List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi of the Orissa High Court, while hearing an appeal filed by two gang-rape convicts, held that the genuineness of a victim's date of birth as recorded in a school admission register cannot be disputed in appeal unless specific questions were put in cross-examination to the concerned witness to prove that the entry was incorrect, fabricated, or made on an erroneous basis. 

What was the Background of the Case? 

• The case arose from an alleged gang-rape of a minor girl. 
• On the night of 03.04.2016, when the victim's parents were away from the village, the appellants allegedly visited her house, caught hold of her upon her opening the door, gagged her mouth, and forcibly carried her to a hillock near the village. 
• The victim was allegedly confined from the night of 03.04.2016 until the morning of 05.04.2016, during which she was tied, denied food, and repeatedly raped by both appellants. 
• On the morning of 05.04.2016, the appellants abandoned her near her house, following which she disclosed the incident to the assembled villagers. 
• An FIR was registered, and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 
• The Special Court framed charges under Sections 363, 366, 376-D, and 376(2)(n) IPC, along with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act, and convicted the appellants on all counts. 
• On appeal, the primary question before the High Court was the proof of the victim's age, since the prosecution relied on the school admission register to establish her date of birth as 17.12.1999, making her a minor at the time of the offence. 
• The appellants challenged this evidence on the ground that the former Headmaster who produced the register admitted in cross-examination that he could not state the basis of the entry, as he was not posted at the school at the relevant time. 
• Reliance was placed on Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 863, to argue that a school register whose foundational basis is unknown cannot constitute reliable proof of age. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the defence's failure to specifically challenge the entry: The Court noted that despite prolonged cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2, PW-16, and PW-18, no specific suggestion was ever put to any witness that the date of birth entry in Ext-13 was incorrect, fabricated, or erroneously made. This omission was held to be of decisive significance, leaving the statutory presumption attached to the register wholly unrebutted. 
• On distinguishing Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana: The Court held that the critical difference between the present case and Birka Shiva lay in how the challenge was mounted. In Birka Shiva, the defence had specifically challenged the basis of the entry through targeted cross-examination and led material to show it was unreliable. No such specific challenge was made in the present case. 
• On the principle of confrontation in cross-examination: Relying on Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs (2013), the Court reiterated the settled principle that a party seeking to dispute the correctness of a witness's statement must specifically confront the witness with that part of the testimony during cross-examination, failing which the witness's credibility cannot later be impeached. 
• On the invocation of Section 34 of the POCSO Act: The appellants objected that Section 34 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to determining the age of the accused, could not be invoked to determine the age of the victim. Relying on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court held that Section 34 was rightly used as a procedural conduit to import the established Juvenile Justice Act hierarchy for age determination, since the POCSO Act contains no dedicated provision for determining a child victim's age, and the Supreme Court's approval of this hierarchy in Jarnail Singh was not confined to the accused alone. 
• On the final outcome: Having upheld the prosecution's evidence on the victim's minority, and after examining the remaining evidence on record, the Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 363, 366, and 376-D of the IPC read with Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO Act. 

What is Section 34 of the POCSO Act? 

Section 34 of the POCSO Act – Procedure in case of commission of offence by child and determination of age by Special Court: 

• Sub-section (1) — Offence committed by a child: Where any offence under this Act is committed by a child, such child shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016). 
• Sub-section (2) — Determination of age by Special Court: If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is a child or not, such question shall be determined by the Special Court after satisfying itself about the age of such person, and it shall record in writing its reasons for such determination. 
• Sub-section (3) — Effect of subsequent proof of incorrect age: No order made by the Special Court shall be deemed to be invalid merely by any subsequent proof that the age of a person as determined by it under sub-section (2) was not the correct age of that person. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, in Lakshmi v. Gopi & Ors. (2026), held that a first appellate court cannot overturn a trial court's judgment merely by declaring it erroneous without independently evaluating the evidence and recording its own reasons, while setting aside a Kerala High Court judgment in a partition suit and expunging adverse remarks made against the trial judge. 

