Current Affairs

DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (19 SEPTEMBER 2024)

by | Sep 19, 2024

FORGERY OF DOCUMENTS BEFORE PRODUCTION IN COURT NOT COVERED BY SECTION 195(1)(B)(II) CrPC: SUPREME COURT

Case Name: Arockiasamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Recently the Supreme Court held that if documents are forged before the documents are produced in the Court then Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of CrPC does not apply. The Supreme Court has quashed the High Court judgement and allowed the appeal where High Court have previously quashed the criminal proceeding against the person accused of forging a sale agreement. Accused forged the agreement and also presented the same in a civil suit.


Legal Provisions and Framework:
  1. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC: Restricts courts from taking cognizance of forgery committed during judicial proceedings without a complaint from the court.
  2. Forgery Law (IPC Sections 463–471): The act of fraudulently altering or creating a document with intent to deceive.
  3. Iqbal Singh Marwah Case (2005): Established that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only to documents forged after being produced in court.

Source: Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT ACQUITS TWO ACCUSED IN 2006 MURDER CASE DUE TO DOUBTFUL TESTIMONY

Case Name: Saheb, s/o Maroti Bhumre etc. vs. The State of Maharashtra

Due to finding sole eyewitness testimony unreliable, the Supreme Court acquitted only two accused in the 2006 murder case of Village head. The contradiction in the deceased wife’s statement and testimony has raised reasonable doubts, thus extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. The Wife of the deceased claimed to have witnessed the whole incident despite a power cut, also decorated her narration, had resulted in several inconsistencies.

Legal Provisions and Framework:
  1. Section 148 IPC: Penalises unlawful assembly with a deadly weapon.
  2. Section 302 IPC: Punishes murder.
  3. Section 149 IPC: Provides joint liability for offences committed by unlawful assembly members.

Source: Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT RELEASES POCSO CONVICT AFTER BAIL DELAY DUE TO INABILITY TO FURNISH SURETY

Case Name: Ramchandra Thangappan Aachari vs. State of Maharashtra

The convicred person who was given bail in May 2024 remained in custody as a result of the petitioners’ failure to provide a local surety.

The SC ordered the release of convict of a POSCO case on bail but he was in custody  due to furnish local surety. The Court said no one can be denied the benefit of bail order due to financial inability this violated the Article 22 of the Constitution. The Court directed the convicts to be released on bail on personal bond without local surety need.

Legal Provisions and Framework:
  1. Sections 4, 6, and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012
  2. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to bail when granted.
  1. Bail Jurisprudence: The Court mentioned that inability to furnish surety should not hinder release if bail is granted.

Source: Supreme Court of India

 

 

 

Written By Vishakha Khatri

My name is Vishakha Khatri. I am an engineering graduate and a civil service aspirant with a passion for spreading knowledge about Indian polity. I believe that understanding our political system is crucial for every citizen, and I am committed to making this information accessible to everyone in my own easy way. Through my experiences in civil service preparation and my unique perspective as an engineering graduate, I hope to inspire and educate others on the importance of Indian polity.

Related Posts