List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in the case of State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu (2026), held that an appellate court is empowered to reverse or modify a conviction even in the absence of an appeal filed by the accused challenging such conviction.  

• The court clarified that the absence of an accused's appeal does not curtail the appellate court's jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the findings and sentence recorded by the court below, and to act as the interests of justice may require.

What was the Background of State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @ Monu (2026) Case? 

• The State of Assam filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order acquitting the respondent-accused in a murder-rape case. 
• The High Court had acquitted the accused for the offences of murder and rape, citing serious lapses in the identification of incriminating material against him. 
• However, while acquitting him of the major offences, the High Court had simultaneously convicted him for the offence under Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender). 
• Notably, the accused had not filed any appeal challenging this conviction under Section 201 IPC. 
• Despite the absence of such a challenge, the High Court proceeded to acquit the accused even for the Section 201 IPC offence. 
• The State of Assam challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court, which prompted the question of whether the High Court could have interfered with the conviction that was never challenged by the accused.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The court made the following key observations: 

Appellate Court's Power Not Curtailed by Absence of Accused's Appeal: 

• The absence of an appeal by the accused-respondent does not, by itself, denude the appellate court of its appellate jurisdiction to examine the correctness of findings recorded by the sentencing court. 
• The appellate court is vested with the power to examine the correctness of the findings and sentence recorded by the court below and to reverse, alter, or affirm the same, as the interests of justice may require. 

Statutory Basis — Section 386 CrPC / Section 427 BNSS: 

• Under Section 386 of the CrPC (now Section 427 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellate court is expressly empowered to examine the correctness of findings and sentence recorded by the court below, and to reverse, alter, or affirm the same as the interests of justice may require. 
• This power operates independently of whether the accused has chosen to prefer an appeal against their conviction. 

High Court's Error and Supreme Court's Interference: 

• The court held that the High Court had clearly fallen into error in affirming the conviction of the accused-respondent for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. 
• Exercising its appellate powers, the Supreme Court found it appropriate to interfere with the conviction and sentence of the accused-respondent under Section 201 IPC. 
• The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the High Court's acquittal of the accused for the offences of murder and rape, and also set aside the Section 201 IPC conviction, given serious lapses in the identification of incriminating material.

What are Criminal Appeals under BNSS, 2023?

01. Appeal against Conviction (Section 411 BNSS):

• The accused challenges the finding of guilt, claiming the conviction is wrong in law or on facts. 
• Who can file: The convicted accused; if in jail, appeal can be filed through the Jail Superintendent under Section 413 BNSS. 
• Grounds: Wrong appreciation of evidence; misapplication of BNS; procedural irregularity; excessive sentence. 
• Where appeal lies:  
  • Conviction by Judicial Magistrate → Sessions Court 
  • Conviction by Sessions Court → High Court 
  • Conviction by High Court → Supreme Court (Article 136 – SLP) 

02. Appeal against Acquittal (Section 417 BNSS):

• The State or victim challenges an order of acquittal, alleging the accused was wrongly let off. 
• Who can file: State Government through Public Prosecutor; victim (requires leave/permission of High Court). 
• Grounds: Trial Court ignored material evidence; judgment was unreasonable or perverse; witness credibility wrongly assessed. 
• Where appeal lies: High Court or Supreme Court.

03. Appeal against Sentence Only (Section 415 BNSS):

• The accused accepts guilt but seeks reduction or modification of the punishment imposed. 
• Who can file: A convicted person who admits guilt but wants a reduced sentence. 
• The conviction cannot be challenged — only the quantum of punishment is in question.

04. Victim's Right to Appeal (Proviso to Section 428 BNSS):

• Replaces the Proviso to Section 372 CrPC. 
• The victim challenges an inadequate sentence, lesser conviction, or acquittal. 
• Victim can appeal against: Acquittal of accused; conviction for a lesser offence; inadequate compensation or sentence. 
• Where appeal lies: Before the court to which the case would normally go on appeal — Sessions Court or High Court.

