List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that a Sessions Court can summon an additional accused at the committal stage under Section 193 the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (CrPC) as cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v State of UP and Anr.(2025).

What was the Background of Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v State of UP and Anr.(2025) Case? 

• Shivwati, wife of complainant Vijaylal, went missing on 21st November 2018 and her dead body was found on 24th November 2018 in bushes with a sal noose around her neck.  
• The husband filed an FIR naming Ajay as the suspect, alleging he had an extra-marital affair with the victim.  
• During investigation, the petitioner Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar's name surfaced when witnesses stated he had made extra-judicial confessions about his involvement. 
• The Crime Branch later gave a clean chit to the petitioner and filed chargesheet only against Ajay on 21st February 2019. 
• The case was committed to Sessions Court on 11th March 2019, and on 2nd April 2019, the victim's husband filed an application under Section 193 CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused.  
• The trial court took five years to decide this application and ultimately allowed it based on evidence including witness testimonies, call detail records showing 17 calls between the deceased and petitioner, eyewitness accounts of petitioner accompanying the victim, extra-judicial confession, and post-mortem confirming rape and strangulation. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Trial Court Observations: 
  • The trial court observed illicit relations between deceased and both accused persons who conspired together.  
  • The court noted suspicious activities and extensive phone communications (17 calls) between deceased and petitioner. 
  • The court gave weight to extra-judicial confession and post-mortem confirming rape and strangulation. The court concluded sufficient prima facie evidence existed to summon petitioner under Sections 376 and 302 IPC. 
• High Court Observations: 
  • The High Court observed the criminal revision was not maintainable due to prior Section 482 application for same relief.  
  • The court observed Sessions Court validly exercised Section 193 jurisdiction and order could not be challenged, relying on Dharam Pal case. 
• Supreme Court Observations” 
  • The Supreme Court observed courts take cognizance of "offence" not "offender" and can summon additional accused when involvement becomes apparent. The court observed commitment under current CrPC is of "case" not "accused" unlike old Code.  
  • The court observed Sessions Court has complete jurisdiction to summon any individual accused after committal.  
  • The court observed petitioner's Section 319 argument was misconceived as it stands on different footing. 
  • The court observed it becomes court's duty to find real offenders and summon others involved in crime. 
  • The court observed allowing investigating agencies to exonerate accused would hamper justice, emphasizing procedure should be handmaid of justice not roadblock. 

What is Committal Stage? 

• The committal stage is a crucial procedural step where a Magistrate examines the police report and materials to determine whether the case should be tried by a Court of Session.  
• During committal proceedings, the Magistrate assesses whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and commits the "case" rather than individual accused persons.  
• At the committal stage, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence for the limited purpose of commitment, after which the Sessions Court assumes complete original jurisdiction over the matter. 
• The committal stage serves as a filter mechanism ensuring that only appropriate cases reach the Sessions Court while preserving the court's power to summon additional accused persons based on materials available on record. 

What is Section 213 BNSS ? 

• Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(BNSS), which corresponds to Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), provides that no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate.  
• This provision establishes the fundamental principle that Sessions Courts derive their jurisdiction to try cases through the committal process conducted by Magistrates.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) delivered a significant judgment acquitting the appellant and establishing important precedents regarding confessional First Information Reports (FIRs), expert witness evidence, and the application of exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 

What was the Background of Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Case? 

Case Origins: 

• The appellant himself lodged an FIR on 27th September, 2019, at Korba Kotwali Police Station confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. 
• The FIR contained detailed confessional statements about how the appellant killed the deceased after a quarrel over showing his girlfriend's photograph. 
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• The High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC, applying Exception 4 to Section 300. 

Medical Evidence: 

• Post-mortem examination revealed six incised wounds on the deceased's body, including fatal injuries to the chest and head. 
• The cause of death was determined as shock resulting from excessive bleeding from the right side of chest and injury to the upper lobe of right lung. 
• Dr. R.K. Divya (PW-10) conducted the post-mortem and testified about the homicidal nature of death. 

Investigation Details: 

• The investigating officer recovered the knife allegedly used in the crime from the deceased's house. 
• Clothes and other articles were collected and sent for forensic analysis. 
• Most witnesses turned hostile during the trial, weakening the prosecution case. 

Court's Observations 

The Supreme Court made several critical observations highlighting fundamental errors in the lower courts' approach to evidence evaluation: 

• Confessional FIR Inadmissibility: The High Court wrongly relied on the appellant's confessional FIR as evidence, violating Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (IEA) which makes confessions to police officers absolutely inadmissible. Such FIRs can only be used as evidence of conduct under Section 8 or for discoveries under Section 27.
• Expert Witness Evidence Limitations: Medical expert testimony is purely advisory and cannot be the sole basis for murder conviction. The Court emphasized that doctors are not witnesses of fact but provide specialized opinions, and accused cannot be held guilty solely on medical evidence without corroborating direct or circumstantial evidence.
• Incorrect Exception 4 Application: The High Court wrongly applied Exception 4 (sudden fight) to Section 300 IPC. This exception requires mutual combat between parties on equal footing, no premeditation, no undue advantage, and no cruel conduct. Here, the deceased was unarmed and harmless, making it inappropriate. If any exception applied, it should have been Exception 1 (grave and sudden provocation).
• Section 27 and Section 8 Issues: No proper discovery under Section 27 was established as panch witnesses failed to depose exact statements leading to discoveries. While conduct under Section 8 was relevant, it alone cannot justify conviction in grave charges like murder.
• Overall Evidence Failure: The case was based on "no legal evidence" due to inadmissible confessional FIR (main evidence excluded), insufficient medical evidence, hostile panch witnesses providing no corroborating testimony, and wrong legal applications by lower courts.