What was the Background of Lakshmi v. Gopi & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute concerned the estate of one Thankam, who died on August 27, 2011. 
• Her daughter instituted a suit for partition, contending that she had no knowledge of any testamentary disposition executed by her mother. 
• The defendants resisted the suit by relying on a registered Will dated March 22, 1999, claiming that Thankam had bequeathed her properties in their favour. 
• The trial court held that the defendants had failed to prove the Will in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and passed a preliminary decree for partition, dividing the property into ten shares with the plaintiff entitled to a two-tenth share. 
• The Kerala High Court reversed the decree through a brief judgment and upheld the Will. 
• Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the duty of a first appellate court: The Court held that while exercising first appellate jurisdiction, it is impermissible for a High Court to overturn a reasoned trial court judgment through a cryptic order devoid of independent analysis. 
• On the status of the High Court as a court of law: The Court observed that although the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, it remains first and foremost a court of law, and permitting such orders to stand would send the wrong signal that trial court judgments can be set aside without due effort or application of mind. 
• On the mechanical approach adopted by the High Court: The Court found that the High Court had merely extracted the trial court's reasoning and brushed it aside through an observation that it did not understand the dispute, without discussing the "extraneous consideration" it claimed had influenced the trial court, or engaging with the evidence on record. 
• On the correcting role of an appellate court: The Court clarified that however erroneous the reasoning of the trial court may be, an appellate court, while correcting it, is duty-bound to give its own reasons for what it believes to be the correct application of law as laid down by the Supreme Court or provided by statute. 
• On the conduct expected of appellate courts: The Bench remarked that the attitude of appellate courts should be that of "a friend, philosopher and a guide" rather than a superior authority merely pointing out errors committed by courts below. 
• On relief granted: The appeal was allowed, the Kerala High Court's judgment was set aside, the adverse remarks against the trial judge were expunged, and the first appeal was restored to the High Court for fresh consideration. 

What are the Requirements for Proving a Will? 

• Sanctity of proof: Since proving a Will is necessarily an event after the testator's death, a certain level of sanctity attaches to it. 
• Proof of signature: If the Will is signed by the testator, this must be established under Section 67 of the Evidence Act, with recourse to Sections 45 and 47 where required. 
• Attestation: The Will must be attested in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, either by the testator signing or affixing his mark, or by a third party signing on his direction and in his presence, requiring examination of two attesting witnesses in such a case. 
• Testamentary capacity: The testator must be shown to be of sound mind within the meaning of Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act. 
• Examination of witness: At least one attesting witness must be examined in court to prove execution of the Will. 
• Three-question test: The court must satisfy itself, to the standard of a prudent mind (mathematical precision not being required), on: (a) whether the testator signed the Will; (b) whether he/she understood its nature; (c) the effect of its dispositions; and (d) whether he/she signed it knowing its contents.

What is a Will? 

About: 

• A Will is a formal declaration by which a person (the "testator") states how their assets and property are to be distributed after their death. 
• It can be made by any person of sound mind who has attained the age of 21 years. 
• The subject is primarily governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 

Key Legal Aspects of a Will: 

• Validity: Registration of a Will is not mandatory; however, it must be signed by the testator and attested by at least two witnesses who witnessed the testator's signature. 
• Revocation: A testator retains the right to alter, nullify, or revoke a Will at any point during their lifetime. 
• Types of Wills: Wills are broadly classified into privileged Wills (executed by soldiers, airmen, or mariners) and unprivileged Wills. Other recognised forms include concurrent, mutual, joint, and holographic Wills. 
• Probate — Not Mandatory: Probate, being the formal proving of a Will before a court, is not compulsory in India. However, courts have reaffirmed that a Will must still be strictly proved in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. 
• Intestate Succession: Where a person dies without executing a Will, their property devolves as per the applicable succession law, such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
• Living Wills: In the context of passive euthanasia and end-of-life medical care, the Supreme Court permits the execution of "Living Wills" — advance directives recording a person's wishes regarding medical treatment in the event they become terminally ill and are unable to make decisions themselves.