List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan of the Supreme Court, in Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka (2026), held that joint or simultaneous disclosure statements made by different accused persons are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only if each such statement leads to the discovery of a distinct and relevant fact connected with the crime. The Court further held that a fact once discovered cannot be "rediscovered" against another accused, and that the mere last-seen circumstance, without corroboration, cannot sustain a conviction. The appellants were ultimately acquitted.

What was the Background of Anand Jakkappa Pujari @ Gaddadar v. State of Karnataka (2026) Case? 

• A woman went missing from Karnataka on March 23, 2013; her charred skeletal remains were discovered four days later in a forest area. 
• The prosecution alleged that her brother, having borrowed a large sum of money and gold from her, conspired with three other accused to avoid repayment. 
• It was alleged that the accused abducted and murdered the victim, then burnt her body to destroy evidence. 
• The prosecution relied upon a joint disclosure statement made by all four accused, who were taken together in a police vehicle and shown — one by one — the spot where the victim was allegedly killed and her body burnt. 
• The trial court convicted all four accused; the High Court upheld the conviction. 
• Two of the accused filed criminal appeals before the Supreme Court, challenging the evidentiary validity of the joint disclosure statements and the sufficiency of the last-seen evidence.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Joint Statements Not Per Se Inadmissible:  
  • Referring to State NCT of Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) the Court held that joint or simultaneous disclosures are not per se inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 
  • The Court acknowledged the practical difficulty in ascertaining exactly who said what in such joint statements, and reiterated from Nagamma @ Nagarathna v. State of Karnataka (2025) that greater care must be exercised when evaluating joint disclosures. 
• Requirement of Specificity and Distinctiveness:  
  • The panch witness in the present case had not deposed about the specific statement made by each accused, and there was nothing to indicate that any distinct fact was discovered at the instance of the appellants. 
  • The Court held that the information given by each accused must directly and distinctly relate to the fact discovered; a fact can be "discovered" only once and cannot be repeatedly relied upon against multiple accused on the same discovery. 
• No Rediscovery Permissible:  
  • Where a fact has already been discovered, any subsequent information given in that regard does not lead to a fresh discovery and is therefore inadmissible under Section 27. 
  • Where the information is already in the possession of the police, its repetition by another accused does not constitute a new discovery. 
• Exception — Different Facts from Different Places:  
  • Where multiple accused make statements in quick succession and each leads to the discovery of a different fact from a different place, the statements may be treated as "joint" yet the discoveries remain distinct and admissible — as recognised in Lachhman Singh v. State (1952) 1 SCC 362 and State v. Chhotelal Mohanlal AIR 1955 Nag 71. 
  • The guarantee of voluntariness and truth under Section 27 is satisfied only when the discovery of a distinct fact flows from each accused's statement. 
• Present Case — Joint Discovery of the Same Fact:  
  • In this case, the evidence disclosed a purely joint discovery of the same mental fact by all four accused simultaneously, making it impossible to attribute any distinct discovery to any particular accused. 
  • Accordingly, the discovery evidence of the two places — where the deceased was killed and where the body was burnt — could not be utilised against the appellants. 
• Last-Seen Evidence Insufficient Alone:  
  • The primary circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that the accused were last seen with the deceased before her disappearance. 
  • The Court held that it would be "too risky" to sustain a conviction solely on the basis of last-seen evidence in the absence of additional incriminating material linking the appellants to the crime. 
• Outcome: 
  • The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals and set aside the conviction of the two appellants, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that neither the joint disclosure statements nor the last-seen evidence, standing alone, were sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 

About: 

• Section 27 of the IEA created a limited exception to the rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. 
• It permitted only that portion of an accused’s statement to be proved which distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a result of the information given. 

Key Provisions of Section 27 of IEA: 

• Applies only when the accused is in police custody. 
• Permits proving only that part of the information which directly leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (e.g., a weapon, stolen property). 
• The rationale is that discovery lends credibility to that part of the statement. 