What is Section 8 of IEA/ Section 6 of BSA? 

• Section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) establishes the relevancy of facts showing motive, preparation, and conduct in legal proceedings.  
• Previously, it was covered under Section 8 of the IEA.

The provision encompasses two key aspects: 

• Sub-section (1) - Motive and Preparation 
  • Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. 
• Sub-section (2) - Previous or Subsequent Conduct 
  • The conduct of any party, agent, or person (in criminal proceedings) is relevant if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, whether such conduct was previous or subsequent to the fact in issue. 
• Key Principles 
  • Motive Evidence: Facts demonstrating why a person would commit an act are admissible to establish connection between the accused and the offence. 
  • Preparation Evidence: Acts showing systematic planning or readiness to commit the offence are relevant to prove intention and premeditation. 
  • Conduct Relevancy: Both pre-crime and post-crime behaviour is admissible if it has logical connection to the facts in issue, including:  
    • Absconding after commission of crime 
    • Destroying or concealing evidence 
    • Procuring false witnesses 
    • Flight upon discovery 
    • Possession of stolen property 
  • Temporal Scope: The section covers conduct occurring before, during, or after the alleged incident, provided it influences or is influenced by the fact in issue. 
  • Exclusion of Statements: Pure statements are excluded unless they accompany and explain acts, though they may be relevant under other provisions of the Act. 

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

• This section deals with how much information received from accused may be proved. 
• It is covered under proviso to Section 23 (2) of BSA.  
• It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 
• This section is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – a fact is actually discovered as a consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object. 

Source: Kerala High Court   

Why in News? 

Recently, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath held that unintentional failure to lower the National Flag after sunset does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, in the absence of deliberate intent or mens rea. 

• The  Kerala High Court  held this in the matter of Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala (2025). 

What was the Background of Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala (2025) Case ? 

• The petitioner was working as the Secretary of Angamaly Municipality in 2015. During the Independence Day celebrations that year, he was responsible for hoisting the National Flag at the municipal office. 
• On Independence Day 2015, the National Flag was hoisted as part of the official celebrations. However, the flag remained flying for nearly two days after it was hoisted, continuing until noon two days later, without being lowered after sunset as required by protocol. 
• The Angamaly Police Station registered a suo motu FIR (First Information Report) against the petitioner, meaning the police initiated the case on their own without any complaint being filed. The case was filed under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read together with Part-III, Section III, Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002. 
• The petitioner was accused of committing an offence by failing to lower the National Flag after sunset, which was alleged to be a violation of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and the Flag Code of India, 2002. 
• After the police filed their Final Report in the case, the magistrate court took cognizance of the matter, meaning the court officially recognized the case and decided to proceed with it. Faced with criminal proceedings, the petitioner approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash (cancel) the case against him. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that merely failing to lower the National Flag after sunset cannot be considered an act that shows gross disrespect or insult to the National Flag.  
• The Court emphasized that unless there is deliberate action with clear intention to insult national honour or show disrespect to the National Flag, the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 cannot be applied. 
• The Court noted that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had any criminal intention (mens rea) to show disrespect to the National Flag or to undermine the sovereignty of the nation. The Court found that the petitioner's failure to lower the flag was due to oversight or negligence, not deliberate disrespect. 
• The Court acknowledged that the right to fly the National Flag with respect and dignity is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of of India, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). 
• The Court examined Section 2 and its Explanation 4 under the 1971 Act and found that the specific act of not lowering the flag after sunset is not explicitly mentioned as an offence under this provision. Since there was no evidence that the petitioner had shown "gross affront or indignity or insult to the National Flag" as defined in Explanation 4, the Court concluded that no offence under the Act was established. 
• The Court made a significant observation that the Flag Code of 2002 contains executive instructions from the Central Government and therefore does not constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that while the Flag Code is a mandatory code of conduct for all Indian citizens, penal consequences cannot be imposed unless there is a specific statutory provision authorizing such punishment. 

Why is Flying the National Flag Considered a Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? 

• Constitutional Right: Flying the National Flag with respect is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) as part of freedom of speech and expression. 
• Symbolic Expression: It is a form of non-verbal, symbolic speech showing patriotism, pride, and national allegiance. 
• Qualified Right: This right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for public order, morality, and national dignity. 
• Limits on Use: Disrespectful or commercial use of the flag is not protected. 
• Flag Code Status: The Flag Code is not a law but only executive instructions and cannot restrict fundamental rights. 
• Statutory Regulation: Use of the flag is regulated by the 1950 and 1971 Acts to prevent misuse and insult. 
• Duty and Protection: Citizens have a fundamental duty (Article 51-A) to respect the flag, and courts protect this right while upholding its dignity.