Top News Headlines 22nd Mar 2022: At The Stage Of Framing Of Charge, Probative Value Of The Evidence Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True

At The Stage Of Framing Of Charge, Probative Value Of The Evidence Cannot Be Gone Into, Material Brought On Record By Prosecution To Be Accepted As True: Delhi HC

• The Hon’ble Delhi HC, in the case of Settu vs State NCT of Delhi has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court can sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of deciphering whether a prima facie case against the accused can be made out. The Court also observed that the material which is brought forth by the prosecution has to be accepted as correct.
• The Court further observed that what is required to be seen is whether there is a strong ground for presuming that the accused has actually committed the said offence.
• In the instant case, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused had made her eat a toffee and supari which was laced with an intoxicating substance for the purpose of facilitating an offence of outraging her modesty. It was further alleged that he had disrobed the victim and threatened to get the video viral if she did not give him Rs.2 lakhs.
• The trial Court had framed the charges against the accused under sections 328, 354B and 385 of IPC. In order to get these charges quashed, the accused had filed the present revision petition before the HC.
• The petitioner/accused contended that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution and that the lower Court had not considered the call records which showed that the victim and the accused had been in a relationship.
• The learned APP, on the other hand, alleged that the victim had made specific allegations against the accused in the FIR and later had corroborated the same in her 164 statements. It was also alleged that at the stage of framing of charges, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the evidence is not to be analysed in detail unless something overwhelming is produced by the opposite party so as to totally demolish the prosecution’s case, which has not happened in the present case.
• At the outset, the Hon’ble HC had observed that the trial Court had observed from a totality of facts present before it that a prima facie case against the accused had been made out.
• The HC also observed that at the stage of framing of the charge, the probative value of the evidence that has been placed on record cannot be gone into and the same has to be accepted as true at that stage.
• The Court also observed that at this stage if there is a strong reason to suspect that the accused had actually committed the said offence, then it is not open for the Court to allege that there is no sufficient ground for presuming that the accused had not committed the said offence.
• The Court relied upon a plethora of judgements like Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar AIR 1979 SC, State of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh AIR 1997 SC and Kalu Mal Gupta vs State (2001) Del. to contend that what is required to be seen at this particular stage of framing of charge is that there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that the accused had committed the said offence.
• Thus, the HC found no infirmity with the order of the Trial Court and the revision petition was thereby dismissed.

Sabarimala Violence Case: Kerala HC Drops Charges Against K.P.Sasikala

• The Kerala HC has, in K.P.Sasikala vs State of Kerala and ors. recently dropped all proceedings against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader KP Sasikala for allegedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women in the Sabarimala temple in 2018.
• This hartal had resulted in a large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before the Kerala HC to fix liability for all the damage that had been caused. The State Police Chief had issued a circular to all District Police Chiefs to make the leaders of the organisations who called the hartal as co-accused in the present case.
• Sasikala was arrested in pursuance of this order on her way to Sabarimala in January 2018 under the suspicion that she had intended to spark protests against women entering the temple. When the temple had opened twice after the Supreme Court’s decision to allow women to enter the temple, Sasikala was near the temple organising protests and checking documents of the women wanting to enter the temple.
• The Counsel for the petitioner alleged that there was no allegation that Sasikala had either participated or abetted the crime. The Counsel for the State strongly opposed the application by arguing that it was the public statement issued by the petitioner Sasikala that had kindled numerous acts of violence throughout the State.
• At the outset the Court noted that the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that there must be legal evidence to inculpate a person in a crime. The Court also observed that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner had made a statement in the media or that the accused had done something in furtherance of her statements.
• From the report that was dated 20-03-2019, it became clear to the Court that the petitioner was arrested because of an observation that was made by the Kerala HC that the leaders of the political parties who called for hartals should also be made accused in the case.
• After going through the evidence on record, the Court observed that the petitioner was nowhere in the picture. None of the witnesses had stated that she had abetted or instigated the commission of the offence. Her presence at the temple was also not noted by any witness. Thus, it could not be said that she had shared the common object of unlawful assembly in committing the crime or that she was involved in any criminal conspiracy with the other accused.
• Continuing with the prosecution of the case, according to the Court, would be an abuse of process and a futile exercise, and hence, using its extraordinary powers under Articles 226 or Section 482 of the Constitution, the proceedings against Sasikala were dropped.

A Single Mother Can Validly Provide Her Caste Status To The Adopted Child: Bombay HC

• The Honourable High Court of Bombay in the case of Dr. Sonal Pratapsingh Vahanwala v. Deputy District Collector of Dharavi Division, Mumbai City & Ors. [Writ Petition No.3771 Of 2021] has adjudicated that
• The application by a single Mother for issuance of caste certificate of her caste to her son is valid and tenable when such a child was raised by her.
• The present petition challenged the order passed by District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee upholding the order of Deputy District Collector by which the application made by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate of her caste to her son was rejected for want of documents from paternal side.
• The petitioner contended that she had validly adopted the child with due permission from City Civil Court, Mumbai as per the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. She was the mother of the adoptive son. Her caste was “Hindu Mahyavanshi” (a scheduled caste).
• This caste was recorded in all the documents of the child. The details of biological parents of the child were not known even to the orphanage and hence those particulars could not be provided to the respondents.
• Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders of authorities show non-applicability of minds and were illegal. Since, all the documents issued by the civil court were submitted at the time of application, the reasons recorded for rejection of the application for issuance of caste certificate by the petitioner were not tenable.
• Learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the state, contended that in terms of the Government Resolution dated 1st November, 2001, one of the mandatory conditions for issuance of caste certificate of schedule caste/schedule tribe would be that the caste record from paternal side was to be produced. Hence, the claim ought to be rejected.
• The Honourable High Court observed that Respondents had missed the vital aspect of the matter. In light of the facts, there was no possibility of procurement or production of the documents of the caste of biological father of the child as the information regarding the same was unavailable.
• In light of section 9 of the act, ‘Children of the World India Trust’ was the guardian of the child at the time of adoption. The Civil Court during inquiry was satisfied that the adoption would be for the welfare of the child.
• The Court observed that the authorities ignored the provision of section 12. As per the provisions of section 12 of the Act, by a deemed fiction the adopted child becomes a child of his or her adoptive parent for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. All the relations of the child in the family of birth would come to an end and be replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family. Such a child would also take the caste of the adoptive parent.
• The facts of the present petition were similar to that of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika V. State of Gujarat & Ors., where the Apex Court had held that by virtue of being the son of a forward caste father, the child did not have any advantageous start in life but on the contrary suffered the deprivations, like any other member of the community to which his/her mother belonged. Hence, such a child was allowed to take the caste of the mother.
• If the reason recorded by the respondents would be upheld, the child would be without identity throughout his life. Hence, Government Resolution would not be applicable here. In view of the stand taken by Apex Court on the matter, the petition was allowed.