List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (2025) restored the conviction of a man for murdering his wife, observing that absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution when there is clear and credible direct evidence, such as a dying declaration. 

What was the Background of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chaman Lal (2025) Case? 

• The respondent (husband) was accused of setting his wife ablaze, leading to her death. 
• The deceased wife recorded a dying declaration in the presence of an executive magistrate, naming her husband and accusing him of setting her on fire. 
• The trial court convicted the respondent for murder based on the dying declaration and other evidence. 
• In 2014, the Himachal Pradesh High Court acquitted the accused, overturning the trial court's conviction. 
• The High Court reasoned that the absence of any pending litigation between the spouses showed a lack of animosity. 
• The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive explaining why the accused would commit such a grave act. 
• The State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's acquittal order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench disagreed with the High Court's decision, holding that proving motive is not necessary when there is direct evidence proving the crime. 
• The Court observed that "Motive assumes significance, primarily in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Where there is direct evidence in the form of a credible and trustworthy dying declaration, the absence of strong proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case." 
• Since the deceased's dying declaration was consistent, making it direct evidence against the respondent, the Court held that proving motive became insignificant. 
• The Court noted that the evidence on record disclosed that the respondent subjected the deceased to frequent quarrels, humiliation and verbal abuse, including branding her a "Kanjri" and repeatedly asking her to leave the matrimonial home. 
• The dying declaration itself referred to persistent matrimonial discord and ill-treatment, thereby furnishing a plausible background for the commission of the offence. 
• The Court emphasized that "the prosecution is not required to establish motive with mathematical precision and failure to conclusively prove motive does not weaken an otherwise reliable and cogent case." 
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, restoring the trial court's conviction and ordering the respondent to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence. 

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: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justices Dixit Krishna Shripad and Chittaranjan Dash in the case of Kankalata Dwivedi v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025) held that solemnization of second marriage by a Hindu man during subsistence of his first marriage does not get legitimized upon the death of the first wife, thereby denying family pension to the second wife. 

What was the Background of Kankalata Dwivedi v. State of Odisha & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant was the second wife of a former government employee who sought family pension upon his death. 
• She filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court after being denied family pension benefits. 
• The High Court directed the opposite party authority to consider the writ petition as her representation and decide her entitlement accordingly. 
• The Controller of Accounts, Odisha passed an order rejecting her claim on the ground that she was the second wife of the ex-government employee. 
• As per Rule 56(6)(d) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, she was not entitled to receive family pension. 
• Being aggrieved by this order, she again approached the High Court seeking nullification of the authority's decision. 
• The Single Bench upheld the impugned order, finding no fault with the findings of the authority. 
• She then preferred an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench challenging the Single Judge's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that the appellant entered into wedlock with the deceased employee during the subsistence of his first marriage with another woman, which itself constitutes the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 495 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. 
• The bench remarked that granting family pension to the second wife would amount to placing premium on illegality. 
• The Court clarified that family pension under the Rules is payable to the widow on the death of an employee subject to complying with certain terms and conditions, and to be a widow, a valid marriage between the woman and the deceased employee is a sine qua non. 
• Justice Shripad emphasized that the word 'wives' appearing in the Rules does not authorize an employee to contract marriage with multiple persons by way of polygamy or polyandry. 
• The Court held that the use of the term 'wives' in the Rules does not give a license to a government employee to enter into multiple marriages against the avowed objectives of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as the IPC. 
• The Court categorically held that the Hindu Marriage Act does not recognize childlessness as a justifiable circumstance for entering into wedlock with a person who is already in subsisting wedlock with another. 
• The bench rejected the argument that even if the second marriage was void ab initio due to the subsisting first marriage, it gets legitimized upon the subsequent death of the first wife, noting this was not supported by any standard treatises on Hindu Law of Marriage. 
• The Court applied the maxim "ex nihilo nihil fit" (out of nothing, nothing comes out), holding that what is void ab initio does not become valid by the happening of a subsequent event. 
• Resultantly, the Court upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal, negating the entitlement of the appellant to family pension as she was the second wife of the employee. 

What is Bigamy and its Punishment under Indian Law? 

About: 

• Bigamy constitutes one of the most serious matrimonial offenses under Indian law, representing a fundamental breach of the monogamous marriage system. 
• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, collectively provide a comprehensive legal framework addressing bigamy as an offence. 
• These statutes establish both the civil and criminal consequences of entering into a subsequent marriage while a previous marriage remains valid and subsisting. 
• The law aims to protect the sanctity of marriage and safeguard the rights of all parties involved in matrimonial relationships. 

Civil Provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 

• Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, declares any marriage between two Hindus as void ab initio if either party has a living spouse at the time of the subsequent marriage ceremony. 
• This provision operates with retrospective effect from the commencement of the Act, ensuring that no valid matrimonial relationship can be established through bigamous unions. 
• The section creates an absolute prohibition without exceptions, making such marriages legally non-existent rather than merely voidable. 
• The civil consequence is that the subsequent marriage confers no legal rights, obligations, or status upon the parties. 
• Children born from such union are considered illegitimate under traditional legal principles, though recent judicial interpretations have provided some protection to innocent children. 

Criminal Sanctions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: 

• Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita prescribes stringent criminal punishment for the offense of bigamy, establishing a two-tier punishment structure based on the presence or absence of concealment. 
• Under subsection (1), any person who marries while having a living spouse faces imprisonment of either description for up to seven years, along with liability to pay a fine. 
• Subsection (2) imposes enhanced punishment of up to ten years imprisonment along with fine when the offender conceals the fact of the previous marriage from the subsequent spouse. 
• This enhanced punishment recognizes the additional element of fraud and deception involved in such cases. 

Legal Exceptions and Mitigating Circumstances: 

• The criminal law recognizes certain exceptional circumstances that exempt individuals from prosecution for bigamy, reflecting the legislature's understanding of complex human situations. 
• The primary exception applies when a competent court has declared the previous marriage void, thereby removing the legal impediment to remarriage. 
• The law provides relief in cases where a spouse has been absent continuously for seven years without any communication, creating a presumption of death while requiring full disclosure to the prospective spouse. 
• These exceptions balance the strict application of matrimonial law with practical realities and humanitarian considerations. 
• The exceptions ensure that individuals are not trapped in impossible legal situations due to circumstances beyond their control.