SUPREME COURT CASES
1. BLANKET ORDER OF PROTECTION FROM ARREST CANNOT BE PASSED BY HIGH WHILE DISMISSING A PETITION U/S 482 Cr.Pc: SC
CASE NAME: Ravuri Krishna Murthy Vs The State Of Telangana and Ors
In this case, the High Court, while dismissing the petition seeking to quash FIR, proceeded to issue a blanket restraint against the arrest of the accused by directing that the police would complete the investigation and file a final report in accordance with law. The Supreme Court observed that a blanket order of protection from arrest cannot be passed by the High Court while dismissing a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR.
2. CRIMINAL CASES OUGHT TO BE INQUIRED AND TIRED ORDINARILY WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION HAS ACCRUED: SC
CASE NAME: SwaatiNirkhiVs. State (NCT of Delhi)
In this case the court observed that “In a criminal case, the place of inquiry and trial has to be by the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the crime was allegedly committed as provided by Section 177 of Cr.P.C. "The bench observed this while dismissing a transfer petition filed by the accused seeking transfer of a criminal case from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at New Delhi to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Allahabad (Prayagraj), Uttar Pradesh.
3. PLEA IN SUPREME COURT SEEKS RELEASE OF ROHINGYA REFUGEES ALLEGEDLY DETAINED IN JAMMU:
The Supreme Court of India has been approached with a plea seeking directions for release of the Rohingya refugees who have been detained in Jammu and to refrain the government from implementing any orders on deporting them. The plea has also sought directions to UNHCR to intervene and assess the protection needs of the refugees and grant them refugee cards. The reliefs have been sought through an interim application in a pending writ petition before the Apex Court that was filed seeking protection of the Rohingya refugees from imminent danger of being deported and protection of their rights. The Supreme Court while hearing the petition had observed that the Constitution is based on humanitarian values and hence a humanitarian approach should be taken on the matter and had further observed that the state has a multi-pronged role - while national security and economic interests need to be secured, innocent women and children among the refugee population cannot be ignored.
4. BUREAUCRATS CANNOT BE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONERS: SC
CASE NAME: State of Goa and another v Fouzia Imtiaz Shaik [LL 2021 SC 158]
The Supreme Court held that independent persons and not bureaucrats should be appointed as State Election Commissioners [SEC]. The SC bench led by Justice RF Nariman, in a judgment, said giving government employees the additional charge of State Election Commissioners is a “mockery of the Constitution”. It said that the independence of Election Commissioners cannot be compromised at any cost and directed that government employees holding the post of SEC as additional charge should give up the post.
5. ‘Compensate Rape Accused Acquitted After 20 Years’: BJP Leader Kapil Mishra Moves Supreme Court Seeking Mechanism To Deal With False Cases
BJP leader Kapil Mishra has moved Supreme Court by way of filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking ‘adequate compensation’ for Vishnu Tiwari, a rape accused, who was recently acquitted by Allahabad High Court after spending 20 years in jail. Mishra’s plea has also sought directions to the Centre to frame guidelines, make a mechanism to take strict action and prosecute the fake complainants and pay adequate compensation to the victims of wrongful prosecutions. The plea also demands that a mechanism should be put in place for speedy disposal of the cases pertaining to the under-trial prisoners, who are prosecuted in special acts and that, guidelines be framed for the under-trial prisoners to decide their cases in a time-bound manner. The plea has also highlighted that false cases led to suicides of innocents who are victims of police and prosecutorial misconduct, who lose hope and lives of their families destroyed after years of delayed trials.
PARLIAMENTS/BILLS & ACTS:
PARLIAMENT PASSES ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2021 FOR AUTOMATIC STAY ON AWARDS INDUCED BY FRAUD/ CORRUPTION
The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2021 by voice vote. The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on February 12, 2201. It will replace an Ordinance promulgated on 4th November 2020. It seeks to amend the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 so as to (i) enable automatic stay on awards in certain cases and (ii) specify by regulations the qualifications, experience and norms for accreditation of arbitrators.
