List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man found guilty of aggravated sexual assault on a 4-year-old girl, rejecting his plea for acquittal based on the absence of medical evidence and eyewitness testimony, holding that the consistent and credible evidence of the child's parents was sufficient to sustain the conviction. 

• The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria in the case of Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) while reducing the sentence from seven years to six years of rigorous imprisonment, considering the period already served.

What was the Background of Dinesh Kumar Jaldhari v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Case? 

Incident Details: 

• On 15^th August 2021, the victim's mother (PW-3) discovered the appellant wearing only half shorts, sitting near her 4-year-old daughter's legs at approximately 4:30 PM. 
• Upon confrontation, the appellant fled the scene. 
• The child's clothing was found inappropriate, and she was crying in pain, complaining of pain in her private part. 
• The birth certificate established the victim's date of birth as 13th February 2017. 

Legal Proceedings: 

• FIR No. 52 of 2021 was registered at Duldula Police Station, Jashpur under IPC Sections 376, 376AB and POCSO Act Sections 5 and 6. 
• The victim underwent medical examination and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. 
• The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 9(m) and 10 of the POCSO Act with seven years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine. 
• The High Court of Chhattisgarh confirmed the conviction on 6th March 2025.

What were the Court's Observations? 

Consistent Witness Testimony: 

• The victim's parents (PW-2 and PW-3) provided consistent and detailed accounts of the incident. 
• The mother testified finding the appellant in compromising circumstances with the child's underwear pulled down to her knees and frock pulled up to the chest. 

Medical Evidence: 

• Dr. Priyanka Toppo (PW-6) noted redness in the vagina, though no external injuries or bleeding were found. 
• The Court held that medical evidence takes a backseat when ocular evidence is consistent and cogent. 

Child Victim's Behaviour as Evidence: 

During testimony on 16th November 2021: 

• When shown the accused with his mask removed, the victim (PW-1) became frightened and refused to look at him. 
• The accused had to be sent out, and evidence recording was stopped. 
• After multiple attempts, the 4-year-old victim continued crying and could not speak, leading to closure of her examination.

Court's Decision: 

• The Court observed: "The fact that the victim was in a frightened state upon seeing the accused is a pointer in itself. The shock related to the happening of the incident which continued with the victim post-incident made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim who was a 4 year-old girl." 
• The Supreme Court upheld the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, finding the appreciation of evidence to be "eminently legal and proper, warranting no interference." 
• While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence from 7 years to 6 years of rigorous imprisonment. 
• The appellant had already undergone imprisonment for approximately 4 years and 5 months at the time of the judgment. 
• The fine amount was modified to Rs. 6,000/- with simple imprisonment of one year in default of payment.

What is POCSO Act, 2012? 

About: 

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development. 
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.  
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.  
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents. 
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO amendment bill, 2019.  
• Section 4 of this Act prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault.  
• Under Section 2(1) (d) of the POCSO Act, a child is defined as any person below the age of 18 years. 

Sections 9 and 10 of POCSO Act: 

Section 9 - Aggravated Sexual Assault: Defines circumstances attracting more severe punishment, including: 

• Section 9(m): Sexual assault on a child below twelve years of age. 
• Assault by persons in position of trust or authority. 
• Causing grievous hurt or pregnancy. 

Section 10 - Punishment for Aggravated Sexual Assault: 

• Imprisonment for minimum five years, extendable to seven years. 
• Offender shall also be liable to pay fine. 

Source: Patna High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Arun Kumar Jha of the Patna High Court in the case of Pushpraj Bajaj v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) set aside the cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna, for failure to provide the accused an opportunity of pre-cognizance hearing as mandated under the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

What was the Background of Pushpraj Bajaj v. Union of India and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR dated 14.03.2024 based on FIRs against Sanjeev Hans and others for amassing assets while in public service. 
• The petitioner Pushpraj Bajaj was not named in the original FIRs or ECIR but was arrested on 22.10.2024. 
• The ED filed a Prosecution Complaint on 16.12.2024 and Supplementary Complaints on 08.01.2025 and 09.01.2025 under PMLA, naming the petitioner as accused no.5. 
• On 08.01.2025, the Special Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA without providing any opportunity of hearing to the accused. 
• The petitioner challenged the cognizance order for violating the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing requirement under Section 223(1) of BNSS.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court held that the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS mandates that "no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard," incorporating principles of natural justice. 
• Since the complaint was filed after 01.07.2024 (when BNSS came into force) and cognizance was taken on 08.01.2025, Section 223 of BNSS was fully applicable. 
• The Court rejected ED's argument that the Supreme Court's ratio in Kushal Kumar Agrawal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025) would apply only prospectively, stating that judicial interpretation clarifies the law from day one, not from the date of interpretation. 
• The Court rejected ED's contention that non-compliance was merely an irregularity under Section 506(e) of BNSS, holding that denial of pre-cognizance hearing amounts to acting against statutory mandate. 
• The Court held that no prejudice needs to be demonstrated when a statute provides a valuable right, citing the principle: "If a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all." 
• The Court rejected arguments that opportunities during investigation or at future stages (framing of charges) could cure the defect, stating: "If the initial proceeding stood vitiated, subsequent curative measures could not put a cloak of legality on subsequent proceedings." 
• The Court set aside the cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 and remanded the matter to the Special Judge for fresh decision after hearing the petitioner in terms of Section 223(1) of BNSS. 

What is Section 223 of BNSS? 

• Section 223 (1) provides for the following: 
  • Examination of Complainant & Witnesses 
    • A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint must examine the complainant and witnesses under oath. 
    • This examination is recorded in writing and signed by all parties, including the Magistrate. 
  • Opportunity for the Accused 
    • Cognizance cannot be taken without giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. 
  • Exceptions to Examination Requirement 
    • The Magistrate need not examine the complainant and witnesses if: 
      • The complaint is made by a public servant in official capacity or by a court. 
      • The case is transferred to another Magistrate under Section 212. 
  • No Re-examination on Case Transfer 
    • If a case is transferred after initial examination, the new Magistrate need not re-examine the complainant and witnesses. 
• Section 223 (2) further provides for the following: 
  • Cognizance of a complaint against a public servant for acts done in official capacity requires: 
    • The public servant to be given an opportunity to explain the situation. 
    • A factual report from a superior officer regarding the incident.

What is the Difference Between Section 200 of CrPC and Section 223 of BNSS?