List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanudding Amanullah, and AG Masih held that a delay in recording an eyewitness's testimony would not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case if the delay were adequately explained. 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of the Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v The State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The case involves a murder that occurred on 19th April 2005, in a village setting involving multiple individuals. 
• The incident stemmed from tensions related to a relationship between Ramkala (the victim's sister) and a man named Rashid Kazi. 
• This relationship had apparently caused disputes in the village. 
• On the morning of 19th April 2005, around 9:00 AM, the victim (Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve) was in Gujri Bazar near a hair saloon. 
• Three accused individuals - Firoz Khan Akbarkhan (the appellant), Md. Jakaria, and Kalimkhan - approached the victim. 
• An altercation broke out related to the alleged relationship. 
• During the confrontation:  
  • Accused no. 2 (Md. Jakaria) caught the victim's collar. 
  • The appellant (Firoz Khan) took out a knife and stabbed the victim in the chest. 
  • Accused no. 2 also kicked the victim's chest and neck. 
  • Accused no. 3 (Kalimkhan) was present during the assault. 
• Immediate Aftermath: 
  • The victim sustained serious injuries and died at the scene. 
  • Many people gathered around as the victim was bleeding. 
  • The accused threw the knife at the scene and fled. 
  • The victim's sister (Ramkala) gave an oral report, which became the First Information Report (FIR). 
• The Trial Court initially convicted the appellant and accused no. 2 under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. 
• Accused no. 3 was acquitted. 
• The High Court subsequently confirmed the Trial Court's conviction. 
• 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 made the following observations: 

Regarding Witnesses and Evidence: 

• Consistent testimony from eye-witnesses about the appellant's presence and stabbing. 
• Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the overall prosecution case. 
• Delay in recording witness statements was explained by riots in the area. 

Regarding Intention: 

• The Appellant came with a knife, indicating pre-existing intention to cause bodily harm. 
• Not a case of sudden provocation, as the knife was already in the appellant's possession. 
• Rejected the argument to reduce the charge from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304-I (culpable homicide) of IPC. 

Regarding Remission: 

• Provided liberty to the appellant to apply afresh for premature release. 
• Directed the State to consider his case for remission based on the policy existing at the time of his conviction. 
• Instructed the State to pass a reasoned order within 3 months of the appellant's representation. 
• Procedural Guidelines for Remission: 
  • The State must exercise discretion reasonably and fairly. 
  • A convict cannot claim remission as a right. 
  • But has the right to have their case considered according to applicable policies. 
  • Conditions for remission must be reasonable and non-arbitrary. 
  • Considerations must respect constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

What is Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

Section 181: Restrictions on Use of Statements Made to Police During Investigation 

• Prohibition on using statements made to police during investigation as direct evidence. 
• No statement to police shall be:  
  • Signed by the person making it. 
  • Used directly at inquiry or trial. 
  • Recorded in police diary for evidentiary purposes. 

Contradicting Witness Testimony 

• Conditions for Use: 
  • Applicable when witness is called for prosecution. 
  • Statement must be duly proved. 
  • Can be used by:  
    • Accused (as of right). 
    • Prosecution (with Court's permission). 

Scope of Statement Usage 

• Contradiction Purposes: 
  • Use in manner prescribed by Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Re-examination Limitations: 
  • Can be used only to explain matters raised in cross-examination. 

Exceptions to Restrictions 

• Statements falling under Section 26(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Provisions of Section 23(2) proviso remain unaffected. 

Explanation: Omissions in Statements 

Significance of Omissions: 

• Criteria for Treating Omissions as Contradictions  
  • Must be significant. 
  • Must be relevant to the context. 
  • Determination is a question of fact. 

Evaluation Principles 

• Contextual Assessment: 
  • Importance of omission depends on specific circumstances. 
  • No blanket rule for determining contradiction. 

Source: Kerala High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan has held that government expert's report under Section 293 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot substitute a Section 65B certificate, as the latter is a statutory requirement for the admissibility of electronic evidence. 

• The Kerala High Court held this in the matter of Umer Ali v. State of Kerala (2025). 

What was the Background of Umer Ali v. State of Kerala Case? 