1. The Source of power of the Supreme Court to take suo-motucognizance of Contempt of the Court has been provided under which of the following?
a) Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
b) Article 129 r/w Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
c) Article 129
d) Article 129 r/w Article 141
2. Which of the following laws has been enacted to prevent exploitation of inter-state migrant workers and, to ensure fair and decent conditions of employment for them?
a) The Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979
b) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
c) Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
d) Migrant Workers (Protection) Act, 1979
3. The Employees‘ State Insurance Act, 1948 protects the interest of workers in contingencies such as —
III. Temporary or permanent physical disablement,
IV. Death due to employment injury resulting in loss of wages or earning capacity.
Select the correct answer from the codes given bellow:
a) I only
b) II only
c) I, III and IV
d) I, II, III and IV
4. As per the provisions contained in Chapter VB of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 establishment employing _____________ persons or more are required to seek prior permission of Appropriate Government before effecting lay-off, retrenchment and closure.
5. “First come last go and last come first go” is the principle of:
JUDICIARY EXAMINATION QUESTIONS:
1. Which of the following is not a substantive piece of evidence?
(A) Expert evidence
(B) Test Identification Parade
(C) Inquest report
(D) All of the above
2. Which of the following is false about a private document?
(A) All the documents other than public documents are private documents
(B) A private document is prepared by a person for his private interest under private right
(C) Private document is in the custody of the person to whom it belongs and is not available for general inspection to public.
(D) As a general rule, the Court is bound to presume the genuineness of a private document from the duly certified secondary copy
3. Who among the following are police officers within the meaning of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act?
(A) Forest Ranger who is authorized to file complaints under the Wild Life Protection Act
(B) Customs Officers
(C) Central Excise Officers
(D) None of the above
4. Identify the ground that is not available to proclaim emergency under Article 352 of Indian Constitution.
a) Armed rebellion
c) External aggression
d) Internal disturbance
4. Which among the following statements is not true?
(A) An admission by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits
(B) A person making an admission in a pleading cannot take advantage of it
(C) An admission made by a person in a proceeding to which another was not a party, such admission is not admissible against the other in a subsequent suit in which both are co defendants
(D) None of the above
5. "A', B' and 'C' meet at a coffee shop to discuss the enmity they had against D'. A' in particular leads the discussion by venting out his grievances against 'D' to which 'B' and C nodded in agreement. They agree to murder 'D' by mixing poison in D"s coffee. The trio meet F and informs him of the plan, who willingly procures the poison for them. F is guilty of the offence of
(C) Abetment by conspiracy
(D) Intentional Aiding
ANSWERS 1. (D) 2. (A) 3. (D) 4. (B) 5. (C)
1. (D) All of the above
2. (D) As a general rule, the Court is bound to presume the genuineness of a private document from the duly certified secondary copy
3. (D) None of the above
5. (D) Intentional Aiding
Substantive evidence is the evidence on the basis of which a fact is proved and which requires no corroboration. On the other hand, corroborative evidence is the evidence used to make substantive evidence more concrete. Both the evidence are either direct or circumstantial or both. The significance of corroborative evidence depends on substantive evidence.
The Substantial Evidence are those evidence which could be termed as natural evidence. The Circumstantial evidence are those evidence which are corroborated with the incidence according to circumstances.
Expert evidence is opinion evidence and it can’t take the place of substantive evidence. It is a rule of procedure that expert evidence must be corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
In case of S.Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P, it is not safe to rely upon this type of evidence without seeking independent and reliable corroboration.
Test Identification Parade
In a recent judgment (Raju Manjhi v State of Bihar), the Court observed that test identification parade is not a substantive evidence. Its purpose is only to help the investigating agency ascertain as to whether the investigation in the case is heading in the right direction or not. There is no provision in CrPC which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confer a right on the accused to claim a test identification parade. Absence to hold it would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court.
Inquest report and post-mortem report cannot be termed to be basic or substantive evidence. The inquest report cannot be treated as substantive evidence but may be utilized for contradicting the witnesses of inquest. However, the Law Commission of India in its 206th Report has recommended that inquest report should be regarded as material evidence in any court or other criminal proceedings.
In Madhu Alias Madhuranatha vs. State of Karnataka, a two-judge bench of the Apex Court has observed that an inquest report is not substantive evidence.
2. Relevant Section
Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines Public Document.
Section 75 of the Evidence Act defines Private Document.
Evidence which is provided to the court in the written form is called Documentary Evidence as per section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are two types of documentary evidence, namely, public documents and private documents.
Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act states that all documents other than the documents mentioned in section 74 of the act are private documents. Private Documents are those documents which are made by an individual for his/her personal interest under his/her individual right.
