List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the 1998 trial court conviction and life sentences of six men for the 1996 double murder in Kendrapara over a ₹1,000 loan dispute, ordering them to surrender within 15 days.  

• The Orissa High Court held this in the matter of Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha (2025). 

What was the Background of Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha Case,(2025) ? 

• In village Indupur, Kendrapara district, the first deceased (D-1), Sankarsan Sethy, earned his livelihood by catching and selling fish. About one and a half years before the incident, he had lent a hand loan of Rs. 1,000/- to his neighbour, accused Karunakar Sethy @ Nandu (A-2). Despite repeated demands, A-2 failed to repay the loan. While D-1 was in jail in connection with another case, A-2 paid him Rs. 200/- for expenses. After D-1’s release, around 15–20 days before the incident, he again approached A-2 for repayment of the remaining amount. 
• Two days before the occurrence, D-1 and his brother-in-law (D-2), Babuli Sethy, confronted A-2 at Tinimuhani, Kendrapara, which led to an altercation over the unpaid loan. D-2 had been staying at D-1’s house for 2–3 days before the incident. 
• On the morning of 19 June 1996, around 7:00 a.m., A-2 came to D-1’s house and invited him to the village Chandi temple, claiming he would repay the money there. Trusting this, D-1 and D-2 left together towards the temple. On the village road, they were intercepted and surrounded by a group of accused persons—A-2 and A-6 armed with tentas, A-3 with a crowbar, A-1 with a bhujali, and others with lathis. The assailants tied D-1 and D-2 with a rope, dragged them near the houses of some of the accused, and brutally assaulted them with the weapons, inflicting multiple serious injuries on various parts of their bodies. 
• The victims collapsed on the ground, bleeding and unconscious. The accused threatened the informant (P.W.7, father of D-1) not to intervene, removed the rope, and left, assuming the victims were dead. The family arranged an auto-rickshaw to take them to hospital. D-2 succumbed to his injuries en route to Kendrapara Hospital, while D-1, though admitted, died a few hours later. 
• Following an oral report by P.W.7, police registered Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 216 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 307, and 149 IPC. The investigation included seizure of blood-stained earth, weapons, and a rope allegedly used in the offence. Several accused were arrested; others were absconding initially. The post-mortem reports confirmed that both victims died of shock and haemorrhage caused by multiple injuries. 
• The charge sheet alleged that the attack was pre-planned and executed in prosecution of a common object to kill D-1, with D-2 being killed in the process. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in 1998 convicted the accused for murder offences—some under Section 302/34 IPC and others under Section 302/149 IPC—and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine. The convicts then filed an appeal before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court found the post-mortem evidence established homicidal deaths of both deceased, with injuries consistent with the assault described by the prosecution witnesses. 
• The dispatch of the FIR to court the next day was held not to be delayed in any suspicious manner; the Magistrate’s signature on the FIR showed it reached court promptly. 
• It reiterated that an FIR is not an encyclopedia; omissions of minute details do not make it unreliable, especially when lodged by a rustic informant in a distressed state. 
• Related eye-witnesses were considered natural witnesses since the offence occurred near their homes; mere relationship does not render them “interested” or unreliable if their testimony is otherwise credible. 
• Discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence were minor; medical evidence did not make the ocular account improbable or rule it out entirely. 
• Lapses by the Investigating Officer—such as not recording a dying declaration or preparing a detailed spot map—were not fatal where ocular testimony was cogent and trustworthy. 
• Under Section 293 CrPC, it was not mandatory to summon the forensic expert when the chemical examination report was admitted in evidence without objection from the defence. 
• The circumstances, including the pre-planned manner in which A-2 lured D-1 from his house and the group’s armed attack, showed the accused shared a common object and acted in furtherance of it, attracting liability under Sections 302/34 and 302/149 IPC. 

