List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Sandeep Mehta laid down guidelines that must be adhered to by the lower courts while evaluating circumstantial evidence.                          

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerela & Anr (2024). 

What was the Background of Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerela & Anr. Case?  

• On 4th April 2012, at approximately 6:30 am, a 9-year-old girl was on her way to a Madrassa in Amarambalam Village when she stopped at the house of the accused to accompany his daughter. 
• The accused, finding the child alone, raped her around 6:45 am in his house. Subsequently, he strangled and smothered her, causing her death. 
• The accused hid the victim's body beneath a cot in his house and later moved it to the attached bathroom. He attempted to dispose of the body in a septic tank by removing stones from its slab. 
• The father of the victim filed a First Information Report in the police station. 
• The victim's body was found at around 7:30 pm on the same day in the bathroom of the accused's house. 
• The accused was charged under Section 376, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). 
• The Investigating Officer collected forensic evidence, made recoveries based on the accused's disclosure statements, and submitted a charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC and Section 23 of the JJ Act. 
• The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him including death penalty under Section 302 of IPC. 
• The accused filed an appeal under Section 374(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Kerala. The trial court's death sentence was referred to the High Court for confirmation under Section 366 CrPC. 
• The High Court allowed the death sentence reference and confirmed the death sentence. 
• Hence, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court assailing the above order passed. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that all the witnesses produced in the present case are either related to the victim or were residents of neighborhood and could not bore any ill will against the accused. 
• The Court also lent credibility to the forensic evidence and held that the prosecution has given convincing link evidence to establish the safe keeping of the samples right from the time of the seizure till receipt at the forensic laboratory. 
• Thus, the Court rejected any possibility of semen containing the DNA of the accused being planted on the body of the accused. 
• Thus, the Court held that there were several circumstances that stand firmly against the accused in the present facts. 
• The Court despite concurring with the ultimate decisions of the Court below criticized the Courts with regards to deficiencies in methodology adopted by the Courts in appraisal and analysis of the circumstantial evidence. 
• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the lower Courts have undertaken an examination of the testimonies of the witnesses but has omitted to delineate the inferences derivable therefrom. 
• Thus, the appeal filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) is:  
  • All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;  
  • All documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.  
• The definition of evidence can be found in Section 2 (1) (e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
  • The BSA includes statements given electronically and the electronic or digital records within the ambit of evidence.  
• Evidence in India is classified into two broad headers, Direct Evidence, and Indirect Evidence that is Circumstantial Evidence.  
  • Direct Evidence are those which conclusively proves the fact whereas Circumstantial Evidence are chain of circumstances used to prove a fact. 
• It marks its origin from the Roman system of law where it was used as a significant factor for the investigation of a case.  
• It based on the principle that “Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not”.  
• The five golden principles with regard to conviction based upon circumstantial evidence are very well crystalized in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). 

What are the Principles laid down by the Court in this Case on Circumstantial Evidences? 

• The following principles were enunciated by the Court to be considered where the case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidences: 
  • The testimony of each prosecution and defence witness must be meticulously discussed and analysed. Each witness's evidence should be assessed in its entirety to ensure no material aspect is overlooked. 
  • Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Thus, the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the testimony of each witness must be explicitly delineated. 
  • Each of the links of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously examined so as to find out if each one of the circumstances is proved individually and whether collectively taken, they forge an unbroken chain consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. 
  • The judgment must comprehensively elucidate the rationale for accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, demonstrating how the conclusion was logically derived from the evidence. It should explicitly articulate how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt. 
  • The judgment must reflect that the finding of guilt, if any, has been reached after a proper and careful evaluation of circumstances in order to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis. 

What are the Important Cases on Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Sharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 
  • The five golden rules which are also known as Panchsheel were laid down in this case which are as follows: 
    • The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established,  
    • The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,  
    • The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,  
    • They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved  
    • There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by 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 the accused. 

 Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the plea regarding relinquishment of claims under Section 12 (3) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be raised at any stage of litigation.                   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Vijay Prabhu v. ST Lajapathie & Ors (2024). 

What was the Background of Vijay Prabhu v. ST Lajapathie & Ors Case?  

• The petitioner in this case is the original plaintiff who filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell and for delivery of possession of suit property. In the alternative a prayer was made for Rs. 60,00,000 with interest of 12% per anum towards damages from the date of filing of suit.  
• The Trial Court rejected the prayer for specific performance and directed the refund of earnest money to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000 with interest at 12%. 
• It was also recorded by the Trial Court that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 
• Further, the matter went to the High Court where the Court held that the plaintiff does not qualify to invoke the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) as he has not relinquished all the claims. Hence, the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed. 
• The present Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court took into consideration Section 12 (3) of SRA which applies to the facts at hand. 
• The Court held that the words ‘unable to perform’ used in Section 12 (3) of SRA is applicable only when the party cannot for any reason perform the whole of what he has promised. 
• The inability may arise by any cause whatsoever including any statutory limitations. The inability to perform may arise by— 
  • deficiency in quantity of the subject-matter, or  
  • variance in quality, or  
  • defect in title; or 
  • some legal prohibition; or  
  • other causes. 
• The power to grant relief in terms of Section 12 (3) of SRA is discretionary in nature and also the same can be invoked only when there is segregation of rights and interests of parties in the property. 
• The Court observed that relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of the contract and all rights to compensation can be made at any stage of litigation. 
• Hence, the Court concluded that The plaintiff-appellant’s request for the benefit under Section 12(3) of the Act was rightly not dismissed by the High Court solely because it was raised for the first time at the appellate stage. 
• The Court held that it cannot be said that any error of law cannot be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. 
• Hence, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. 

