life imprisonment for offenses under Sections 364, 302, and 120-B 
  • Three years rigorous imprisonment for offense under Section 201 
• On appeal to the High Court:  
  • The conviction was confirmed for the present appellants (Randeep Singh @ Rana and another) 
  • The other accused persons were acquitted 
• The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the two remaining convicted accused persons, challenging their conviction. 
• The prosecution's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, the testimony of one eyewitness, and recoveries made during the investigation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the eyewitness testimony (PW-26) contained significant omissions amounting to contradictions under Section 162 CrPC, and the identification of accused was doubtful in absence of a test identification parade, making her evidence unreliable. 
• The Court noted that the prosecution's failure to examine PW-26's husband, who was allegedly another eyewitness and was available for testimony, warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution for withholding evidence. 
• Regarding electronic evidence, the Court held that the CCTV footage was inadmissible as the prosecution failed to produce the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and neither PW-1 nor PW-24 had personally verified the contents of the CD. 
• The Court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, all circumstances forming part of the chain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the failure to establish even one circumstance breaks the chain of evidence. 
• The Court found that the Trial Judge had erroneously allowed the investigating officer (PW-27) to prove confessions allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, which is expressly prohibited under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. 
• The Court reiterated that under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that part of the accused's statement which distinctly relates to and results in the discovery of facts is admissible, and incorporating inadmissible confessional portions in witness depositions risks influencing the Trial Courts. 
• The Court emphasized that despite the brutal nature of an offense, conviction must be based on legally admissible evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and moral conviction cannot substitute for legal proof. 
• The Court concluded that incorporating inadmissible confessions in prosecution witness testimony violates established principles of evidence law and compromises the fairness of trial proceedings. 

What are Confessions and Their Admissibility Under Law? 

When Are Confessions Inadmissible? 

• Indian law generally deems confessions to police officers inadmissible, reflecting a cautious approach to prevent misuse. 
• Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Declares that no confession made to a police officer shall be used as evidence against the accused. 
  • It is now covered under Section 23 (1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
• Section 26 of IEA: Extends this principle, barring confessions made in police custody unless recorded in the presence of a magistrate. This ensures neutrality and protects individuals from coercion. 
  • It is now covered under Section 23 (2) of the BSA. 

When Are Confessions Allowed? 

• Section 27 of IEA now covered under proviso of Section 23 of BSA, serves as an exception, allowing specific statements made in police custody to be admissible if they directly result in the discovery of a relevant fact. 
• Discovery Rule: The statement must distinctly lead to the discovery of a new fact related to the crime. 
• Subsequent rulings have refined this interpretation: 
  • In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960), the Supreme Court clarified that the discovery of the fact must be directly linked to the information provided. 
  • State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997) held that the accused need not be formally charged when making the statement for Section 27 of IEA to apply. 

Role of Custody in Confessions 

• The definition of custody is critical under Section 26 of IEA. Courts have interpreted custody to include scenarios where an individual's movements are restricted, even without formal arrest. 
• In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy (1997), the court emphasized that the test for custody involves examining the degree of control exercised by police over the individual. 

Key Judicial Insights on Confessions 

• Voluntariness:  
  • Statements extracted through coercion or undue influence are inadmissible. For instance, in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), the court ruled that confessions obtained through compulsion violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution. 
• Partial Admissibility:  
  • Only the portion of a statement that directly leads to a discovery is admissible. The rest is excluded, as reiterated in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976). 
• Joint Disclosures:  
  • In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the court allowed joint disclosures by co-accused to be admissible, provided they led to separate discoveries. 

Case Law  

• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) 
  • When a confession falls under Evidence Act bars (sections 24-26), the entire confession must be discarded, though specific parts may be salvaged if they can be proved under section 27, which acts as an exception.  
• Pulukuri Kotayya & King Emperor (1946) 
  • Admissible portions of confessions under section 27 typically include information that leads to: identification of murder victims' bodies, discovery of weapons used in crimes, or recovery of stolen property, provided these discoveries offer independent corroboration.  
• Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy (1921) 
  • Courts may admit severable portions of confessions that establish motive, opportunity, and introductory facts, even if the main confession is inadmissible, as long as these portions can be clearly separated from the inadmissible parts.