05. Appeal to Supreme Court in Criminal Matters (Articles 134 & 136):

• Filed by the State or accused after a final judgment from the High Court. 
• Article 134 — Appeal to Supreme Court in certain criminal cases. 
• Article 136 — Special Leave Petition (SLP); discretionary appeal. 
• Invoked to correct a grave miscarriage of justice or an important legal error.

Quick Comparison Table — Criminal Appeals under BNSS, 2023 

Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Santsaran Gursaran Advani v. Nina H. Bhalla & Ors. (2026), held that Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has not been declared unconstitutional and continues to govern succession to the property of a female Hindu dying intestate.  

• The Court rejected an interim application filed by the deceased's brother, holding that the husband's heirs — specifically the husband's sister — take precedence over the deceased's brother under the statutory order of succession, thereby disentitling him from any share in the estate.

What was the Background of Santsaran Gursaran Advani v. Nina H. Bhalla & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The deceased, a Hindu woman, passed away on 31 May 2025, leaving behind a will dated 10 April 2023, which appointed defendant No. 1 as executrix and made various bequests in her favour. 
• The plaintiff, who was the brother of the deceased, filed a suit claiming to be her sole surviving relative and seeking to administer her estate and restrain the defendants from dealing with her assets. 
• The plaintiff also challenged the validity of the will and a gift deed executed in favour of defendant No. 1. 
• The defendant contended that even if the will and gift deed were set aside, the plaintiff had no entitlement under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, as the deceased's husband's sister, being an heir of the husband, would take precedence over the plaintiff. 
• Probate of the will had already been granted to defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff had not filed any caveat in the probate proceedings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Statutory Scheme of Succession under Sections 15 and 16 HSA: 

• The Court examined the order of succession under Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that heirs falling in an earlier entry exclude those in subsequent entries. 
• The deceased's husband's sister, being an heir under entry (b), excludes the plaintiff, who falls under entry (d), thereby disentitling him from any share in the estate in an intestate scenario. 

Section 15(1) Not Unconstitutional: 

• The Court rejected the plaintiff's contention that Section 15(1) had been declared unconstitutional in Mamta Dinesh Vakil v. Bansi S. Wadhwa [(2012) SCC Online Bom 1685]. 
• It was observed that although a Single Judge had expressed such a view, the matter had been referred to a Division Bench and no final declaration of unconstitutionality had been made. 
• Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court continue to apply Section 15(1), and therefore the provision remains valid and operative until a Division Bench or the Supreme Court holds otherwise. 

Law Commission Recommendations Not Binding: 

• The Court held that recommendations of the Law Commission suggesting an amendment to Section 15(1) have not been implemented by the legislature and therefore cannot affect the applicability of the provision. 

Interim Relief Rightly Refused: 

• The burden was on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie interest in the estate of the deceased in order to seek interim relief. 
• The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any such interest under the statutory scheme. 
• Since probate of the will had already been granted, the estate vested in defendant No. 1 from the date of death of the deceased. 
• Accordingly, the interim application was rejected.

What is Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 

Section 15 — General Rules of Succession in the Case of Female Hindus: 

Sub-section (1): The property of a female Hindu dying intestate devolves according to the rules in Section 16, in the following order of priority: 

• First — upon her sons and daughters (including children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and her husband 
• Second — upon the heirs of the husband 
• Third — upon her mother and father 
• Fourth — upon the heirs of the father 
• Last — upon the heirs of the mother

Sub-section (2): Notwithstanding the order in Sub-section (1), two special rules apply: 

• Property inherited from father or mother — in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including children of any pre-deceased son or daughter), such property does not devolve upon the heirs listed in Sub-section (1) in the usual order, but instead devolves upon the heirs of the father. 
• Property inherited from husband or father-in-law — in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including children of any pre-deceased son or daughter), such property does not devolve upon the heirs listed in Sub-section (1) in the usual order, but instead devolves upon the heirs of the husband.