What is Part Performance under SRA? 

• Section 12 of SRA lays down the law on part performance of contracts. 
• Section 12 (1) of SRA provides that: 
  • Except as otherwise hereinafter provided in this section, the court shall not direct the specific performance of a part of the contract. 
• Section 12 (2) of SRA provides that: 
  • Part Performance of contract can be allowed if the following requirements are fulfilled: 
    • If one party cannot fully complete their obligations under a contract, the court can still enforce the part that can be completed. 
    • The uncompleted part must be small compared to the whole agreement. 
    • The court may order money compensation for the uncompleted portion. 
    • This ensures fairness to both parties while addressing the deficiency. 
• Section 12 (3) of SRA provides that: 
  • Part Performance of the contract can be allowed if the following requirements are fulfilled: 
    • If one party cannot fully perform their obligations under a contract, specific performance may not be granted if: 
      • The unperformed part is a significant portion, even if it can be compensated with money. 
      • The unperformed part cannot be compensated with money. 
  • In such cases, the court can order the defaulting party to complete the part of the contract they can perform, if the other party agrees. 
  • The other party must: 
    • For clause (a): Pay the agreed amount minus the value of the unperformed part. 
    • For clause (b): Pay the full agreed amount without any deduction. 
  • The other party must also give up any claims for performance of the remaining part of the contract and any compensation for the default. 
• Section 12 (4) of SRA provides that when a part of a contract which, taken by itself, can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the court may direct specific performance of the former part. 

What are the Important Cases on this Issue? 

• Waryam Singh v. Gopi Chand (1930) 
  • In Waryam Singh's case, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to sell 200 Kanals of specified land but were later found to own only two-thirds of that land. 
  • In the Trial Court, the plaintiff insisted on specific performance of the entire contract and requested that the defendants make up the deficiency from their other land. 
  • During arguments, the plaintiff filed an application invoking old Section 15, seeking its benefit if the defendants were deemed incompetent to sell the entire land. 
  • The Division Bench held that the plaintiff could relinquish their claim to any part of the property under the conditions of Section 15 at any time before the appellate court's final decision. 
• Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar (1954) 
  • The plaintiff in this case sued the State of Bihar for specific performance of a lease contract. 
  • The Court found that an existing lease with another company could not be forfeited, preventing the government from granting the lease to the plaintiff. 
  • At the appellate stage, the plaintiff invoked old Section 15, requesting a five-year lease for the remaining period after the existing lease expired. 
  • The Court observed that a party could relinquish a claim to further performance at any stage of litigation. 
• Ram Niwas v. Smt. Omkari and Another (1983) 
  • The Court clarified that such a claim for part performance cannot be rejected merely because it was not included in the plaint. 
  • It was also held that the claim’s validity does not depend on being presented in writing before the Trial Court. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court clarified that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are civil in nature despite involving penal consequences for non-compliance. The bench states that such proceedings aim for effective and speedy remedies via Criminal Courts, as they are better equipped for enforcement than civil litigation.  

• The Court also held that a wife's valid refusal to comply with a restitution of conjugal rights decree does not bar her from claiming maintenance. 
• CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar held in the matter of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena Versus Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another 

What was the Background of Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and another,2024 ? 

• Rina Kumari (Reena) and Dinesh Kumar Mahto were married on 1st May, 2014, but separated in August 2015 when Reena went to live at her parental home. 
• In January 2015, Reena had suffered a miscarriage, during which time Dinesh neither visited her nor bore her medical expenses - her brother had to take her to Dhanbad for treatment. 
• While at her matrimonial home, Reena alleged she was subjected to torture and mental agony, with Dinesh demanding ₹5 lakhs to purchase a four-wheeler, and she wasn't allowed to use the toilet or LPG stove for cooking. 
• In July 2018, Dinesh filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Ranchi, claiming Reena had left without reason and wasn't helping care for his elderly parents. 
• In August 2018, Reena filed a criminal complaint against Dinesh under Section 498A IPC (domestic cruelty), which led to his imprisonment and temporary suspension from his job as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Board. 
• In August 2019, Reena filed for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, which was granted by the Family Court in February 2022, ordering Dinesh to pay ₹10,000 monthly given his net salary of ₹43,211. 
• In April 2022, the Family Court decreed in favor of Dinesh in the restitution suit, directing Reena to resume conjugal life within two months, which she did not comply with. 
• Dinesh challenged the maintenance order through a criminal revision petition in the Jharkhand High Court, arguing that since Reena refused to comply with the restitution decree, she wasn't entitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. 
• After the High Court ruled in Dinesh's favor, Reena appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the present case. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice, specifically enacted to protect women and children, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature, and their inclusion in the Criminal Procedure Code was primarily to provide a speedier and more economical remedy than that available in Civil Courts. 
• The Court held that mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and non-compliance thereof by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC; each case must be decided on its individual merits. 
• The Court noted that findings in proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be conclusively binding on proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and established judicial precedents. 
• On mental cruelty, the Court observed that it must be assessed cumulatively based on the totality of circumstances and behavioral patterns, rather than isolated instances of misconduct. 
• The Court found that Dinesh's conduct in ignoring Reena after her miscarriage, coupled with the proven ill-treatment in her matrimonial home, constituted sufficient reason for her to stay away from the matrimonial home despite the restitution decree. 
• The Court critically observed that Dinesh's inaction in executing the restitution decree or seeking divorce thereafter revealed his lack of bonafides and demonstrated an attempt to evade his responsibility towards his wife while using the decree as a shield against maintenance claims. 
• The Court states that the wife's "failure" to live with her husband is distinct from "refusal," noting that the crucial word chosen in Section 125(4) CrPC is "refusal" rather than "failure." 