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Jay Prakash Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand has held that the testimony of an eyes witnesses who has directly seen or heard the incident constitutes direct evidence. 

What was the Background of the Jay Prakash Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• In the present case, the appellant was employed as a Constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion. 
• On 18^th -19^th May 2014, the appellant was assigned sentry duty at Piparwar Armory (IRB-3 Camp) along with Umesh Kumar (Hawaldar) and three other Constables. 
• The appellant was officially allotted an INSAS Rifle with butt number 351, along with 100 round cartridges and 5 magazines for his duty. 
• The incident occurred around 7:30 PM when gunshots were heard at the camp. 
• The victim, Sunil Soren, who held the position of Sub-Inspector (S.I.), was found deceased in his room at the camp. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1878 (AA) 
• Physical evidence collected from the crime scene included: 
  • Eleven empty cartridges 
  • Blood-stained plaster 
  • One loaded magazine 
  • INSAS rifle 
• A post-mortem examination was conducted on 19th May 2014, which revealed six ante-mortem injuries on the deceased's body. 
• The prosecution presented ten witnesses during the trial, and three additional witnesses were examined as court witnesses. 
• Multiple documents were entered into evidence, including: 
  • Post-mortem report 
  • Seizure list 
  • Fardbeyan (First statement to police) 
  • Arms and ammunition inspection report 
• It was contended that this case was not of circumstantial evidence but of direct evidence. 
• The Trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the AA Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Jharkhand High Court observed that: 
  • Regarding Witness Testimony: 
    • The court found one of the witnesses to be a direct eyewitness whose testimony remained undemolished during cross-examination 
    • The court found one of the witnesses’ testimony corroborated the informant's account. 
  • Regarding Evidence Chain: 
    • The court noted that this was not purely circumstantial evidence but included direct eyewitness. 
    • The court accepted Md. Ajmal Hussain’s explanation about the rifle exchange, clarifying why the appellant had rifle no.351 instead of his allocated rifle no.329 
  • On Evidentiary Value: 
    • The court found the informant's testimony relevant under Section 6 of Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
    • The appellant's statement about killing due to leave denial was considered as an extra-judicial confession 
    • The court noted that FIR was lodged the same day as the incident. 
    • The court found the physical evidence (seized items) corroborated the informant's testimony 
  • The court applied Section 60 of the IEA to establish one of the witness statement’s status as direct evidence. 
  • Section 157 of the IEA was referenced regarding corroboration of witness testimony 
  • Section 6 of the IEA was applied to establish the continuity of events as part of the same transaction 
  • The court observed the investigation officer's testimony corroborated the informant's version about incident location 
  • These observations led the court to find "no infirmity" in the conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of AA act. 
• Therefore, the Jharkhand High Court affirmed the order of the trial court and held that the testimony of an eyes witness who has directly seen or heard the incident constitutes direct evidence. 

What is Direct Evidence? 

• The general rule is party to a suit is required to prove his cause before the court orally or by document in physical or electronic form. 
• Chapter IV of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) states the provisions related to oral evidences shall considered to be direct evidence. 
• Direct evidence is considered as substantive evidence and needs no further corroboration to prove or disprove the facts in issue. 
• There are two sections states under Chapter IV of BSA as: 
  • Section 54: This section states about proof of facts by oral evidence as: 
    • All facts, except the contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence. 
  • Section 55: This section states that Oral evidence to be direct as: 
    • Oral evidence shall be considered direct if: 
      • Any fact which is seen by a witness and such eyewitness admits that he has seen the same. 
      • Any fact which is heard by a witness and such witness must admit that he has heard the same. 
      • Any fact which could be perceived by any other senses and such a witness must admit that he has perceived the same. 
      • An opinion or the ground on which such opinion has been made by a witness and the witness must admit such opinion. 
      • It is Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable. 
      • It is provided further that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection. 

What is the Difference Between Direct & Circumstantial Evidence? 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held that provisions of CPC apply to proceedings before the Family Court. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Nagendra Sharma And Another v. Court of Principal Judge Family Court Gonda. 

