18 February 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Test Identification Parade Loses Evidentiary Value When Witness Who Identified Accused Wasn’t Examined In Trial: Supreme Court

Case- Vinod @ Nasmulla vs. The State of Chattisgarh

Date of Order- February 14, 2025

Bench- Justice PS Narsimha and Justice Manoj Misra

The recent Supreme Court ruling involved the acquittal of an accused in a dacoity case, emphasizing the importance of witness examination during the trial. Here are the key facts from the case:

Court's Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, who had been previously convicted for dacoity and offenses under the Arms Act by both the trial court and the High Court.

Incident Details: The appellant was accused of stopping a moving bus at gunpoint and robbing passengers.

Test Identification Parade (TIP): A TIP was conducted with three witnesses present, who identified the appellant. However, these witnesses were not examined during the trial.

Legal Principle: The Court highlighted that if a witness who identified an accused during a TIP is not examined in court, the TIP report loses its evidentiary value. The rationale is that without cross-examination, it cannot be determined how the witness made their identification. This raises concerns about potential tutoring or prior exposure to the accused.

Key Observations: Justice Misra noted that while a Naib Tehsildar (PW-7) confirmed that the TIP was conducted and two out of three witnesses identified the appellant, the absence of these witnesses in court rendered the TIP irrelevant for establishing identification.

Outcome: The Court allowed the appeal based on reasonable doubt regarding the identification of the appellant, ultimately acquitting him due to insufficient evidence stemming from unexamined witnesses during trial.

This ruling underscores the critical role of witness testimony in ensuring fair legal proceedings and maintaining the integrity of identification processes in criminal cases.

2. Even Person Accused of Henious Crimes Entitled to Basic Protection Of Law’: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty for Lack of Fair Trial

Case- Sovaran Singh Prajapati vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Date of Order- February 4, 2025

Bench- Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta

The Supreme Court recently overturned the death sentence of a man accused of murdering his wife and 12-year-old daughter, citing violations of his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Here are the key facts:

Court's Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant, reversing the conviction and death sentence previously imposed by the Allahabad High Court.

Trial Issues: The Court identified several critical lapses in the trial process:

• The defense counsel was absent during the examination of key prosecution witnesses.
• The opportunity for cross-examination was denied without proper representation.
• Defense statements were inadequately recorded, failing to address all incriminating circumstances against the appellant.

Legal Representation Concerns: The appellant experienced frequent changes in legal counsel, which limited effective preparation and representation. The Court emphasized that merely appointing legal aid is insufficient; representation must be "effective and meaningful."

Judicial Observations: The Court raised concerns about whether the new counsel could effectively argue the case or explore gaps in the prosecution's evidence. It stated that these issues cast doubt on the appropriateness of imposing a death penalty.

International Law Reference: The Court referenced international obligations regarding fair trials, including principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), underscoring that even those accused of serious crimes are entitled to legal protections.

Outcome: Given these procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court set aside both the conviction and death sentence. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial, starting from the charge framing stage.

This ruling highlight the importance of procedural fairness in capital punishment cases and reinforces that all accused individuals must receive competent legal representation.

3. Charitable Trust’s Registration for Income Tax Exemption to Be Decided Based on Proposed Activities & Not Actual Activities: Supreme Court

Case- Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions vs. M/S International Health Care Education and Research Institute

Date of Order- February 11, 2025

Bench- Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan

The Supreme Court recently clarified important aspects regarding the registration of charitable trusts under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act. Here are the key facts from the case:

Core Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized that tax authorities must ensure that a charitable trust's proposed activities align with its stated charitable objectives when registering under Section 12-AA for income tax exemptions.

Clarification on Registration: The Court clarified that simply registering under Section 12-AA does not automatically grant a trust exemption under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Authorities can deny exemptions if the trust fails to provide convincing materials.

Assessing Officer's Role: The Court stated that it is the responsibility of the assessing officer to review all submitted materials and determine whether the exemption claim is genuine. If not convinced, the officer has the authority to refuse the exemption.

Rejection of Department's Argument: The Court rejected the argument that tax authorities should focus on a trust's actual activities instead of its proposed activities when evaluating exemption claims. It declined to refer the Ananda Social case to a larger bench for reconsideration.

Case Background: The case involved a charitable trust engaged in educational and medical activities that sought registration under Section 12-AA. The Commissioner initially denied registration due to insufficient evidence of actual charitable activities. However, this decision was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal, which was upheld by the High Court before being challenged in the Supreme Court.

Interpretation of Section 12AA: Section 12AA outlines the registration procedure for trusts seeking tax benefits. It requires the Commissioner to verify both the genuineness of the trust's objectives and its proposed activities.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, maintaining that tax authorities only need to ascertain a trust's proposed activities for granting exemptions. However, they retain the option to deny exemptions if subsequent investigations reveal that the provided materials are not genuine or do not meet exemption criteria.

Reference to Ananda Social: The Court reiterated that Section 12AA aims to register only those trusts whose objectives and activities are genuinely charitable, as established in previous rulings.

This ruling reinforces the necessity for charitable trusts to align their proposed activities with their stated goals and ensures that tax authorities perform due diligence in evaluating exemption claims.