List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has held that a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 without supporting evidence, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025). 
• They acquitted an accused convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC, citing lack of corroborative evidence.  
• The Court noted discrepancies in prosecution witness testimonies and questioned the reliability of their statements.  
• Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023), it reiterated that disclosure statements alone cannot secure a conviction. 

What was the Background of Vinobhai v. State of Kerala Case? 

• The case involves a murder that occurred on 31st December 2010, at approximately 11:45 am, where the accused (Vinobhai) allegedly stabbed the victim (Ramakrishnan) with a knife. 
• There was a history of enmity between the accused and the deceased, as the deceased was allegedly involved in the murder of the accused's elder brother. 
• Two primary eyewitnesses, Shaju (PW-4) and Suresh (PW-5), testified against the accused, while a third witness, Thressiamma (PW-6), did not support the prosecution's case. 
• The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 
• The High Court of Kerala confirmed both the conviction and sentence upon appeal. 
• PW-4 was found to be a co-accused with the deceased in the murder case of the appellant's brother. 
• The prosecution claimed recovery of the murder weapon and bloodstained clothes at the instance of the accused. 
• The incident allegedly occurred in front of Joseph's shop, with multiple potential witnesses present at the scene. 
• Political affiliations were noted, with the deceased being a supporter of CPI(M) and the accused being a worker of BJP. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Supreme Court identified material omissions in the testimonies of both key witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) regarding crucial details such as the number of stab wounds and their distance from the crime scene. 
• The Court found the conduct of both witnesses unnatural, as they neither reported the incident to police nor attempted to secure medical help for the victim. 
• The Court noted that PW-4's account of dropping the accused at Maryada Bridge and then returning home before coming back to the crime scene was particularly questionable. 
• The bench observed that the prosecution's failure to examine other alleged eyewitnesses, including Sasi from the nearby toddy shop, created a significant gap in the evidence. 
• The Court determined that the omissions in witness testimonies amounted to contradictions under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 standing alone, cannot be sufficient for conviction. 
• The Court referenced the precedent set in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023) regarding the evidentiary value of recovery statements. 
• The bench concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the unreliability of the key witness testimonies. 
• The Court noted that the accused had already served more than twelve years in prison during the legal proceedings. 

What is Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act,1872? 

• Section 27 operates as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, creating a specific exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers while in custody are inadmissible as evidence. 
• The section is founded on the principle of "confirmation by subsequent events," meaning that statements made by an accused in police custody become admissible only when they lead to the discovery of previously unknown facts or evidence. 
• For a statement to be admissible under Section 27, it must satisfy a two-fold requirement: first, the information must be received from an accused person in police custody, and second, it must lead to the discovery of a fact previously unknown to the investigating authorities. 
• The section permits only that portion of the information to be proved which relates distinctly and directly to the fact discovered, excluding any additional or unrelated statements made by the accused. 
• The doctrine requires that the discovery must be the direct result of the information provided by the accused, establishing a clear causal link between the statement and the subsequent discovery. 
• The information provided by the accused must be voluntarily given, without any coercion, threat, or inducement by the police authorities, ensuring protection against forced self-incrimination. 
• The section operates on the premise that if the statement leads to the discovery of a material fact, it carries inherent reliability and truthfulness, making it an exception to the general protection against self-incrimination. 
• The scope of admissibility under Section 27 is limited to the "fact discovered" and does not extend to the entire confession or statement made by the accused in police custody. 
• The section serves a dual purpose: it protects against police misconduct by requiring factual confirmation of confessions while also ensuring that valuable evidence is not excluded merely because it was obtained through information provided by an accused in custody. 
• The evidentiary value of discoveries under Section 27 must be corroborated by independent evidence to secure a conviction, as established by judicial precedents including the recent Supreme Court judgment in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P (2023). 

Which Provision of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Provide for Disclosure Statement? 

• It can be found as proviso to Section 23 (2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). 
• Section 23 (2) provides: 
  • No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him. 
  • Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved. 

What are Important Case Laws on Section 27 of IEA? 

• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976): 
  • It has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. 
  • The second is that the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police will fall foul and not meet this condition. 
  • The third is that at the time of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody. 
  • Lastly, it is only so much information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. 
• Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police (2024): 
  • The requisites for invoking Section 27 are as follows: 
    • Firstly, there should be discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant in consequence of information received from the accused person. 
    • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police. 
    • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information the accused should be in the custody of the police. 
    • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible. 
• State of NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru (2005): 
  • The Supreme Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the IEA must be some concrete fact to which the information directly relates. 

Source: Kerela High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice VG Arun held that under Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita the Magistrate should first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance of the offence/s, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the accused.               

• The Kerela High Court held this in the case of Suby Antony v. R1 (2025). 

What was the Background of Suby Antony v. R1 Case?  

• The petitioner in this case submitted that the Court erred in issuing notice to the accused named in the complaint even before examining the petitioner and witnesses on oath. 
• It is their case that the illegality is perpetuated by the Magistrate issuing notice to the accused in spite of oral objection raised initially and the written objection filed thereafter.  
• It was the case of the petitioner that the legal position was laid down by the Karnataka High Court in Basanagouda R Patil v. Shivananda S Patil (2024). 
• The conundrum that the Court had to address in this case was whether Section 223 (1) of BNSS envisages issuance of notice to the accused named in the complaint before taking cognizance of the offence. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court made the observation that Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is corresponding to Section 223 (1) of BNSS. 
• A new proviso to Section 223 of BNSS is added which provides that no cognizance of the offence shall be taken without giving the accused opportunity of being heard. 
• Under the CrPC, the accused had no locus standi even at the stage where the Magistrate decides whether or not to issue process to the accused. 
• Further, it was observed that in spite of the proviso to Section 223(1) making it mandatory to provide opportunity of hearing to the accused before taking cognizance, Section 226 does not reckon the accused's objection at the stage of taking cognizance as a relevant factor for dismissing the complaint. 
• The Court held that the Magistrate should first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath and thereafter, if the Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance of the offence/s, opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the accused. 
• The Court thus held that the notice could not have been issued to the prospective accused before taking cognizance. 

 What is Section 223 of BNSS? 

• Section 223 (1) provides for the following: 
  • Examination of Complainant & Witnesses: 
    • A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint must examine the complainant and witnesses under oath. 
    • This examination is recorded in writing and signed by all parties, including the Magistrate. 
  • Opportunity for the Accused: 
    • Cognizance cannot be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. 
  • Exceptions to Examination Requirement: 
    • The Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses if: 
      • The complaint is made by a public servant in an official capacity or by a court. 
      • The case is transferred to another Magistrate under Section 212. 
  • No Re-examination on Case Transfer: 
    • If a case is transferred after initial examination, the new Magistrate need not re-examine the complainant and witnesses. 
• Section 223 (2) further provides for the following: 
  • Cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts done in official capacity requires: 
    • The public servant is to be given an opportunity to explain the situation. 
    • A factual report from a superior officer regarding the incident. 

 What is the Difference Between Section 200 of CrPC and Section 223 of BNSS? 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan laid down principles to be followed for impleading a transferee pendente lite.               

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of the H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar & Ors.  Case? 