• The case involves a criminal matter where an accused is charged with serious offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 302 (murder), 376(A) (rape causing death), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence). 
• The incident occurred on 27th November 2019 at approximately 1:08 am near the 'Indraprastha Hotel' located in Perumbavoor. 
• The prosecution alleges that the accused, described as a vagabond, deliberately dragged the victim named Deepa to the hotel's courtyard with the premeditated intention of committing rape and murder. 
• According to the prosecution's narrative, when the victim resisted the accused's attempts, he used a hoe to attack her, causing injuries to her face. 
• The accused is alleged to have subsequently:  
  • Disrobed the victim 
  • Committed rape 
  • Inflicted multiple injuries on her head, face, and body using the same hoe 
  • Caused the victim's death 
  • Damaged a CCTV camera at the crime scene to potentially destroy evidence 
• The accused was arrested on 27th November 2019 and charged with the aforementioned offences. 
• During the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations, providing an alternative version of events involving consensual sexual interaction and subsequent payment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically the CCTV footage presented by the prosecution. 
• Key legal concerns were raised regarding the electronic evidence's procedural compliance, particularly the absence of a mandatory Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA) certification. 
• The Court distinguished between an expert's report under Section 293 CrPC and the specific statutory requirement of a Section 65B IEA certificate for electronic records. 
• Court observations were made about the prosecution's approach:  
  • Reliance on secondary electronic evidence (DVD copies). 
  • Failure to produce the original electronic record (DVR). 
  • Lack of proper legal certification for electronic evidence. 
• The Court observed that electronic records require strict procedural compliance to ensure:  
  • Source authenticity 
  • Evidence integrity 
  • Prevention of potential tampering 
• Judicial scrutiny revealed significant procedural lapses in evidence handling, which could potentially compromise the fairness of the trial. 
• The Court stressed that truth and justice must be the foundational principles in judicial proceedings, particularly in criminal cases involving serious offences. 
• While recognizing the gravity of the alleged crime, the Court prioritized procedural correctness and legal compliance in evidence presentation. 

What is Section 62 and Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)? 

• Before the implementation of the new criminal laws, this section was covered under Section 65B of IEA. 

Section 62: Proof of Electronic Records 

• Section 62 establishes the fundamental principle that the contents of electronic records shall be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 63.  
• This sets the stage for a comprehensive framework for handling electronic evidence in legal proceedings. 

Section 63: Admissibility of Electronic Records 

• Section 63(1): Fundamental Admissibility Clause 
  • Overarching provision for electronic record admissibility 
  • Electronic records can be deemed documents if specific conditions are met 
  • Allows for admissibility without:  
    • Further proof 
    • Production of original document 
    • Direct evidence requirement 
  • Scope of Electronic Records: 
    • Printed paper records 
    • Stored in optical or magnetic media 
    • Semiconductor memory 
    • Produced by:  
      • Computers 
      • Communication devices 
      • Any electronic form 
• Section 63(2): Conditions for Admissibility 
  • Regular Use and Generation  
    • Electronic record must be produced during a period of regular computer use 
    • Computer used for consistent activities under lawful control 
  • Information Input  
    • Information must be regularly fed into the device 
    • Input done in ordinary course of regular activities 
  • Operational Integrity  
    • Computer must operate properly throughout the material period 
    • Any operational issues should not affect record accuracy 
  • Reproduction Authenticity  
    • Electronic record must accurately reproduce or derive from originally input information 
• Section 63(3): Computer Device Consolidation 
  • Comprehensive Device Coverage: Recognizes multiple computer usage scenarios: 
    • Standalone mode 
    • Computer systems 
    • Computer networks 
    • Computer resources 
    • Intermediary-based systems 
  • Unified Treatment: 
    • All devices used for a specific purpose during a period are treated as a single device 
    • Ensures flexibility in technological implementation 
• Section 63(4): Certification Requirements 
  • Mandatory Certificate Components: 
    • Electronic record identification 
    • Production method description 
    • Device specifics 
    • Condition compliance details 
  • Certificate Characteristics: 
    • Signed by person in charge of:  
      • Computer/communication device 
      • Relevant activity management 
    • Can be based on best knowledge and belief 
    • Requires expert verification 

What is Section 329 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?  

About  

• Before the implementation of the new criminal laws, this section was covered under Section 293 of the CrPC. 
• Section 329 of BNSS provides a comprehensive framework for the admissibility, presentation, and procedural handling of scientific expert reports in judicial proceedings under the Sanhita. 