What is Section 329 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• About: 
  • Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 deals with "Reports of certain Government scientific experts" and falls under the category of statements and evidence. 
  • This section was previously covered under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. 
  • Section 329 of BNSS essentially carries forward the same provisions with similar language and scope, maintaining continuity in how scientific expert reports are handled in criminal proceedings. 
  • This provision provides criminal trials by allowing scientific evidence to be admitted through written reports, reducing delays while preserving the court's power to examine experts when necessary. 
• Key Provisions of Section 329 BNSS: 
  • Purpose: This section allows reports from specified government scientific experts to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without requiring the expert to personally appear in court initially. 
• Main Features: 
  • Admissibility of Reports: Documents purporting to be reports from designated government scientific experts can be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or proceeding under BNSS. 
  • Court's Discretion: The court may summon and examine the expert regarding their report if deemed necessary. 
  • Deputation Provision: If the expert cannot attend personally, they may send a responsible officer who is familiar with the case to represent them in court (unless the court specifically requires personal appearance). 
• Covered Experts: The section specifically applies to:  
  • Chemical Examiners/Assistant Chemical Examiners 
  • Chief Controller of Explosives 
  • Director of Finger Print Bureau 
  • Director of Haffkeine Institute, Bombay 
  • Directors/Deputy Directors of Forensic Science Laboratories 
  • Government Serologists 
  • Other scientific experts notified by State/Central Government 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Augustine George Masih and Atul S. Chandurkar in Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors. (2025) ruled that parties cannot take contradictory stands by first accepting arbitration awards then later challenging their validity. 

What was the Background of Sanjit Singh Salwan & Ors. v. Sardar Inderjit Singh Salwan & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• Both parties claimed to be trustees of Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust (established 1979).  
• Respondents filed suit for perpetual injunction against appellants and specifically stated in their plaint that the suit was not barred by Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
• During the appeal, the parties mutually agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration by Shri Vipin Sodhi. The arbitrator passed award on December 30, 2022, which both parties accepted. District Court disposed of appeal in terms of compromise deed on January 27, 2023. 
• Later, when appellants sought enforcement through Section 9 application under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, respondents challenged the award's validity, claiming it was nullity under Section 92 CPC.  
• Both the Commercial Court and High Court accepted this challenge. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Court emphasized the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, stating, "Having specifically pleaded that the suit filed by them was not hit by the provisions of Section 92 of Code, it would not be now open for them to oppose the validity of the compromise deed by raising such ground." The Court further held that:  

• Parties cannot "blow hot and cold" by taking inconsistent positions. 
• The court found respondents had consciously pleaded suit was maintainable, then participated in arbitration willingly. 
• Respondents initially stated their suit was not barred by Section 92 CPC. 
• They willingly participated in arbitration and obtained favorable consent decree. 
• Later took "completely opposite stand" challenging award's validity. 
• Appellants had altered their position to their detriment by complying with award terms. 

Final Directions: 

• Set aside Commercial Court and High Court orders. 
• Allowed appellants to revive execution proceedings. 
• Directed execution proceedings be decided on merits.

What is the Doctrine of Estoppel by Conduct?

About: 

• Prevents parties from taking contradictory positions that prejudice others who relied on their earlier conduct. 
• Based on the principle that parties cannot approbate and reprobate the same instrument. 

Essential Elements: 

• Representation of existing fact by one party. 
• Reliance by other party on such representation. 
• Detriment suffered by relying party.

What is Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 

About: 

• Section 9 empowers courts to grant interim protection before, during, or after arbitral proceedings.  
• Any party can seek relief including appointment of guardians, preservation/custody of goods, securing disputed amounts, detention/inspection of property, and interim injunctions. 

Key Limitations: 

• Once arbitral tribunal is constituted, courts cannot entertain Section 9 applications unless tribunal's remedies under Section 17 are ineffective 
• If interim measures are granted before arbitration starts, proceedings must commence within 90 days 

Purpose:  

• To ensure effective arbitration process and enforcement of final awards through protective measures.