What was the Background of Nagendra Sharma And Another v. Court of Principal Judge Family Court Gonda. Case?

• The Petitioner No 1 was married to Respondent no 2 and two children were born to them. 
• Application was filed by Petitioner No 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) which was allowed by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gonda by judgment and decree dated 16th January 2019 and 28th January 2019. 
• The Respondent No 2 filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay and stay application for judgment and decree dated 16th January 2019 and 28th January 2019. 
• The petitioner has prayed a writ of prohibition restraining the Respondent No 1 to proceed with proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that in view of Section 19 and Section 20 of Family Court Act, 1984 (FCA) the Principal Judge, Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.  
• The Respondent has however submitted that Respondent no 1 was within the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court firstly, discussed the following points on writ of prohibition: 
  • The paramount object of prohibition is to prevent encroachment of jurisdiction. 
  • Writ of prohibition is not a proceeding between the private litigants at all 
  • In fact, it is a proceeding between two courts, a superior court and a inferior court and as the means whereby the superior court exercises its power of superintendence over an inferior court by keeping the later within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on it by law. 
• The Court perused Section 10 of FCA and held that the provision clearly provides that provisions of CPC shall apply to proceedings before the Family Court and the Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the powers of such court.   
• Thus, the Court held that writ of prohibition cannot be issued in this case as the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

What is Section 10 of FCA? 

• Section 10 (1) of FCA provides for the procedure to be applicable in proceedings before the family Court: 
  • Applicability of Laws: The Family Court follows the rules of: 
    • The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
    • Any other law currently in force. 
  • Exceptions: The rules don't apply to cases under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with maintenance-related proceedings. 
  • Family Court Status: For civil cases, a Family Court is treated like a Civil Court. 
  • Powers of a Civil Court: The Family Court has all the powers that a Civil Court possesses. 
• Section 10 (2) provides for proceedings under Chapter IX of CrPC: 
  • Applicability of Criminal Procedure: For cases under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (related to maintenance and related matters), the rules of that Code apply in Family Court proceedings. 
  • Subject to Act and Rules: These rules are followed as long as they do not conflict with the provisions of the Family Court Act or its rules. 
  • Focus on Chapter IX: The Family Court specifically applies the Code of Criminal Procedure for cases under Chapter IX. 
• Section 10 (3) provides the following: 
  • Family Court Flexibility: A Family Court is not restricted by the procedures mentioned in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). 
  • Creating Its Own Procedure: The court can set its own procedures to: 
    • Help reach a settlement between the parties. 
    • Determine the truth of the facts presented by one party and denied by the other. 
  • Purpose: This flexibility ensures quicker and fairer resolution of disputes. 

What are the Landmark Cases on Applicability of CPC in Proceedings before the Family Court ? 

• Munna Lal and etc v. State of UP and another (1990) 
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) and any other current laws apply to suits and proceedings in Family Court. 
  • For matters under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the Cr.P.C. provisions apply. 
  • Family Court is treated as a civil court for cases mentioned in Section 7(1) (explanation) of the Act. 
  • It acts as a substitute for district courts or subordinate civil courts, depending on the case. 
  • Section 10 ensures that the C.P.C. applies to civil matters and the Cr.P.C. to maintenance and related proceedings, depending on the type of case the Family Court handles. 
• Ranvir Kumar v. Judge, Family Court, Moradabad and others (1998) 
  • The Court in this case was considering the issue whether an appeal can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act or a writ petition is required to challenge an order by the Family Court under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. 
  • The Court held that an order by the Family Court allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is considered a final order, not an interlocutory order. 
  • Hence, the Court held that an appeal can be filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act to challenge it.
• Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-operation Punjab and others (2008) 
  • The Court in this case made the following observations: 
    • • Courts possess inherent powers to set aside an ex parte order, even if there is no explicit legal provision allowing it. 
      • These powers arise from the need to uphold the principles of natural justice, which ensure fairness in legal proceedings. 
      • The absence of a specific statutory provision does not bar the court from exercising such powers. 
      • The judgment emphasizes that fairness and justice in court processes are of paramount importance.