List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta observed the importance of conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) for recovered articles and stressed the need for a strong evidentiary chain in criminal trials.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Thammaraya and Another v. The State of Karnataka ? 

• The case involves three accused persons - Manoj (A-1), Thammaraya (A-2), and Basappa (A-3). 
• Manoj (A-1) was the nephew of Shrishail, who was a liquor merchant. 
• The prosecution alleged that Manoj had developed an illicit relationship with Shrishail's wife. 
• As a consequence of this relationship, Manoj allegedly conspired to eliminate Shrishail and enlisted the help of Thammaraya and Basappa. 
• On 24^th August, 2001, Manoj took Shrishail in his Indica car (MP-09/HB-7769) under the pretext of visiting a doctor in Sholapur, Maharashtra. 
• The prosecution alleged that all three accused persons strangulated Shrishail with a nylon rope and abandoned his body between Konnur cross to Domnal cross of Bijapur on National Highway No. 13. 
• The accused persons allegedly removed the deceased's clothes and disposed of his nude body near Tungabhadra dam at Hospet. 
• To cover up the crime, Manoj filed a false complaint with Solapur Police claiming they were victims of a dacoity where Shrishail was abducted by unknown persons. 
• During the investigation Manoj confess his crime. 
• The offences charged were under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that the entire case hinged on circumstantial evidence, requiring stringent proof standards. 
• The prosecution must establish that all circumstances point conclusively to the guilt of the accused and exclude all other hypotheses. 
• The Court observed that the gap between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is significant in criminal jurisprudence. 
• Regarding the surviving accused (A-2 and A-3), the Court observed that the only circumstantial evidence was the recovery of certain articles. 
• The Court found serious deficiencies in how the Investigating Officer proved the disclosure statements and subsequent recoveries:  
  • Failed to record exact words of the accused's statements 
  • Did not exhibit the disclosure statements 
  • Failed to establish clear connection between accused and recovered articles 
  • Did not seal the recovered articles 
  • Omitted to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) 
• The Court determined that the investigating agency's failure to conduct TIP for recovered articles constituted negligence and dereliction of duty. 
• The Court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Each factual element (facta probantia) must be connected through proven circumstances to establish guilt (factum probando). 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

• Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a method of establishing identity received under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which deals with facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 
• The primary purpose of TIP is to test the witness's veracity in identifying an unknown person from among several people, whom the witness had seen during the commission of an offence. 
• TIP serves dual purposes: to satisfy investigating authorities about a person's involvement in the crime, and to furnish corroborative evidence supporting the witness's testimony in court. 
• The procedural requirements for TIP include:  
  • Must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, preferably in jail 
  • Police officers must not participate in the identification proceedings 
  • Accused must be mixed with similar-looking people 
  • Witnesses must be kept separate and out of view 
  • Detailed records of witness statements and proceedings must be maintained 
  • Magistrate must issue a certificate after completion 
• TIP is not substantive evidence but serves as corroborative evidence to either support or contradict the witness's testimony given in court. 

What is Circumstantial Evidence? 

• Circumstantial Evidence is a form of indirect evidence originating from the Roman legal system, based on the principle that "Men may tell lies, but circumstances do not," where a chain of circumstances is used to prove a fact, unlike direct evidence which conclusively proves facts. 
• he definition of evidence can be found in Section 2 (1) (e) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
  • The BSA includes statements given electronically and the electronic or digital records within the ambit of evidence.   
• Evidence is classified into two categories:  
  • Oral evidence (statements made by witnesses before court) 
  • Documentary evidence (including electronic records produced for court inspection) 
• Evidence in India is broadly classified into:  
  • Direct Evidence (conclusively proves facts) 
  • Indirect/Circumstantial Evidence (uses chain of circumstances) 
• Circumstantial Evidence requires a complete chain of circumstances that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, leaving no reasonable ground for any other conclusion. 
• The Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) established five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which serve as the foundational framework for evaluating such evidence in criminal cases. 

What are the Principles Laid Down in the Case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)? 

• Following are the five principles that help in establishing guilt in case of circumstantial evidences: 
  • The circumstances indicating guilt must be fully and conclusively established, not merely suggested or probable, marking a clear legal distinction between "must be proved" and "may be proved." 
  • The proven facts must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt and incapable of explanation by any other rational hypothesis. 
  • The circumstances must be conclusive in nature and tendency, leading to a definitive inference of guilt. 
  • The evidence must exclude all reasonable possibilities except that of the accused's guilt, leaving no room for alternative explanations. 
  • The chain of evidence must be complete and unbroken, leaving no reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt and demonstrating that in all human probability, only the accused could have committed the act. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has held that a culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. 
• The Supreme Court held in the matter of Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand Etc. (2025). 

What was the Background of the Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand Etc (2025) Case? 

