List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Orissa High Court held that a dying declaration, even if made in the form of a painful outcry naming the assailant, is admissible and sufficient for conviction if found voluntary, truthful, and reliable. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of State of Odisha v. Daktar Bhoi (2025). 

What was the Background of State of Odisha v. Daktar Bhoi (2025) Case? 

• On 28th June 2009 at about 12:30 p.m. at village Damkipali, the appellant Daktar Bhoi allegedly committed murder of his brother, Jaylal Bhoi. 
• The alleged motive behind the offence was a dispute regarding a mango tree near the appellant's house that belonged to the deceased. 
• The appellant allegedly tied the deceased's neck with a napkin to a wooden post and stabbed him with a trident (trishul) causing injuries to his head and body. 
• After the alleged murder, the appellant reportedly packed the deceased's body in a gunny bag, loaded it on his bicycle, and disposed of it in a nala (ditch) in Budhiduguri jungle. 
• The offence came to light when the deceased's son received information from his elder father and son about the incident. 
• An FIR was registered at Patnagarh Police Station under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• During investigation, police recovered the body from the nala, seized relevant evidence including a bamboo lathi and trident, and arrested the appellant and his wife. 
• Post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries on the deceased including incised wounds, stab wounds, and a ligature mark on the neck, with the cause of death being brain injury accompanied by shock. 
• The appellant and his wife were charged under Sections 302/201/34 IPC for murder, causing disappearance of evidence, and common intention. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that a dying declaration need not be addressed to a particular individual, and the deceased's utterance identifying his assailant while in acute agony constitutes a valid dying declaration. 
• The Court noted that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses, particularly regarding auditory perception, can be attributed to age difference and do not demolish the credibility of their evidence. 
• The Court considered the statements made by witnesses to others immediately after the incident as admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) as res gestae. 
• The Court determined that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular testimony regarding the nature of injuries and weapons used to commit the offence. 
• The Court remarked that absence of blood on the recovered trident was insufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case in light of other compelling evidence establishing the appellant's culpability. 

What is the Rule of Dying Declaration? 

• The doctrine of dying declaration is based on the Latin maxim "Nemo Moriturus Praesumitur Mentire" (a person will not meet their maker with a lie in their mouth). The principle assumes that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie, making such statements uniquely trustworthy. 
• Dying declarations are an important exception to the hearsay rule under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Now under New Criminal Law it is covered under Section 26(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).  
• A dying declaration is a statement made by a person who believes they are about to die, regarding the cause or circumstances of their impending death. This is an important exception to the hearsay rule in evidence law. 
• While hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible, statements made by a person about the cause or circumstances of their death are considered admissible evidence regardless of whether the declarant expected to die when making the statement. 
• These declarations can take various forms - oral, written, or even through signs and gestures - and are considered valuable evidence in legal proceedings where the cause of death is in question. 

What are the Key Principles of Dying Declaration? 

• Exception to Hearsay Rule: Normally, hearsay evidence (second-hand information) is inadmissible in court, but dying declarations are a notable exception. 
• Psychological Foundation: The principle is based on the belief that a person facing imminent death is unlikely to lie. The law presumes that the consciousness of impending death serves as a powerful stimulus to tell the truth. 
• No Expectation of Death Requirement: As your quoted section explicitly states, the statement is admissible "whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death." This is significant as it removes what was traditionally a requirement in common law. 
• Broad Application: The declaration can be used "whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question," meaning it applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. 
• Form of Declaration: The declaration can be written or verbal, and in some jurisdictions may even be through gestures or signs. 
• Subject Matter Limitation: The declaration must relate to the cause of death or circumstances surrounding the transaction that resulted in death. 
• No Oath Requirement: Unlike regular testimony, dying declarations are admissible without being made under oath. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act is mandatory to prosecute police officers for actions reasonably connected to their official duties, even if such acts were in excess of their authority.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram (2025). 

What was the Background of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram, (2025) Case? 

• The case revolves around a complaint filed by Seetaram against police officers G.C. Manjunath and others, alleging abuse of authority, assault, wrongful confinement, and intimidation during investigations conducted against him. 
• Seetaram, who had been declared a rowdy sheeter in 1990, alleged that on April 10, 1999, three police officers trespassed into his home, forcibly removed him, and subjected him to assault and torture at the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. 
• The complainant alleged that on April 11, 1999, the officers forced him to hold a slate with his name written on it, photographed him, and later produced him before a Magistrate after registering false cases in Crime Nos. 137 and 138 of 1999. 
• Seetaram further alleged that on October 27, 1999, certain officers again assaulted him, wrongfully seized his personal belongings including a gold chain, wrist watch, and cash, and confined him at the police station. 
• The complainant claimed he sustained grievous injuries during these incidents, including a broken tooth, which was supported by medical evidence including wound certificates and X-ray reports. 
• Seetaram filed a private complaint in 2007 against the officers for offences under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused officers, who challenged this order on the ground that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act was required before prosecution. 
• The criminal revision petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the Sessions Court, and subsequently, their criminal petition before the High Court was also dismissed. 
• During the pendency of proceedings, three of the five accused officers passed away, and the remaining two officers (accused Nos. 2 and 5) had retired from service, being 71 and 64 years old respectively.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act bars the institution of suits or prosecutions against police officers for acts done under the colour of or in excess of official duty, unless prior sanction of the Government is obtained. 
• The Court held that Section 197 CrPC similarly provides that courts cannot take cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty without prior sanction from the appropriate Government. 
• The Court noted that the protection under these provisions extends to acts done ostensibly in excess of authority, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions. 
• The Court emphasized that even if a police officer exceeds the bounds of duty, the protective shield continues to apply if there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the officer's official functions. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations against the accused officers, though grave, fell within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority" and therefore, the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without the requisite prior sanction. 
• Considering the age of the retired officers and the fact that the alleged incidents dated back to 1999-2000, the Court held that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them. 

What is Section 218 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 requires prior government sanction before courts can take cognizance of offenses allegedly committed by judges, magistrates, or public servants (who cannot be removed without government approval) while performing official duties. 
• For Union affairs, sanction must come from the Central Government; for State affairs, from the State Government - except during President's Rule under Article 356, when Central Government sanction is required. 
• Members of Armed Forces also require prior Central Government sanction for prosecution of alleged offenses committed during official duties. 
• State Governments can extend this protection to certain classes of forces maintaining public order, substituting State Government sanction for Central Government sanction. 
• During periods of President's Rule under Article 356, only Central Government sanction is valid for prosecuting members of forces maintaining public order - any State Government sanctions during this period are invalid. 
• A specific provision nullifies any State Government sanctions given between August 20, 1991, and the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1991, for offenses during President's Rule. 
• The appropriate government (Central or State) can determine who conducts the prosecution, how it proceeds, for which offenses, and can specify which court will hold the trial. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) are enabling, discretionary and permissive and not mandatory or obligatory. This is clear from the use of word “may” in the rule. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025). 

What was the Background of Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal (2025) Case?   

• The plaintiff is the lawful owner of a property where the defendant claims to be a tenant. 
• The original tenant was Ranjan Ghosh (defendant's father), who paid a monthly rent of Rs. 1700. 
• Ranjan Ghosh passed away on 13th July 2016. 
• On 20th July 2018, the plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant informing him that as the son of the original tenant, he could only inherit the tenancy for 5 years after his father's death. 
• The defendant received this notice but did not provide a satisfactory reply. 
• The plaintiff filed a title suit to recover possession of the property. 
• In his written statement, the defendant admitted that:  
  • His father Ranjan Ghosh was the sole tenant. 
  • The plaintiff is the owner of the property. 
  • Rent was paid until May 2021. 
• Based on these admissions, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for a judgment based on admission. 
• The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 
• The defendant appealed to the High Court (FAT No. 7 of 2024), but the High Court dismissed the appeal. 
• The High Court confirmed that under Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997, the defendant could only continue as tenant for 5 years after his father's death. 
• Since this 5-year period had already expired, the defendant was considered a trespasser, and the plaintiff was entitled to eviction. 
• The High Court granted the defendant three months to vacate the premises. 
• The defendant has now filed the present petition challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court made a very important observation with regard to Order XII Rule 6 that the provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive. The Court observed that they are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory.  
• The above is clear from the use of word “may” in the rule. 
• It was observed by the Court that to make order or to pronounce judgment on admission is at the discretion of the Court. 
• It was also observed that the word “or otherwise” used in the provision is wide enough to include all cases of admissions made in the pleadings or de hors the pleadings.  
• Under Rule 6, as originally enacted, it was held that the words “or otherwise” without the words “in writing” used in Rule 1 showed that a judgment could be given upon oral or verbal admission also. 
• The Court held that in the present facts having regard to clear and unequivocal admission made by the defendant in his written statement, the High Court committed no error much less any error of law in decreeing the suit applying Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC. 
• Thus, the Court in the facts of the present case dismissed the petition. 

What is Judgment on Admissions? 

• Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) laid down judgment on admission. 
• Constituents: 
  • Rule 6 (1) provides: 
    • The provision permits the Court to make an order or give judgment upon admissions of fact made in pleadings or otherwise, whether in writing or orally. 
    • Such judicial action may be taken at any stage of the suit without awaiting determination of other questions between parties. 
    • The Court may act either upon application by any party or of its own motion. 
    • The Court shall exercise its discretion having regard to such admissions when issuing orders or judgments. 
  • Rule 6 (2) provides that whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1) a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.
• Amendment Act of 1976: 
  • This made the position clear that such admissions may be “in the pleading or otherwise” and “whether orally or in writing”. 
  • After the amendment in Rule 6, admissions are not confined to Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order 6 but are of general application. 
  • Such admissions may be express or implied (constructive); may be in writing or oral; or may be before the institution of the suit, after the suit is brought or during the pendency of proceedings. 
  • Before the amendment Rule 6 of Order XII allowed judgment on admission only on an application by a party.
• Important Points on Order XII Rule 6 of CPC: 
  • This rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim. This can be done at any stage. 
  • Thus, a plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence. 
  • Likewise, a defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder 
  • The court may, in an appropriate case, give a judgment at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings on admission by a party. 
  • Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim”. 
    • In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim. 
  • A decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.
• Important Judgments: 
  • Uttam Singh v. United Bank of India (2000): 
    • Where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. 
    • The scope of Order XII Rule 6 should not be narrowed down where a party applying for judgment is entitled to succeed on a plain admission of the opposite party. 
  • ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood and Son (2000): 
    • The Division Bench of the High Court held that: 
      • Order XII, Rule. 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. 
      • Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing 
    • The Court interpreted ‘otherwise’ and held that the Court can pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court.