15 January 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Section 113B Evidence Act | Dowry Death Can’t Be Presumed Without Clear Evidence Of Incessant Harassment: Supreme Court

Case Title - Ram Pyarey vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Date of Judgment: 9th January, 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and  Hon’ble Mr. Justice  R. Mahadevan 

The Supreme Court, while acquitting an accused of cruelty and abetment of suicide, remarked that for the application of Section 113B (Presumption as to dowry death) of the Indian Evidence Act, (118 of BSA) there must be clear evidence of continuous harassment. The Court emphasized that without such evidence, this provision cannot be automatically invoked.

For context, the concerned portion of Section 113 B reads as:

“113B. Presumption as to dowry death.─ When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.”

Essentially, the present appellant was the brother-in-law of the deceased. It was the prosecution's case that there was harassment at the end of the husband, in-laws and the appellant. Resultantly, the deceased doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire.

As a result, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 306 (Abetment of suicide) and 498-A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, [108 (Abetment of Suicide) 85 (Husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) of BSA] as well as under the Dowry Prohibition Act. This decision was upheld by the High Court, leading to the present appeal.

The Bench, consisting of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, observed that there was "practically no evidence" against the appellant to support the charge of abetting the suicide. The Court also made a distinction between Section 113A (presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman) and Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

“It is important to note that under Section 113B, the Court may presume, whereas under Section 113A, the statute mandates that the Court shall presume. This is a significant distinction between the two provisions concerning the presumption of abetment of suicide. When the lower Courts seek to apply Section 113B of the Evidence Act, the prerequisite is the presence of cogent evidence demonstrating continuous harassment. In the absence of such evidence regarding harassment or any form of abetment, such as aiding or instigating, the Court cannot automatically invoke Section 113B and presume that the accused abetted the suicide.”

Based on these observations, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the present appeal.

2. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea To Include Rajasthani Language As Medium Of Instruction In Rajasthan Schools

Case Title - Padam Mehta and another vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others

Date of Order: 10th January, 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a petition requesting the inclusion of Rajasthani as a language for teaching children in schools. The petitioners also sought directions to incorporate Rajasthani into the syllabus for the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET).

A bench consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed that notices be sent to the State of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary of the Education Department, and the REET Coordinator, with a return date set within four weeks.

The Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' request. The High Court ruled that it could not issue a writ of mandamus to include Rajasthani as a language of instruction, as the matter pertained to educational policy.

While Hindi is the official language of the State under the Rajasthan Official Language Act of 1956, the petitioners highlighted that Rajasthani is spoken by approximately 4.36 crore people, according to the 2011 census.

In 2021, the State Board of Education issued a notification specifying that the medium of instruction in schools would be Hindi, English, Sanskrit, Urdu, Punjabi, or Gujarati. The petitioners are aggrieved by the exclusion of Rajasthani. They refer to Article 350A of the Constitution, which mandates that the State provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary education level for children belonging to linguistic minorities. The petitioners argue that Rajasthani-speaking individuals qualify as a "linguistic minority" under Article 350A.

Additionally, they cite Section 29(2)(f) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which states that "the medium of instruction shall, as far as practicable, be in the child's mother tongue." They also reference the National Education Policy, which advocates for the use of the mother tongue or local language as the medium of instruction for children at least until Grade V, or preferably until Grade VIII, wherever possible.

The petitioners note that in May 2024, the High Court had directed the State to explore the possibility of including Rajasthani in the upcoming REET Examination. However, despite this direction, Rajasthani was not included in the notification issued for the REET in November 2024.

The petitioners further emphasized that the issue also pertains to the preservation of cultural rights. They highlighted that the Rajasthani language has a rich literary and cultural heritage that requires protection.

The petitioners argue that children who speak Rajasthani as their mother tongue are being discriminated against, as languages spoken by fewer people are included in the REET Examination, while Rajasthani, a predominant language, is excluded. They claim the High Court erred by not directing the State to fulfill its obligations under Article 350A of the Constitution, particularly when there was clear discrimination against Rajasthani speakers. The petitioners further contend that the right to education in the mother tongue is a part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and that the State is obligated to provide education in the child’s mother tongue, especially for children under 14, as mandated by Article 21-A.

