List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court in Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) clarified that statements made by one accused in an FIR cannot be used against another accused, ruling that "a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature." 

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

• The appellant himself lodged an FIR dated 27.09.2019 with Korba Kotwali Police Station, District Korba, which was registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The FIR contained a detailed confession by the appellant describing how he killed Ram Babu Sharma after a quarrel over showing his girlfriend's photograph. 
• Upon investigation, the dead body was found in the deceased's house, and various articles including the alleged murder weapon (knife) were recovered. 
• The post-mortem report revealed six incised wounds on the deceased's body, with the cause of death being shock resulting from excessive bleeding from the right chest and injury to the upper lobe of the right lung. 
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. 
• The High Court partly allowed the appeal, altering the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC, giving benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. 
• The appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges and identified multiple fundamental errors in the High Court's approach and made the following key observations: 

• On Confessional FIR: It was held that the High Court's first misstep was treating the confessional FIR as admissible evidence. The Court emphasized that any confession made by an accused before police is prohibited under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be corroborated with medical evidence. 
• On Expert Evidence: The bench criticized the High Court for relying medical testimony, noting that "a doctor is not a witness of fact" and expert evidence is "only advisory in nature." Justice Pardiwala stressed that medical evidence alone cannot establish guilt in murder cases. 
• On Exception 4 Misapplication: It was found the High Court's application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC legally erroneous, observing that "the deceased was unarmed" and there was no "mutual fight" as required. The Court noted the appellant "took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner" by attacking a harmless victim. 
• On Evidence Adequacy: The bench concluded that with most panch witnesses turning hostile and no legally admissible evidence connecting the appellant to the crime, "the case is one of no legal evidence and therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted." 

What is FIR? 

• Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) states the provisions related to Information in cognizable cases. 
• Earlier it was covered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• It is commonly known as the FIR though this term is not used in the Code. As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.  
• The main objective of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity and to obtain true or nearly true versions of the events connected with a crime. 
• It provides a check on the undesirable tendency on the part of the prosecution to fill the gaps on their own. 
• To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions. 
• It can only be used for certain limited purposes such as: 
  • FIR is proved by the prosecution for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the maker. It can also be used to contradict the first informant. 
  • It can be used to show that the implication of the accused in the case was not an afterthought. 
  • Where FIR can be tendered in evidence as a part of the conduct of the informant, it can be used as substantive evidence. 
  • It the informant dies, and the FIR contains a statement as to the cause of his death or the circumstances relating to his death, it may be used as substantive evidence. 

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that a guardian’s consent cannot override a minor rape victim’s unwillingness to terminate her pregnancy, protecting both her autonomy and the unborn child’s right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025) ? 

• A father filed a petition seeking judicial permission to terminate his 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy, alleging she was raped and three FIRs were registered against the accused. 
• The petitioner approached Rajasthan High Court as natural guardian, contending his minor daughter was unable to make informed decisions due to her age. 
• Medical examination by four practitioners confirmed 22 weeks and 4 days pregnancy, with termination being legally permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. 
• The case took a significant turn when Rajasthan Legal Services Authority and Child Welfare Society submitted the victim's own statement to the court. 
• The minor revealed she had voluntarily left home due to alleged parental abuse and had been in a relationship with Kanhaiya for over four years. 
• The victim categorically expressed her desire to carry the pregnancy to full term and stated the termination petition was filed without her knowledge or consent. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Honourable Court observed that the fundamental principle governing reproductive autonomy recognizes a woman's inherent right to decide whether to continue with pregnancy or terminate it. This autonomy constitutes a solitary choice of the female concerned, and no legal provision or coercive force can compel termination against the pregnant person's wishes. 
• The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses not only the right to beget life but also encompasses dignity, autonomy, and bodily integrity. 
• The Court noted that while Section 3(4)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act requires natural guardian consent for pregnancy termination in cases involving minors, the legislation remains silent regarding situations where conflict exists between the minor's wishes and guardian's consent. This legislative gap necessitates judicial interpretation based on individual case circumstances. 
• The Court observed that the Supreme Court of India, in the matter of A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra, established that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prohibits interference with personal reproductive choices and leaves no scope for family or partner interference in reproductive decisions. When opinions differ between a minor and guardian, courts must regard the pregnant person's view as a significant factor in determining termination matters. 
• The judicial assessment revealed that the victim, despite her minority, demonstrated sufficient maturity and understanding to comprehend the consequences of her decision. Her unwillingness to undergo termination, coupled with medical confirmation of advanced pregnancy stage exceeding 22 weeks without complications endangering her health, established her capacity for informed decision-making. 
• The Court observed that granting parental permission for forced termination would violate both the victim's Right to Life and the constitutional rights of the unborn child under Article 21. The medical board's opinion indicated that the pregnancy stage could result in live birth, with diagnosed foetal abnormalities being non-lethal in nature. 
• In the absence of threats to maternal life or health, the Court determined that the victim's reproductive choice, being a facet of fundamental rights under Article 21, must be respected. The judicial observation emphasized that an unborn child possesses life and rights, and after embryonic development into foetus stage (approximately six weeks), heartbeat commences, establishing life within the constitutional framework. 
• The Court concluded that forcing termination against the victim's express wishes would constitute a violation of both maternal and foetal rights guaranteed under the Constitution, thereby necessitating rejection of the parental petition and ensuring comprehensive medical and social support for the victim throughout pregnancy and post-delivery period. 

What are the Right of Unborn Child Under Article 21 ? 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty of unborn children, though they are not considered natural persons. 
• The Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) established that unborn children have the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. 
• Life begins at conception and after six weeks when the embryo converts into foetus with heartbeat, it acquires constitutional protection under Article 21. 
• An unborn child has the fundamental right to be born and live a healthy life free from abnormalities as guaranteed under Article 21. 
• The State has a constitutional duty to protect the life and health of both pregnant women and their unborn children under Article 21. 
• The right of unborn children under Article 21 must be balanced against the mother's reproductive autonomy and constitutional rights. 
• Courts consider the unborn child's right to life as an important factor when deciding pregnancy termination cases, especially when there is conflict between the minor and guardian. 
• The legal maxim "Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur" treats unborn children as already born for protecting their constitutional interests. 
• Sections 312-316 of the Indian Penal Code recognize offences against unborn children, including culpable homicide for causing death of viable foetus. 
• Hindu Succession Act grants inheritance rights to unborn children, treating them as born persons for property purposes under constitutional framework. 
• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act acknowledges unborn children's rights while regulating circumstances for lawful abortion. 
• In absence of maternal health threats, the mother's reproductive choice must give way to the unborn child's right to be born under Article 21. 
• International conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child extend right to life protection to unborn children, supporting Indian constitutional interpretation.