• The incident took place in 1992 in Kichan, Nainital, where Hetram lived with his family in the Hydel Colony. 
• Hetram's son Joginder Singh and another person named Surinder Singh (son of Yashpal Singh) were both learning typing at the same typing center. 
•  A few days before the incident, Joginder and Surinder had an argument at the typing center. 
• After learning about this argument, Hetram's nephew Man Singh complained about it to Surinder's father. 
• This led to Surinder beating up Joginder in the evening in the colony, which Hetram reported to his officers. 
• On the day of the incident, when Hetram's nephew went to pick up Joginder from the typing center, they encountered Ashok Saxena (appellant) and Yashpal Singh on a scooter who threatened them. 
• Later that evening, around 7:45 PM, when Hetram returned from duty: 
  • Appellant (armed with a knife) and Yashpal Singh (armed with a hockey stick) entered Hetram's house. 
  • They were allegedly pursuing Hetram. 
  • Hetram's wife tried to intervene to save him. 
  • During this intervention, the appellant allegedly stabbed Hetram's wife in the stomach while Yashpal Singh held her hands. 
  • The incident occurred in candlelight due to a power outage. 
  • Hetram's wife was taken to the hospital by rickshaw. She was declared dead upon arrival. 
  • The post-mortem revealed a 3cm deep cut wound in the stomach area that had damaged the liver. 
  • About 1.5 liters of blood was found in the stomach cavity 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the Hetram describing the incident following which the investigation was initiated. 
• The chargesheet was filed on the completion of the investigation before the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).  
• Upon committal, the case came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Nainital. 
• The trial court, after examining four prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The same was appealed before the High Court of Uttarakhand where the High Court the appeal filed by the State and held the appellant herein guilty of the alleged offence. 
  • It is relevant to note that one of the co-accused Yashpal passed away while the appeal was pending before the High Court.  
  • It is only the appellant who ultimately stood convicted for the offence of murder. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • Supreme Court (First Round - 2014): 
    • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment on procedural grounds. 
    • The key issue was that Ashok Saxena was not represented by counsel during the High Court proceedings. 
    • The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. 
    • The Supreme Court directed Saxena to appear before the High Court and allowed for appointment of amicus curiae if he remained unrepresented. 
  • Supreme Court (Final Round - 2025): 
    • The Court partially allowed the appeal. 
    • Modified the conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
    • The Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, considering: 
      • The genesis of the occurrence. 
      • The fact that incident happened in 1992. 
      • The appellant's current age (74 years). 
    • Reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (slightly under 6 years). 
    • The Court relied on Section 301 IPC (doctrine of transfer of malice) to establish that even though the appellant might not have intended to kill Hetram's wife, he was still culpable as the death occurred while attempting to cause harm to Hetram. 
      • Section 301 embodies the doctrine of "transfer of malice" or "transmigration of motive." 
      • If A intends to kill B but accidentally kills C, the law attributes the intention to kill to C's death. 
      • The offender must have no intention to cause death of the person actually killed. 
      • The killing must occur while doing an act intended to cause death of someone else. 
      • The actual death must be neither intended nor known to be likely by the offender. 
      •  The Court's analysis emphasizes that under Section 301, the intended target's identity is irrelevant - the malicious intent transfers to whoever actually dies as a result of the act. 
• Based on the above observations it was held by the Supreme Court that culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. 
• This case's journey through the courts spans over three decades, showing how the courts' interpretations evolved from complete acquittal to murder conviction, and finally to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

What is the Concept of Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive? 

• About: 
  • The doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of malice is a legal principle that is applied in criminal law. 
  • It involves the transfer of criminal intent or malice from the intended target to an unintended target. 
• General Meaning: 
  • In other words, if an individual has the intent to commit a crime against one person but, in the course of committing that crime, ends up harming another person unintentionally, the law may transfer the criminal intent or malice from the intended target to the unintended target. 
• Purpose: 
  • This ensures that the accused is held responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences were not initially intended. 
• Illustration: 
  • Z with the intention to murder A, fires a gun but misses the target and unintentionally murders B. 
  • In this scenario, the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice may come into play, allowing the legal system to transfer Z’s criminal intent of murdering A to the murder of B. 
  • Z shall be held liable for the murder of B, even though that harm was not the intended target. 

Which Legal Provisions Covers Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive? 

• Section 301 of IPC: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended 
  • If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause. 
• The same has been covered under Section 102 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 

Landmark Judgements 

• Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (1972) 
  • Accused tried to shoot a fleeing man but killed his own uncle. 
  • The court held it was murder under Section 302 read with Section 301 under IPC. 
• Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore (1979) 
  • Accused has no intention to kill the deceased but killed someone else. 
  • The court rejected the argument for a lesser offence, affirming Section 301 of IPC application. 
• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 
  • The appellant shot at Surjit Kaur while aiming at Kapur Singh. 
  • The court applied the doctrine of transfer of malice to uphold murder conviction. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that when the website marketing the goods of the defendant is accessible from Delhi, the jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi exists.   