Key Provisions 

• Admissibility of Expert Reports (Subsection 1) 
  • Allows documentary evidence in the form of reports prepared by government scientific experts 
  • Reports must be:  
    • Prepared under the expert's own signature 
    • Related to matters submitted for examination or analysis 
    • Produced during the course of legal proceedings 
  • Such reports are deemed admissible as evidence in inquiries, trials, or other legal proceedings 
• Judicial Discretion in Expert Examination (Subsection 2) 
  • Courts have the discretionary power to:  
    • Summon the scientific expert who prepared the report 
    • Conduct direct examination of the expert regarding the report's subject matter 
  • This provision ensures:  
    • Transparency in expert testimony 
    • Opportunity for cross-examination 
    • Judicial verification of expert findings 
• Representation and Deputization (Subsection 3) 
  • Recognizes practical constraints in expert attendance 
  • If the primary expert cannot personally appear in court, they may:  
    • Depute a responsible officer from their department 
    • The deputy must:  
      • Be familiar with the case details 
      • Capable of providing satisfactory testimony 
  • Exceptions:  
    • Court can specifically mandate personal appearance of the original expert 
    • Deputization is allowed only if not explicitly prohibited 
• Specified Government Scientific Experts (Subsection 4) 
  • The section explicitly lists government scientific experts covered under this provision: 
    • Chemical Experts 
      • Chemical Examiner 
      • Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government 
    • Specialized Technical Experts 
      • Chief Controller of Explosives 
      • Director of Finger Print Bureau 
      • Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay 
      • Forensic Science Laboratory Personnel:  
        • Director 
        • Deputy Director 
        • Assistant Director (Central or State Labs) 
      • Government Serologist 
    • Open-Ended Certification 
      • Allows State or Central Government to specify additional scientific experts via official notification. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that there must be a transfer of interest in praesenti for a gift or settlement and in case of postponement of such transfer until the death of the testator the document is to be treated as a will.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of NP Saseendran v. NP Ponnamma & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of NP Saseendran v. NP Ponnamma & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• The father originally executed a document dated 26th June 1985 (titled "Dhananischayaadharam") in favor of his daughter (Respondent No.1) regarding a specific property. 
• This document was initially interpreted differently by various courts: the trial Court and First Appellate Court viewed it as a Will, while the High Court later construed it as a gift deed or settlement. 
• After executing the 1985 document, the father subsequently cancelled it and executed a sale deed on 19th October 1993 in favor of his son (the appellant) for valid consideration. 
• The daughter (Respondent No.1) filed a lawsuit claiming the 1985 document was a gift deed and seeking a declaration of her right, title, and interest in the property. 
• During the pendency of the lawsuit, the father died on 06th January 1995, and his other legal heirs were impleaded as defendants. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the daughter's suit, and this dismissal was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, both considering the 1985 document as a Will rather than a gift. 
• The High Court then reversed the lower courts' decisions, setting aside their judgments and granting declaratory reliefs to the daughter by interpreting the 1985 document as a settlement/gift deed. 
• As a result of the High Court's judgment, the son (appellant) filed the present appeal challenging the High Court's interpretation and decision.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court in this case discussed the law surrounding gift, settlement deed and will. 
• The Court observed that the gift has the following characteristics: 
  • Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) states how a gift is made. 
  • Section 126 of TPA states when can the gift be suspended or revoked. This section bars unilateral revocation. 
  • Section 127 enables the donor to impose any condition in the deed, which has to be accepted for the gift to take effect or in other words, the donee without accepting the obligation, cannot be said to have accepted the gift. 
  • A conspicuous reading of the provisions would disclose that for a gift of an immovable property to be valid, it has to be registered, universal cancellation of the gift is impermissible, and delivery of possession is not a condition sine qua non to validate the gift. 
• Further, the Court observed the following with regard to settlement deed: 
  • Section 2 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) defines settlement as a non-testamentary instrument whereby, there is a disposition or an agreement to dispose of any movable or immovable property to a destination or devolution of successive interest. 
  • Settlement would mean a disposition of one’s property to another directly or to vest in any such person after successive devolution of rights on other (s). 
  • Further, the circumstances and reasons that led to the execution of such a settlement deed are described as its consideration, which need not necessarily be of any monetary value. 
  • More often than not, it consists of love, care, affection, duty, moral obligation, or satisfaction, as such deed are typically executed in favour of a family member 
• With regard to will the Court observed the following: 
  • Will is a testamentary document dealt under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA). 
  • Will is defined under Section 2(h) as a legal declaration of the intention of the testator to be given effect after his death. 
  • Such a declaration is with respect to his property and must be certain. 
• The Court thus laid down that the legal position is well settled that there must be a transfer of interest in praesenti for a gift or settlement and in case of postponement of such transfer until the death of the testator the document is to be treated as a will. 
• The fact that the document is registered is not a sole ground to discard the contents and to treat the document as gift, just because law does not require will to be registered. 
• The nomenclature of the document is irrelevant and the contents of the document have to be read as a whole to understand the intent and object of the testator. 
• The Court in the facts of the present case held that the daughter’s acceptance was valid and it made the father’s cancellation and subsequent sale to son void.

What is the Difference Between Gift and Settlement Deed?

Here is a table comparing the differences between a Gift Deed and a Settlement Deed: 

What is the Difference Between Gift and Will? 

Here is a table comparing a Will and a Gift Deed: 

What is the Difference Between Gift, Will and Settlement Deed? 

Here is a table comparing Will, Gift Deed, and Settlement Deed: