List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (2025) acquitted three persons convicted of murdering a minor, holding that dock identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) is unreliable when accused are strangers to witnesses, and prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

What was the Background of Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (2025) Case? 

• The Appellants-accused were convicted for the offence of murder of a 10-year-old boy. 
• The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have last seen the accused with the deceased. 
• No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to test the reliability of the witnesses' identification of the accused. 
• The accused were strangers to the witnesses, having no prior familiarity or acquaintance. 
• The trial court convicted the Appellants based solely on the witnesses' dock identification during trial. 
• The trial court ignored the fact that the Appellants were strangers to the witnesses, and no TIP had taken place. 
• The Uttarakhand High Court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the conviction. 
• Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 
• The prosecution's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court emphasized that where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification. 
• The Court relied on the precedent established in P. Sasikumar v. State (2024), which emphasized that failure to hold TIP renders dock identification doubtful and unsafe to rely upon. 
• The Court noted that dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused. 
• The Court observed that both witnesses identified the Appellants for the first time in court, which, in the absence of a TIP, renders their dock identification less credible. 
• The Court held that the witnesses' testimonies cannot constitute reliable evidence of identification. 
• The Court noted that the prosecution's case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence. 
• The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances necessary for conviction. 
• The Court held that the circumstances on record were not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. 
• The Court emphasized that the circumstances failed to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, including the innocence of the accused. 
• The Court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants. 
• The Court set aside the impugned findings of both the trial court and the High Court. 
• The appeal was allowed, and the Appellants were acquitted of all charges. 

What is the Test Identification Parade (TIP)? 

About:  

• One of the methods of establishing the identity of the accused is TIP which is received under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). 
• This Section is now covered under Section 7 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).  
• This Section deals with the facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts. 

Purpose:  

• The idea of the parade is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify from among several people an unknown person whom the witness had seen in the context of an offence. 
• It has two major purposes:  
• To satisfy the investigating authorities, that a certain person not previously known to the witnesses was involved in the commission of the crime.  
• To furnish evidence to corroborate the testimony which the witness concerned tenders before the Court. 

Essential Elements:  

• Identification parades shall be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate at the Jail as far as possible.   
• Statements made by the identifying witness during the identification parade should be recorded in the proceedings. Even if a witness makes a mistake, it should be recorded. 
• TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence in law and can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of witness concerned as given in the Court.   

Case Law: 

• In Ramkishan v. State of Bombay (1955), the Supreme Court held during investigation, the police are required to conduct identification parades. These parades serve the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify either the properties that are the focus of the offence or the individuals involved in the crime. 

What is Dock Identification? 

About: 

• Dock identification is a process where a witness identifies the perpetrator while giving evidence in court. 
• The accused is typically the only person sitting in the dock (except in magistracy when defendant is on bail). 
• The purpose is to determine if the witness can recognize the perpetrator. 

Scenarios Where Dock Identification is Permissible: 

1. True and Genuine Recognition:

• Applicable when the defendant is well known to the witness. 
• The witness must have described the defendant at the time of or shortly after the offence. 
• The court must establish that the witness can recognize the defendant based on familiarity with their appearance. 

2. Previous Identification:

• Permitted when this is not the first time the witness has identified the accused. 
• The witness has already identified the defendant through some prior procedure. 

General Principle: 

• The judge has discretion to exclude identification evidence if it is the first-time identification. 
• Exception: Dock identification may be allowed for first-time identification if there is a very good reason, such as:  
  • The accused refused to attend an identification parade, AND 
  • No other proper means of identification was possible before trial (e.g., group identification, structured photo identification, or other recognized procedures). 

Key Takeaway: 

• Dock identification without prior identification procedure is generally unreliable and should be excluded unless exceptional circumstances exist. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi High Court in the case of Khushwant Kaur v. Smt Gagandeep Sidhu and Ors. (2025) dismissed revision petitions challenging orders that protected a daughter-in-law's right to reside in her matrimonial home, clarifying the scope of residence rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).  

What was the Background of the Khushwant Kaur v. Smt Gagandeep Sidhu and Ors. (2025) Case? 

Marriage and Disputes: 

• Gagandeep Sidhu married Saravjeet Singh on November 14, 2010, and moved into the matrimonial home at Old Gobindpura Extension, Delhi, where her parents-in-law (Khushwant Kaur and late Daljit Singh) also resided. 
• The matrimonial relationship deteriorated, leading to disputes between Gagandeep and her in-laws. 

Competing Claims of Dispossession: 

• The petitioners claimed that due to marital discord, Gagandeep and her husband moved to rented accommodation on November 1, 2011, after they disowned their son through a public notice on October 29, 2011. 
• Gagandeep disputed this, claiming that on November 2, 2011, her belongings were being removed in an attempt to dispossess her against her wishes. 
• The petitioners alleged that Gagandeep forcibly entered and occupied the ground floor on the night of November 2, 2011. 

Multiple Legal Proceedings: 

• The petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 248/2011 seeking injunction and later Civil Suit No. 730/2018 seeking possession. 
• Gagandeep filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act (V-08/2012) against her husband and in-laws, claiming right of residence in the ground floor. 
• Khushwant Kaur filed a counter-complaint under the DV Act (V-27/2012) seeking protection and compensation. 

Court Decisions: 

• On March 7, 2020, the Trial Court in V-27/2012 found Khushwant Kaur was not an aggrieved person but injuncted Gagandeep from interfering with the first floor. Compensation was declined. 
• On July 1, 2020, the Trial Court in V-08/2012 held the petitioners guilty of domestic abuse and restrained them from dispossessing Gagandeep or alienating the property without due process. 
• All appeals were dismissed on April 27, 2021, by the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• The High Court decreed possession in favor of petitioners on April 29, 2024, but the Supreme Court stayed this judgment in SLP (Civil) No. 11649/2024. 
• The husband had been residing separately since 2011, and the couple occupied the property merely as licensees whose license was revoked. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Statutory Framework and Precedent: 

• The Court examined the DV Act provisions defining "shared household" (Section 2(s)), "domestic relationship" (Section 2(f)), and right of residence (Sections 17 and 19). It relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), which clarified that: 
  • A wife's right of residence does not depend on property title. 
  • Property exclusively owned by in-laws may constitute a shared household if the woman lived there with her husband. 
  • Residence orders shield from dispossession but do not adjudicate title or confer proprietary rights. 

Court's Directions: 

• The Court dismissed the revision petitions, finding no illegality or perversity in concurrent findings. The premises qualified as a shared household, and residence orders fell within statutory jurisdiction and purpose. 
• The Court clarified that nothing in the judgment touches upon title, ownership, or mesne profits, which remain within civil court jurisdiction. The judgment concerns only the protective umbrella of the DV Act. 

Key Principles Established: 

• Shared household includes in-laws' properties where the woman lived with her husband. 
• Residence protection does not depend on property ownership or title. 
• Right of residence survives after separation, as the Act protects against consequences of separation. 
• DV courts can restrain alienation to preserve status quo and prevent dispossession. 
• Protection orders are safeguards preventing unlawful eviction but do not adjudicate title. 
• Fresh evidence cannot be introduced at revision stage to challenge concurrent factual findings.

What is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 

About: 

• It is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. 
• It provides for effective protection of the rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. 
• The preamble of this Act makes it clear that the reach of the Act is that violence, whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic, is all to be redressed by the statute. 
• This Act was brought into force by the Central Government and Ministry of Women and Child Development on 26th  October 2006. 

Purpose of DV Act:  

• The very purpose of enacting the DV Act was to provide for a remedy which is an amalgamation of the civil rights of the complainant i.e. aggrieved person. 
• It provides a remedy in the civil law for the protection of women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. 

Key Features: 

• Domestic Violence: Includes actual abuse or threat of abuse—physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic—and harassment for dowry demands. 
• Aggrieved Person: Any woman in or having been in a domestic relationship who alleges violence, including wives, live-in partners, sisters, widows, mothers, and other female relatives. 
• Domestic Relationship: Covers persons who live or have lived together in a shared household through consanguinity, marriage, adoption, or relationships in the nature of marriage. 
• Shared Household: The household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, including properties owned or rented by the respondent. 
• Right of Residence (Section 17): Every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household regardless of title or beneficial interest, and cannot be evicted except through due process. 
• Residence Orders (Section 19): Magistrates can restrain dispossession, direct respondents to remove themselves, restrain entry into specified portions, restrain alienation or encumbrance, and direct alternate accommodation or monetary relief. 
• Other Reliefs: Protection orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation for losses due to domestic violence. 
• Summary Proceedings: Provides expeditious relief through summary proceedings before Magistrates with assistance from Protection Officers. 
• Non-Derogation (Section 26): Reliefs under this Act are in addition to rights available under other laws, allowing women to pursue civil and criminal remedies simultaneously.