These documents are in the hands of the individual to whom the public document belongs to and is not made open to the general public for inspection. Certified copies of the private documents are not admissible in court unless the proof of original document is submitted. Example: Correspondence between persons; matter published in newspapers, books; deed of the contract; memorandum; sale deed.
Difference Between Public and Private Documents
a) Section 74 of the Evidence Act defines Public Document.
b) Public Documents are made by a public servant in discharge of his/her public duties.
c) Public Document is available for inspection to the public in public office during the appointed time after payment of fixed fees.
d) Public Documents are proved by Secondary Evidence.
e) The certified copy of a public document is to be admitted in judicial proceedings.
f) The court is bound to presume the genuineness of a public document from the duly certified secondary copy.
g) Certified copies of public documents may be issued to a person requiring them.
a) Section 75 of the Evidence Act defines Private Document.
b) Private Documents are made by an individual for his/her personal interest under his/her individual right.
c) Private Document is in the hands of the individual to whom the document belongs to and is not available for inspection to the general public.
d) Private Documents are proved by original i.e. Primary Evidence.
e) The secondary evidence of the original document is not to be admitted in judicial proceedings.
f) No presumption is made about the genuineness of the original document from secondary evidence of private document except in some exceptional circumstances.
g) Certified copies of the private document can be issued
3. Relevant provision:
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that “No confession made to a police-officer, shall Be proved as against a person accused of any offence”.
The main object of this section is to prevent the practice of torture by the police officer for the purpose of extracting confession from accused person. Under this section no confession made to the police officer is admissible against the accused. Any incriminating statement made by an accused to police is inadmissible in evidence.
Raja ram Vs state of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828 , In this case the supreme court has held that the test for determining whether a person is a police officer for the purpose of Section 25 would be whether the power of police officer which are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him establish a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by this section, that’s is relating to the recording of a confession.
A central excise officer who has the powers of a police officer for investigation but not the power to frame a charge sheet under sec. 173 of CrPC is not a police officer for the purpose of this section (BadakuJoti v. State of Mysore).
Confessional statement made to customs officers have been held by the supreme court not to come within the inhibition of sec 24 and 25 because they are not police officer. This was held in Balakrishna Naik Vs state of MP.
A forest officers under an Orissa legislation has been held to be not a police officer though certain powers of police officers have been conferred on him. So confession given to such officer was held to be admissible in evidence. It was held in Maria Patel Vs state of Orissa.
The object sought to be achieved to keep sufficient Labour supply for agricultural purpose, which could have been easily achieved by restraining agricultural labour in bidi manufacturing during agricultural season only. Absolute rest amounts to withdrawal of the right. Hence, the law is unconstitutional.
An admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true(basantsingh vs. jankisingh).
If an admission in a pleading is made subject to a condition it must be either accepted subject to that condition or. accepted at all.(calcutta national bank vs. rangaroon tea co.)
Co-defendants.-An admission or a confession of judgment by one of several defendants in a suit is no evidence against another defendant. No defendant can, by an admission or consent, convey the right, or delegate the authority to one, for more than his own share in property." Thus, the admissions by one defendant will not be relevant against a co-defendant, because it would be unjust to bind a co-defendant by the admission of another whom he has had no opportunity to answer or cross-examine; it would afford to the plaintiff opportunities of defeating his opponent by unfair means. Even a confession of judgment by one of several defendants is no evidence against another defendant.
Section 107 of IPC deals with Abetment of a thing. According to that A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that Thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of That thing; or
Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
A person is said to abet the commission of an offence, if he intentionally renders assistance or gives aid by doing an act or omitting to do an act. Mere intention to render assistance is not sufficient. There must be some active conduct on the part of the abettor and the act must be accomplished in pursuance thereof.
Essentials for Abetment by aid:
a) The act or omission which constitutes the aid must have been done intentionally;
b) The aid must have been given either prior to or at the time of the commission of the offence abetted.
It was held that unless it is shown that the commission of the crime was not possible without the specific aid rendered by a person, he would not be Liable for an offence under Section 50.
Aiding and abetting of an offence are different from actual participation In a crime. Hence, where the accused have been charged with actual participation in a crime but are only found to have aided and abetted the Commission of the crime, they cannot be convicted of the crime charged. In Shri Ram v. The State of U.P., the Supreme Court has held that in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have ‘intentionally’ aided to commission of the crime.