What is Restitution of Conjugal Rights? 

• Restitution of Conjugal Rights is a legal remedy provided under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, aimed at restoring matrimonial cohabitation between spouses who previously enjoyed conjugal rights but are now living separately. 
• This remedy can be sought by either spouse when the other has withdrawn from their company without reasonable excuse, with the burden of proving reasonable excuse falling on the withdrawing spouse. 
• To seek this remedy, three essential conditions must be met:  
  • The parties must be legally married,  
  • One spouse must have withdrawn from the other's society,  
  • Such withdrawal must be without valid justification. 
• The petition must be filed in the Family Court with appropriate jurisdiction -  
  • Either where the marriage was solemnized, where the respondent resides, where the couple last lived together,  
  • Where the wife resides if she is the petitioner. 
• The court will grant the decree only after being satisfied that the statements in the petition are true and there are no legal grounds for rejecting the application. 
• Once the decree is passed, it creates a legal obligation for the respondent to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. 
• If the respondent fails to comply with the decree within one year of its passing, it becomes a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, allowing either party to seek dissolution of marriage. 

What is Section 9 of HMA, 1955? 

• Section 9 of HMA,1955 deals with Restitution of conjugal right. 
• This section provides a legal remedy to either spouse when the other has withdrawn from living together or cohabitation without reasonable justification. 
• The spouse who feels wronged (aggrieved party) can file a petition in the district court seeking an order for restoration of conjugal rights. 
• The court must be satisfied of two conditions before granting the decree:  
  • The statements made in the petition are true 
  • There are no legal grounds to reject the application 
• The burden of proof lies specifically on the spouse who has withdrawn from the marriage to prove they had reasonable excuse for doing so. 
• "Withdrawal from society" in this context means ceasing to live together as husband and wife, effectively ending marital cohabitation. 
• The section is gender-neutral, allowing either husband or wife to seek this remedy if their spouse has withdrawn from the marriage. 
• The term "reasonable excuse" is not defined in the Act, leaving it to the courts to determine what constitutes a valid reason for withdrawal based on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
• The purpose of this section is to preserve the matrimonial relationship by providing a legal mechanism to bring back the withdrawing spouse to the matrimonial home. 

What is Section 125(4) of CrPC,1973? 

• Section 125 of CrPC or Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. 
• Section 125(4) CrPC deals with expectation where maintenance is not allowed. 
• A wife loses her right to receive maintenance or interim maintenance from her husband under three specific circumstances: 
  • First Disqualification: If she is living in adultery, she cannot claim maintenance from her husband. 
  • Second Disqualification: If she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason, she forfeits her right to maintenance. 
  • Third Disqualification: If the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent, the wife cannot claim maintenance. 
  • The disqualification extends to both regular maintenance payments and interim maintenance during legal proceedings. 
  • The burden of proving these disqualifying conditions typically lies on the husband who seeks to deny maintenance. 
  • For the second disqualification to apply, the emphasis is on "refusing" to live with the husband rather than merely "failing" to do so, and the refusal must be without sufficient reason. 
  • The word "sufficient reason" in the provision implies that if the wife has valid grounds for refusing to live with her husband, her right to maintenance remains intact. 

Why does a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Decree Not Automatically Bar Maintenance? 

• The Supreme Court has established that the mere existence of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, even if not complied with by the wife, cannot by itself trigger the disqualification under Section 125(4) CrPC without examining whether the wife had sufficient reasons for refusing to return to the matrimonial home. 
• The findings in a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding are not conclusively binding on maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, as these are independent proceedings where the court must separately evaluate if the wife has sufficient reason for living separately. 
• The maintenance court must independently examine the totality of circumstances, including any cruelty, ill-treatment, or valid grounds that justify the wife's refusal to return to the matrimonial home, regardless of the existence of a restitution decree. 
• Section 125(4) CrPC is on "refusal without sufficient reason" rather than mere non-compliance with a restitution decree, making it necessary to examine the reasons behind the refusal rather than just the fact of non-compliance.