3. Principles To Evaluate Circumstantial Evidence In Criminal Cases: Supreme Court Explains

Case Ttile - Abdul Nassar vs. State of Kerela & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 7th January, 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice BR Gavai, Hon’ble Mr.Justice KV Viswanathan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta 

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

Facts of the Case-

On April 4, 2012, around 6:30 AM, a 9-year-old girl was en route to a Madrassa in Amarambalam Village when she stopped at the home of the accused to accompany his daughter. At approximately 6:45 AM, the accused, finding the girl alone, sexually assaulted her in his house. Following the assault, he strangled and smothered her, resulting in her death. The accused concealed the victim's body beneath a cot in his house before moving it to an attached bathroom. He attempted to dispose of the body by removing stones from a septic tank slab.

The girl's father subsequently filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the police station. The victim's body was discovered around 7:30 PM on the same day in the bathroom of the accused's residence. The accused faced charges under Section 376 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). The Investigating Officer gathered forensic evidence, made recoveries based on the accused's statements, and submitted a charge sheet for offenses under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC along with Section 23 of the JJ Act.

The Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to death under Section 302 of IPC. He appealed this decision under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the High Court of Kerala. The High Court confirmed the death sentence as referred by the Trial Court under Section 366 CrPC. Consequently, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court challenging this order.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

The Court noted that all witnesses presented in this case were either related to the victim or residents of the neighborhood, indicating they had no motive to harbor ill will against the accused. The Court also found the forensic evidence credible, asserting that the prosecution provided convincing link evidence demonstrating the proper handling of samples from seizure to their arrival at the forensic laboratory. Consequently, the Court dismissed any possibility that semen containing the accused's DNA was planted on the victim's body. It emphasized that multiple circumstances strongly implicated the accused.

While agreeing with the lower court's ultimate decisions, the Supreme Court criticized those courts for their inadequate methodology in evaluating and analyzing circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court observed that although the lower courts examined witness testimonies, they failed to clearly outline the inferences that could be drawn from them. As a result, the appeal submitted to the Supreme Court was dismissed.

What is Circumstantial Evidence?

Evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) encompasses two main categories:

1. Oral Evidence: This includes all statements made before the Court by witnesses regarding matters of fact under investigation, which the Court permits or requires.

2. Documentary Evidence: This refers to all documents, including electronic records, that are produced for the Court's inspection.

The definition of evidence is further elaborated in Section 2(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which extends the concept of evidence to include electronically provided statements and digital records.

In India, evidence is classified into two broad categories: Direct Evidence and Indirect Evidence (also known as Circumstantial Evidence). Direct Evidence conclusively establishes a fact, while Circumstantial Evidence consists of a series of circumstances used to infer a fact. This classification has its roots in Roman law and is based on the principle that “Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not.”

The five key principles concerning convictions based on circumstantial evidence are well articulated in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).

What are the Principles laid down by the court in this case on circumatantial evidence?

The Court outlined several principles to be considered when a prosecution case relies on circumstantial evidence:

1. Thorough Examination of Testimonies: The testimony of each witness, both for the prosecution and the defense, must be carefully discussed and analyzed. It's essential to evaluate each witness's evidence in its entirety to ensure that no significant detail is overlooked.

2. Inference-Based Evidence: Circumstantial evidence relies on inferences to connect it to a factual conclusion. Therefore, reasonable inferences drawn from each witness's testimony must be clearly articulated.

3. Individual and Collective Examination of Circumstantial Evidence: Each link of incriminating circumstantial evidence should be meticulously scrutinized to determine if each circumstance is individually proven. Collectively, these circumstances must form an unbroken chain that is consistent solely with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and entirely inconsistent with his innocence.

4. Judgment Explanation: The judgment must comprehensively explain the reasoning behind accepting or rejecting specific pieces of evidence, illustrating how conclusions were logically derived from the evidence presented. It should explicitly state how each piece of evidence contributes to the overall narrative of guilt.

5. Evaluation of Reasonable Hypotheses: The judgment must reflect that any finding of guilt has been reached after a proper and careful assessment of circumstances, ensuring they are compatible with no other reasonable hypotheses.

These principles are crucial for ensuring that circumstantial evidence is evaluated rigorously, minimizing the risk of wrongful convictions.