List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (Dead) & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2026), acquitted a murder convict after 36 years of incarceration, holding that a conviction based on "last seen together" evidence cannot be sustained where prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the sole last-seen witness failed to identify the surviving appellant, the alleged motive rested on rumour, and the chain of circumstances was fatally incomplete.  

• The Court further directed release of a forfeited motorcycle, finding that forfeiture under Section 452 CrPC (Section 498 of BNSS) cannot proceed where the recovery witness was not examined and the vehicle's owner was neither an accused nor a witness. 

What was the Background of Laxmi Kant @ Pappu (Dead) & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

1. On November 2, 1986, Deepak Kumar, aged approximately 17 years, went missing from Mohalla Dilerganj, Kasba Shahabad, District Hardoi after being seen leaving on a Rajdoot motorcycle with Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, son of Natthu Lal, in whose house the deceased ran an electrical goods shop. Rumours of an alleged illicit relationship between the deceased and Laxmi Kant's married sister were cited as the motive. 
2. The following morning, an unidentified body bearing firearm injuries was found near the Jamaur culvert, Shahjahanpur, and was subsequently identified by the deceased's father as Deepak Kumar. A Rajdoot motorcycle was recovered from the house of a relative of the appellant Sunil Kumar. 
3. A check FIR was registered under Section 364 IPC at Police Station Shahabad, District Hardoi on November 3, 1986. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 364, 302, and 120-B IPC against four accused — Laxmi Kant alias Pappu, Sunil Kumar, Sri Kant, and Natthu Lal. 
4. The Sessions Judge, Hardoi, by judgment dated March 4, 1989, acquitted Natthu Lal and Sri Kant but convicted Laxmi Kant alias Pappu and Sunil Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing each to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000. The motorcycle was ordered forfeited to the State. 
5. Both convicts filed criminal appeals. Laxmi Kant alias Pappu died during the pendency of the appeal; his appeal stood abated by order dated February 15, 2024. The appeal survived only on behalf of Sunil Kumar. Puttoo Lal Trivedi, owner of the motorcycle, filed a separate criminal appeal challenging the forfeiture order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On last seen together evidence: PW-1, the sole last-seen witness, did not name or identify the surviving appellant Sunil Kumar, rendering his testimony entirely irrelevant to Sunil Kumar's conviction. The prosecution also withheld Sushil Kumar Singh, the only independent witness who allegedly identified the motorcycle number, without offering any explanation for his non-examination. 
• On testimony of related witness: The testimony of PW-4, the deceased's aunt, was rejected as highly improbable — the Court noting that persons harbouring a common intention to commit murder would not repeatedly pass in front of an acquaintance's house when an alternative route was available. 
• On hostile witnesses: The prosecution's star witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, turned hostile. PW-6 specifically stated that his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded under fear and police misrepresentation. The Court held that such statements cannot be used as substantive evidence, and the dying declaration argument consequently failed. 
• On motive: The love letters relied upon could not be conclusively attributed to their alleged author, and the Court held that rumour cannot substitute proof of motive. 
• On the Panchsheel test: Applying the five golden principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Chetan v. State of Karnataka, the Court found the chain of circumstances fatally incomplete, as the prosecution had failed to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 
• On forfeiture under Section 452 CrPC (Section 498 of BNSS): The Court held that forfeiture cannot be sustained where the recovery witness was not examined, no reason was recorded for denying return of the vehicle, and the owner was neither an accused nor a witness in the case. It directed release of the motorcycle to the appellant-owner. 

What is the "Last Seen Together" Doctrine? 

Concept and Meaning: 

• The "Last Seen Together" theory is a principle of circumstantial evidence used in criminal jurisprudence. It applies when two persons are seen alive together, and after a short interval, one is found dead while the other remains alive.  
• The shorter the time gap between when they were last seen together and when the body is discovered, the stronger the presumption that the surviving person caused the death.  
• This presumption rests on the logic that a brief interval rules out the possibility of a third party committing the crime. 