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Johnson & Johnson PTE Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Johnson & Johnson PTE Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.  Case?   

• The plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA), and Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off using a deceptively similar mark “ORSI” and similar packaging/trade dress. 
• The plaintiff company, established in 1974 and registered in Singapore, manufactures consumer healthcare products and acquired the ORS-L/ORSL brand from Jagdale Industries Limited through an Assignment Deed dated 7th November 2014. 
• Use of ORS-L/ORSL Marks: 
  • The ORS-L brand was first introduced in India in 2003 by Jagdale Industries Limited as an electrolyte drink in Orange flavor. 
  • ORS-L Lemon flavor has been in use since 2003, while ORS-L Orange and Apple flavors have been in use since 2005. 
  • The plaintiff rebranded from ORS-L to ORSL in 2013. 
  • The plaintiff holds registered trademarks for ORS-L and ORSL in multiple classes, including Classes 30, 31, 32, and 33. 
• Defendants’ Activities: 
  • Defendant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of M/s Sree International India, while Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are partners in M/s Pure Tropic. 
  • The defendants are engaged in the business of energy and refreshment drinks. 
  • Defendant No. 1 is marketing products under the allegedly infringing mark “ORSI” using a similar trade dress and packaging. 
• Trademark Registration by Defendant: 
  • Defendant No. 1 obtained registration for the mark “ORSI” on 10th February, 2022, and applied for additional registrations in Class 32 in November 2022 on a “proposed to be used” basis. 
  • M/s Pure Tropic manufactures products bearing the impugned marks and operates the website www.juscoco.com. 
• Plaintiff’s Discovery and Cease-and-Desist Notices: 
  • In September 2022, the plaintiff discovered the defendants’ infringing products in India and sent a Cease-and-Desist notice on September 5, 2022, which could not be delivered to Defendant No. 1. 
  • A reminder letter was sent on September 20, 2022, but remained undelivered. 
• Further Investigations: 
  • In June 2023, the plaintiff found that Defendant No. 1 had filed a trademark application (No. 5525855) for the infringing mark, against which the plaintiff filed an opposition on June 13, 2023. 
  • Defendants attempted to evade detection by applying for trademark registrations under the names “ERSI FRUIT DRINK,” “ERSI FRUIT DRINK APPLE,” and “ERSI FRUIT DRINK ORANGE.” 
• Online Marketing and Sales: 
  • In September 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were marketing and selling their infringing products through the website which delivers across India, including Delhi. 
  • Defendants’ products were also listed on third-party platforms such as IndiaMart.

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that the use of a mark has been defined in Section 2 (2) (c) of  TMA. 
• The above has been construed as a reference to the use of the mark upon, or in any physical or in any other relation whatsoever, to such goods. 
• Thus, offering the goods for sale or advertising the goods for sale, would be construed as use of the goods. 
• The Court observed that the plaintiff has averred and has been able to show that it has been successfully able to place order for the products of the defendants from within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 
• The Court therefore held that when the website marketing the goods of the defendant is accessible from Delhi, though the website has stopped the operations subsequently, and products may not have been ultimately delivered, the very fact that the website could be accessed in Delhi at the time of filing of suit would give the Courts in Delhi jurisdiction. 
• The same would thus constitute use in relation to goods, within the jurisdiction of Court at the time filing of the suit. 
• Further, the Court observed that when an application for rejection of plaint is made under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC the Court should only look at averments made in the plaint and decide if there is cause of action and territorial jurisdiction. 
• The Court thus, held that the defendant has not been able to establish any ground for rejection of plaint.

How is Jurisdiction Ascertained in Trademark Suits? 

• Section 28 and Section 29 of TMA provide for rights conferred by registration and infringement of registered trademark respectively. 
• Under Section 29 of TMA use of a mark could be in any form including use by offering goods/services for sale. 
• In the case of Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani and Others (2018), the Court held that Section 20 of CPC provides that a suit could be filed in any place where the cause of action arises, in a suit involving rights in a trade mark, cause of action arises in each and every place where there is any form of use of the said mark. 
• Principles which apply to infringement, actions to determine “use” would equally apply to passing off actions. 

What Are the Cases on This Issue? 

• Shakti Fashion and Another v. Burberry Limited (2022) 
  • The Court held that the defendant is clearly advertising it’s goods in the website, India Mart. 
  • India Mart clearly permits enquiries for garments advertised on the website. 
  • The Court further held that this is a question of fact which would require evidence to be led. 
• Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani and Others (2018) 
  • In both infringement and passing off action the cause of action arises when there is use of mark. 
  • If use takes place in a territory where the suit is filed that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. When there is use of mark, there is cause of action to sue where the use takes place.