Top News Headlines 7th May 2022: Use Of Loudspeakers In Mosques Not A Fundamental Right: Allahabad HC

Use Of Loudspeakers In Mosques Not A Fundamental Right: Allahabad HC

• In Irfan vs State of UP and ors. the Allahabad HC has observed that the use of loudspeakers in mosques is not a fundamental right.
• The petitioner, Irfan, had moved the HC aggrieved by an order passed by SDM Tehsil Bisauli, District Badaun rejecting an application seeking permission for playing azaan on a loudspeaker. He contended that the playing of azaan on a loudspeaker is a fundamental as well as a legal right and the order of the SDM was wholly illegal.
• He therefore sought to quash the order by the writ of certiorari.
• The Court observed that the use of microphones from the mosque is not a fundamental right. Thus, the petition was dismissed.
• It is important to note that in May of 2020, the Allahabad HC had azan is an integral part of Islam but the recitation of the same through a loudspeaker or other sound amyplifying device cannot be said to be an integral part of the religion, warranting protection of the fundamental right enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution, which is also subject to public order, morality and health.
• In the case of Islamuddin vs State of UP and ors (2015) the Allahabad HC ahd directed the District Administration of Rampur and the Regional Pollution Control Board to ensure that there is no noise pollution by the use of any loudspeaker or any other device causing noise pollution beyond the prescribed standard in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.
• Last month, the Gujarat HC has also asked the State Government to clear its stand on the use of azan in mosques all over the State.

Dying Declaration Made To Doctor Admissible Even If No Certificate Of Fit Mental Health Appended: ORISSA HC

• In the case of Anjari Rout v. the State of Odisha, the Hon’ble Orissa HC held that the doctor is the best person to assess the mental condition of the victim. The Dying Declaration made to him could be accepted in the court of law and shouldn’t be considered only because the victim’s mental health certificate wasn't appreciated.
• In the instant case, the appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment in which he was convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and hence wanted to set aside the orders.
• The appellant contended that the lower court had erred by holding the appellant guilty without appreciating the facts of the case and scrutinizing the admissibility of the dying declaration. The appellant was booked u/s 302 IPC for the murder of his wife, who succumbed to the burn injuries received during the incident given by his husband(the appellant).
• He further contended that the dying declaration made before the doctor is not worthwhile since there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was by then in a fit state of mind. It was alleged that there was plenty of time to record the dying declaration before I.O. or a Magistrate which was not done.
• Lastly, he defended the allegation of pouring kerosene on the victim’s body as no smell of any such substance was found and affirmed that it was he who doused the fire off as he didn’t have any intention to kill his deceased wife.
• While the respondent argued that the learned lower Court did not commit any error and therefore judgment passed was absolutely justified and in accordance with the law. The fact that the appellant was responsible for setting the deceased on fire was disclosed by close family members and evidence-backed them.
• According to the respondent, the dying declaration recorded in front of the doctor couldn't be brushed off. The respondent cited Sohan Singh and others v. the State of Punjab (2003), wherein, it was held that irrespective of having no endorsement on the fitness of mental health of the deceased by the doctor, there is no consolidated reason to discard it.
• In a very recent case, the State of U.P. v. Veerpal and another (2022), it was observed that a dying declaration would be acceptable if the court is satisfied that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to depose and it was made truthfully and voluntarily.
• The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik accepted the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC as a dying declaration before the doctor by citing the case of Tellu v. State (Delhi) 1988. It affirmed that it was immaterial that the smell of kerosene was not detected as it could have vanished due to various reasons.
• The Court declared that the mischief by the appellant falls under one of the exceptions of section 300. Hence, it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The Court set aside the respondent's appeal and upheld the lower Court's decision.

Calcutta HC Proposed Appropriate Amendments In CrPC For Incorporating Provisions For Trial In Absence Of Absconding Accused In Rape Case

• In the recent case, Kader Khan v State of West Bengal, the Hon’ble Calcutta HC has proposed that it is immensely important to bring amendments to Section 299 (1) CrPC in order to provide a fair trial in absentia of an absconder which might in the future result in the loss of valuable shreds of evidence due to the death of the witness.
• It was observed that appropriate amendments incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure would furnish better administration of criminal justice in absentia of an absconding accused.
• The petitioner moved the HC against the order of the Trial Court judgment which appreciated the evidence of the rape victim who succumbed to death and her statement recorded before the Magistrate read against the petitioner.
• Three out of five accused were arrested by police and testified by the rape victim before the court. One of the two accused who absconded was the petitioner.
• As the two accused couldn’t be found the Court took cognizance and as there was no imminent chance of their apprehension their case was segregated. Subsequently, the rape victim died and in September 2016 the two absconding accused were found and faced the trial.
• Since the victim had died in 2015, the prosecution had pleaded in Court to allow her testimonies to be used as evidence in the afresh segregated trial against the absconding accused. The trial Court had allowed the plea.
• The Division Bench held that section 299 CrPC has an unambiguous duty on the prosecutor to obtain a direction from Trial Court to allow evidence against the absconding accused to be used in future trials. U/s 299 CrPC, it was essential that the prosecutor had mentioned to the trial court that it wanted to record the evidence against all five rape accused, including those who had absconded.
• The Court stated that it was against the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence to transfer evidence recorded in the earlier trial after completion to be used in following trials.
• The Hon’ble Calcutta HC relied on the case, Vijay Ranglal Chorasiya v State of Gujarat, wherein the Apex Court had disapproved the High Court judgment to rely upon the evidence recorded in the earlier trial of co-accused against the absconder.
• The application by the petitioner was allowed and the Registrar General was directed to send a copy of the judgment to Principal Secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice for consideration of proposed amendments.