• Ownership & Agreement of Sale (1995):  
  • Late Smt. Daisy Shanthappa (Defendant No.1) owned two adjacent lands in Bagalur Village.  
  • She agreed to sell the land to the plaintiffs (appellants) for ₹20,00,000 through her Power of Attorney holder (Defendant No.2).  
  • ₹5,00,000 was paid as earnest money, and Defendants 1 & 2 agreed to evict unauthorized occupants.  
• Supplementary Agreement (1997):  
  • Since unauthorized occupants were not evicted, a supplementary agreement was executed, extending the sale deed execution timeline.  
  • Plaintiffs paid an additional ₹10,00,000, totaling ₹15,00,000 of the agreed amount.  
• Sale of Property to a Third Party (Defendant No.3):  
  • Despite the subsisting agreement with the plaintiffs, Defendant No.1 allegedly sold 40 out of 42 acres to Defendant No.3 for ₹40,00,000.  
  • Plaintiffs became aware when Defendant No.3 attempted to change revenue records.  
• Plaintiffs’ Legal Action (2003):  
  • Temporary Injunction granted (17th December 2003), restraining Defendants 1-3 from alienating or creating third-party rights.  
• Violation of Injunction & Further Sale:  
  • Defendant No.3, violating the court order, sold 10 acres (4+6 acres) to Respondents Nos.1 & 2.  
• Confirmation Deed by Defendant No.1:  
  • Defendant No.1 later executed a Confirmation Deed acknowledging the validity of the sale agreement with plaintiffs and admitting she was misled into selling to Defendant No.3.  
• Impleadment Application (2007):  
  • Respondents Nos.1 & 2 filed an application, seeking to be added as defendants.  
  • Trial Court rejected it (06th August 2014), ruling that they purchased the property in violation of the injunction and Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.   
  • No appeal was filed against this order, making it final.  
• Trial Court’s Final Judgment (2016):  
  • The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, directing execution of the Sale Deed within 2 months.  
  • Defendant No.3’s appeal was dismissed.  
• Delayed Appea l by Respondents Nos.1 & 2 (2018):  
  • Despite their impleadment being rejected and their vendor’s appeal being dismissed, they challenged the decree after 2 years.  
  • Application was filed seeking condonation of 586 days’ delay and leave to appeal.  
• High Court’s Decision:  
  • The High Court allowed both applications, condoning the inordinate delay and granting leave to appeal.  
  • This decision was opposed by plaintiffs. 

 What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • The bench summarized the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal as follows: 
    • Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) respectively provide for preferring an appeal from an original decree or decree in appeal respectively. 
    • The said provisions do not enumerate the categories of persons who can file an appeal. 
    • However, it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to file an appeal in any proceedings unless he satisfies the court that he falls within the category of an aggrieved person. 
    • It is only where a judgment and decree prejudicially affect a person who is not a party to the proceedings, he can prefer an appeal with the leave of the court. 
    • A person aggrieved, to file an appeal, must be one whose right is affected by reason of the judgment and decree sought to be impugned. 
    • The expression “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury. 
    • It would be improper to grant leave to appeal to every person who may in some remote or indirect way be prejudicially affected by a decree or judgment; and 
    • Ordinarily leave to appeal should be granted to persons who, though not parties to the proceedings, would be bound by the decree or judgment in that proceeding and who would be precluded from attacking its correctness in other proceedings. 
• The Supreme Court's judgment provided significant clarity on the rights of transferees pendente lite and the principles governing grant of leave to appeal to persons not party to the original proceedings. 

What is an Appeal?  

• Appeal is not specifically defined under CPC.   
• It is a judicial examination by the superior court of the order of the inferior court to test the correctness of the inferior court.  
• The person preferring an appeal is the appellant and the Court to which the appeal is preferred is the Appellate Court.  
• Anyone aggrieved by a decree or order of a court has the right to appeal to a higher court, provided such appeal is allowed against that decree or order.  
• In cases where an original jurisdiction court issues a decree, the first appeal typically lies with the appellate court authorized to hear appeals from decisions of that specific court.  
• Exceptions to this rule may exist if expressly provided by the CPC or any other applicable law.  
• Sections 96, 100,104 and 109 of CPC confer the right of appeal.  

Who Can Appeal?  

• Legal representatives of the original parties or the original parties themselves.  
• Legal guardian of the minor appointed by the court.  
• Any aggrieved person after taking leave of the court.  

Right to Appeal?  

• Appeal is both statutory and substantive right.  
• Appeal is a statutory right only when it is expressly given under the statute that an appeal can be preferred.  
• Appeal is a substantive right when it gives the party a right to appeal the higher court against the order passed by the subordinate court. 

What Are Sections 96 and 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

• Section 96 of the CPC states the provisions regarding the appeal from the original decree.  
• It states that where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.  
  • An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.  
  • No appeal shall arise from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties.  
  • No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed ten thousand rupees. 
• The provisions for second appeal is provided under Section 100 as: 
  • Section 100 - Second appeal — 
  • Subsection (1) states that save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. 
  • Subsection (2) states that an appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. 
  • Subsection (3) states that in an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 
  • Subsection (4) states that where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. 
  • Subsection (5) states that the appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.