Nature of Evidence: 

• Last seen together evidence is secondary and circumstantial in nature. It is invoked primarily in the absence of direct evidence or eyewitnesses.  
• The theory does not, by itself, lead to a conclusion of guilt — it must be supported by a chain of corroborative circumstances that together complete the evidentiary puzzle.  
• If even one link in the chain is missing or broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 

Burden of Proof: 

• Under ordinary criminal law, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the accused presumed innocent.  
• However, the Last Seen Together doctrine operates to shift the burden of proof onto the accused.  
• Once the prosecution establishes that the accused was the last person seen with the deceased, it becomes the accused's responsibility to explain the circumstances.  

Applicability: 

• This theory finds application chiefly in serious crimes such as murder, kidnapping and rape where direct evidence is often unavailable. 

Judicial Interpretation: 

• Courts have applied this theory cautiously, on a case-to-case basis. In Jaswant Gir v. Punjab (2005), the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the time gap between the deceased boarding a vehicle and the body being discovered was not sufficiently narrow, and other circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain.  
• Conversely, in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1998), the accused was convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl because last seen evidence was corroborated by other circumstances.  
• Similarly, in Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012),  conviction for the rape and murder of a three-year-old followed because the accused was the last person seen with the child and the totality of evidence established guilt.  
• In Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2003), the court held that even without proof of homicidal death, conviction on the basis of last seen together is permissible in appropriate circumstances. 

Why in News? 

The Union Government has reappointed Tushar Mehta as the Solicitor General of India (SGI) for a further term of three years with effect from July 1, 2026. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) approved this reappointment through an order issued by the Department of Personnel and Training on June 20, 2026.  

Background 

• Tushar Mehta has been serving as Solicitor General of India since October 10, 2018, making him the second-longest serving SGI after C. K. Daphtary, who was also the first holder of the post from January 28, 1950. 
• Mehta was previously reappointed with effect from July 1, 2023, for a term running until June 30, 2026. 
• He enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Gujarat in 1987 and was designated Senior Advocate by the Gujarat High Court in 2008. He was appointed Additional Solicitor General of India in 2014 before being elevated to Solicitor General in 2018. 
• The SGI is the second-highest law officer of the country, subordinate to the Attorney General for India, and is assisted by Additional Solicitors General.

Key Appointments Approved by the ACC 

• Solicitor General — Supreme Court: Tushar Mehta reappointed for three years w.e.f. July 1, 2026. 
• Additional Solicitors General — Supreme Court (w.e.f. July 1, 2026): Vikramjit Banerjee and K.M. Nataraj. 
• Additional Solicitors General — Supreme Court (w.e.f. June 30, 2026): Suryaprakash V. Raju, N. Venkataraman, and Aishwarya Bhati. 
• Additional Solicitor General — Delhi High Court: Chetan Sharma reappointed for six months w.e.f. July 1, 2026, or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 

What is the Solicitor General of India? 

• The Solicitor General of India is the second-highest law officer of the Union, subordinate to the Attorney General for India and assisted by Additional Solicitors General. 
• Unlike the Attorney General, whose office is a constitutional post under Article 76 of the Constitution, the posts of the SGI and ASGs are neither constitutional nor statutory in character. 
• The conditions of service are governed by the Law Officers (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. 
• The ACC recommends and approves the appointment of the SGI; the proposal is typically moved at the level of the Joint Secretary or Law Secretary in the Department of Legal Affairs, with the approval of the Minister of Law & Justice, before proceeding to the ACC and the President. 
• Duties of the SGI include:  
  • Advising the Government of India on legal matters referred to him. 
  • Appearing in the Supreme Court or any High Court on behalf of the Union in cases to which it is a party or has an interest. 
  • Representing the Government in presidential references under Article 143 of the Constitution. 
  • Discharging other functions assigned by or under the Constitution or applicable law. 
• Restrictions on private practice: A law officer may not hold briefs for private parties, advise any party against the Government of India or a Public Sector Undertaking, defend an accused in criminal proceedings without government permission, or accept any corporate appointment without prior sanction.