List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Murugan v. State (2026), held that forensic DNA evidence establishing the paternity of a child born to a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, notwithstanding the hostility of the victim and her parents during trial. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, and additionally set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC for want of supporting evidence.

What was the Background of Murugan v. State (2026) Case? 

• The case originated from a complaint filed in early 2020 involving the repeated penetrative sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old girl. Upon discovery of the victim's pregnancy, her mother lodged a formal complaint with the police, leading to the arrest of the accused, Murugan, who was approximately forty years of age. 
• During trial, the victim and her family members turned hostile, materially departing from the prosecution's case and presenting a significant challenge to conviction. The trial court, however, placed reliance on the DNA report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, which established that the child born to the victim was fathered by the accused, and sentenced him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act. 
• The accused challenged the conviction and sentence before the Madras High Court, contending that the hostile testimony of the victim and her parents rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable and further attacking the DNA evidence on grounds of alleged gaps in the chain of custody and procedural irregularities in the furnishing of documents under Section 207 of the CrPC.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the evidentiary value of DNA evidence: The Court held that a positive DNA report establishing paternity is clinching forensic evidence capable of sustaining a conviction for penetrative sexual assault, even where direct testimonial evidence falters due to hostile witnesses. The Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory (PW13) had adequately explained the DNA results before the trial court, and those findings stood unimpeached. 
• On the integrity of the chain of custody: The Court distinguished the present case from Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, where DNA evidence was discarded due to tainted collection procedures. In the present case, the blood samples were collected and handled with due care following the birth of the child, and no objection regarding the collection procedure had been raised by the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The Court accordingly rejected the belated challenge to the chain of custody as untenable. 
• On the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim: The Court held that the voluntary statement recorded by the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC remained intact and could be used both for contradiction as well as corroboration of other evidence on record, thereby providing an additional basis for sustaining the prosecution's case alongside the DNA report. 
• On the procedural objection under Section 207 CrPC: The Court noted that the accused had been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the expert witnesses and had in fact exercised that right. The objection regarding the furnishing of documents under Section 207 CrPC was therefore rejected as having caused no prejudice to the accused. 
• On modification of sentence: While upholding the conviction under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, the Court took a calibrated approach to sentencing. Having regard to the hostile nature of the witnesses and the overall circumstances of the trial, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years. The conviction under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was set aside for want of evidence, the hostile testimony of the victim having left that charge uncorroborated. 
• Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, modified the sentence to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, and set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC.

What is the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012? 

Important Sections: 

• Section 2(1)(d): "Definition of Child" — Defines a child as any person below 18 years of age. 
• Section 3: "Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Covers any act of penile or non-penile penetration of a child's bodily orifices, or applying the mouth to the child's sexual organs, whether committed directly or by making the child perform the act. 
• Section 4: "Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Imprisonment of not less than 10 years, extendable to life. Where the child is below 16 years, the minimum is 20 years. 
• Section 5: "Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Applies where the offence is committed by a public servant, armed forces member, gang, relative, or person in a position of trust; or results in pregnancy, HIV, grievous hurt, or death; or the child is below 12 years. 
• Section 6: "Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment or death, with fine payable to the victim for rehabilitation. 
• Section 7: "Sexual Assault" — Covers touching of a child's sexual organs or any physical contact with sexual intent not involving penetration. Skin-to-skin contact is not required; sexual intent is the determining factor. 
• Section 8: "Punishment for Sexual Assault" — Imprisonment of not less than 3 years, extendable to 5 years, and fine. 
• Section 9 & 10: "Aggravated Sexual Assault and its Punishment" — Section 9 mirrors the aggravating circumstances of Section 5 as applied to sexual assault. Section 10 prescribes imprisonment of 5 to 7 years and fine. 
• Section 11 & 12: "Sexual Harassment and its Punishment" — Section 11 covers acts such as gestures, repeated contact, threats, or enticement with sexual intent. Section 12 prescribes imprisonment extendable to 3 years and fine. 
• Section 13–15: "Child Pornography" — Section 13 penalises use of a child for pornographic purposes. Section 14 prescribes 5 to 7 years imprisonment. Section 15 punishes storage of such material, with enhanced punishment for commercial possession. 
• Section 16–18: "Abetment and Attempt" — Abetment and attempt to commit any offence under the Act are independently punishable, with punishment extending to half the maximum prescribed for the substantive offence. 
• Section 19 & 21: "Mandatory Reporting" — Section 19 makes it obligatory for any person with knowledge of an offence to report it to the police. Section 21 makes non-reporting a punishable offence, though children are exempt. 
• Section 28 & 35: "Special Courts and Time Limit" — Section 28 mandates designation of a Special Court in each district. Section 35 requires evidence to be recorded within 30 days and trial completed within one year of cognizance. 
• Section 29 & 30: "Presumptions" — The accused is presumed to have committed the offence and to have acted with culpable mental state, unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Section 33 & 36: "Child-Friendly Trial" — Section 33 mandates a child-friendly court environment, prohibits aggressive questioning, and protects the child's identity. Section 36 prohibits direct exposure of the child to the accused during testimony. 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of V.K. Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2026), held that an accused person booked under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) cannot be denied copies of documents relied upon in the chargesheet merely on the ground that their supply may endanger the security and sovereignty of the country. Setting aside the Delhi High Court's order which had restricted the accused to mere inspection of documents, the Court directed the CBI to supply typed copies of all documents mentioned in the accused's application under Section 207 CrPC  (230 of BNSS) within two months.

What was the Background of V.K. Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant, VK Singh, a retired Major General of the Indian Army and former Joint Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW) from November 2000 to June 2004, was booked under Sections 3 and 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant had published a book titled "India's External Intelligence – Secrets of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)," which disclosed classified information about the Army and made secret matters of the State accessible to the general public and foreign countries, thereby endangering the security and sovereignty of India. 
• A chargesheet was filed by the CBI, with a request to the Trial Court to keep all classified documents forming part of the chargesheet in a sealed cover. 
• The Trial Court took cognizance and thereafter directed the supply of documents to the accused pursuant to an application filed under Section 207 CrPC. 
• Aggrieved by this direction, the prosecution moved the Delhi High Court, which modified the Trial Court's order and permitted the accused only to inspect the documents lying with the Trial Court, instead of receiving copies thereof. 
• The appellant challenged the High Court's order before the Supreme Court, contending that invocation of the OSA does not extinguish the accused's right to receive copies of documents forming part of the chargesheet.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the right of the accused to documents under Section 207 CrPC: The Court held that it is settled law that an accused cannot be denied access to documents forming part of the chargesheet, including those from the general diary, if such documents were obtained in good faith, are relevant to the prosecution's case, and their disclosure is considered necessary by the Public Prosecutor in the interests of justice and a fair trial. Withholding such documents could seriously prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial. 
• On the effect of invocation of the OSA: The Court categorically held that the mere invocation of the provisions of the OSA against an accused cannot be a ground to deny supply of documents relied upon in the chargesheet. The OSA does not override the statutory entitlement of an accused under the criminal law of the land. 
• On the CBI's argument under Section 14 of the OSA: The Court rejected the CBI's contention that supplying the documents would endanger the security interests of the country, terming it a mere apprehension that cannot curtail or extinguish the statutory right of the accused. Relying on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Satyen Bhowmick and Others, (1981), the Court held that if an accused is not supplied the relevant documents, it becomes impossible for him to effectively instruct his counsel and cross-examine prosecution witnesses. 
• On the sufficiency of safeguards under Section 5 of the OSA: The Court noted that sufficient safeguards already exist under Section 5 of the OSA, which makes it an offence for any person — including lawyers — to disclose sensitive information received in the course of proceedings outside the court. This provision itself serves as a deterrent against any leak of classified material. 
• On directions issued: The Court directed the CBI to supply typed copies of the documents referred to in the appellant's application under Section 207 CrPC within two months. It further directed that inspection of such documents, if needed, may be permitted during court proceedings by the Trial Court.

What is Section 230 of BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the successor provision to Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).  
• It mandates the supply of copies of the police report and accompanying documents to the accused and the victim (if represented by an advocate) in cases instituted on a police report, free of cost and within a stipulated time frame.  
• It is a foundational provision giving effect to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. 

Key Provisions: 

• Time Limit for Supply: The Magistrate is required to furnish the documents without delay and in no case beyond fourteen days from the date of production or appearance of the accused before the court. This specific time limit is a notable addition under the BNSS and was absent in Section 207 CrPC. 
• Documents to be Supplied: The following must be furnished free of cost to the accused and to the victim (if represented by an advocate): the police report; the First Information Report recorded under Section 173 BNSS; the statements recorded under Section 180(3) BNSS of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses, excluding any part for which the police officer has sought exclusion under Section 193(7) BNSS; the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under Section 183 BNSS; and any other document or relevant extract forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Section 193(6) BNSS. 
• First Proviso — Partial Disclosure of Excluded Statements: Where a police officer has sought exclusion of any part of a witness statement, the Magistrate may, after perusing that part and considering the reasons given for exclusion, direct that a copy of that part or such portion thereof as the Magistrate deems proper shall nevertheless be furnished to the accused. 
• Second Proviso — Voluminous Documents: Where the Magistrate is satisfied that any document is voluminous, he may, instead of supplying a physical copy, either furnish the copies through electronic means or direct that the accused and the victim shall only be allowed to inspect the document personally or through an advocate in court. 
• Third Proviso — Electronic Supply: Supply of documents in electronic form is explicitly recognised as valid and shall be considered as duly furnished for the purposes of this section. 
• Inclusion of Victim — Key Departure from CrPC: Unlike Section 207 CrPC, which mandated supply only to the accused, Section 230 BNSS extends the right of receiving copies of these documents to the victim as well, provided the victim is represented by an advocate. This reflects the BNSS's broader emphasis on victim-centric justice.

What is the Official Secrets Act, 1923? 

About: 

• The Official Secrets Act, 1923 (OSA) is a colonial-era legislation that traces its origin to the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1889, which was enacted primarily to suppress press dissent. It was made more stringent in 1904 under Lord Curzon and was finally revised and consolidated in its present form in 1923. It serves as India's primary legislation governing espionage, classified information, and unauthorised disclosure of sensitive State secrets. 

Purpose and Applicability: 

• The OSA aims to prevent espionage and the unauthorised disclosure of classified and sensitive information, thereby protecting India's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and strategic interests, particularly from foreign threats. The Act applies to all Indian citizens, including government officials, whether acting within India or abroad, and also extends to non-citizens if they are found to be involved in acts of espionage. 

Key Provisions: 

• Section 3 — Espionage and Acts Against National Security: This section criminalises espionage and activities prejudicial to the security of the State, including the possession of sensitive documents and the sharing of secret codes or classified information with unauthorised persons. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term extendable up to fourteen years. 
• Section 5 — Unauthorised Disclosure and Possession: This section penalises the unauthorised disclosure, possession, retention, or failure to return official documents or information. It also covers persons who knowingly receive such classified information, making both the discloser and the recipient liable under the Act. 
• Section 10 — Harbouring Spies: This section deals with the offence of harbouring or concealing persons known or reasonably suspected to be engaged in espionage or other activities prejudicial to the safety of the State.