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:  

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:  
  • Firstly, there should be a discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant as a consequence of information received from the accused person.  
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information, the accused should be in custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.  
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:   
    • The “place” from where the object is produced. 
    • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 

• The content of IEA Section 27 is now included as a proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Confessions to Police). 
• This proviso keeps the same rule: 
  Only the part of the accused’s statement that directly leads to discovery is admissible. 

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran of the Allahabad High Court, in Dr Garima Dubey and 3 Others v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey (2026), held that courts are entitled to deny maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to a qualified wife who, despite being capable of earning a substantial income through her professional expertise, deliberately refrains from doing so merely to impose a financial burden upon her husband. The Court dismissed the wife's first appeal, upholding the Family Court's order rejecting her plea for interim maintenance. 

What was the Background of Dr Garima Dubey and 3 Others v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey (2026) Case? 

• The wife — a qualified Gynaecologist — filed an application under Section 24 HMA before the Family Court in Prayagraj seeking maintenance pendente lite from her husband, a Neurosurgeon. 
• The Family Court rejected her claim, noting from ITR records that she earned more than Rs. 31 lakhs per annum. However, the children's claim under Section 26 HMA was allowed, and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 60,000 per month towards their maintenance. 
• Before the Allahabad High Court, the wife contended that she was no longer working as she had been removed from the hospital following the filing of matrimonial proceedings by the husband. 
• She further argued that she was entitled to her husband's financial support to maintain the standard of living she had enjoyed prior to the separation. 
• The husband submitted that since his wife was a trained specialist Gynaecologist, she was entirely capable of earning more than him in the State of Uttar Pradesh and had no need for maintenance.

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court made the following key observations: 

Earning Capacity as Determinative Factor: 

• The Court considered the wife's professional qualifications and specialist expertise as a Gynaecologist to conclude that she was fully capable of earning handsomely in her field. 
• Voluntary refusal to utilise professional qualifications and earning capacity, for the purpose of extracting maintenance, cannot be permitted to succeed under Section 24 HMA. 
• Where a qualified spouse is capable of earning sufficiently through her expertise and yet deliberately refrains from doing so to impose a burden upon the other spouse, courts can lawfully deny maintenance pendente lite. 

Upholding the Family Court's Order: 

• The Court found no infirmity in the Family Court's impugned order and held that it could not be faulted on either facts or law. 
• The first appeal filed by the wife was accordingly dismissed.

What is Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? 

About:  

• Section 24 of HMA provides for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Maintenance is both a human and legal right.  
• The section ensures temporary maintenance to spouses during pending litigation. 

Meaning of Maintenance:  

• Financial support provided by fathers to children or husbands to wives for expenses and necessities of dependents.  
• Also known as alimony, it covers payments for living expenses. Maintenance is granted regardless of whether parties live together or divorce has been granted under Hindu Laws. 

Meaning of Pendente Lite:  

• "Pendente lite" means "pending the litigation" or "during the pendency of the case."  
• It governs interim maintenance for livelihood support and necessary expenses during proceedings under HMA when there is insufficient or no independent income. 

Meaning of Maintenance Pendente Lite:  

• Providing living expenses and financial support to wife and children while the suit is pending between parties.  
• The provision offers gender-neutral rights, allowing both husbands and wives to apply for this remedy. 

Provisions of Section 24 of the HMA:  

• When any spouse lacks independent income sufficient for litigation proceedings, courts may order respondents to pay petitioner's proceeding expenses and maintenance considering respondent's income.  
• Applications must be disposed of within 60 days from notice service date. 

Fundamentals of Section 24 of HMA: 

• Expenses of Proceedings: Covers expenses during pending HMA proceedings including lawyer fees, court fees, stamp duties, traveling expenses, and related expenditures. Ensures financially weaker spouses can participate effectively in legal processes without cost burden. 
• Discretion of the Court: Courts have discretionary power to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses. This allows consideration of individual case circumstances for fair determination of maintenance amounts. Courts assess income sufficiency, assets, and needs of both parties. 
• Temporary Nature: Maintenance under Section 24 is temporary, providing financial support only during pending legal proceedings. Courts have discretion to decide final maintenance when concluding cases.