List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran in the case of K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. (2025) set aside Kerala High Court and Trial Court decisions, ruling that omissions made in the examination-in-chief can be cured in the witness's cross-examination. 

What was the Background of K. S. Dinachandran v. Shyla Joseph & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The dispute arose over the genuineness of a Will executed by the testator, contested by his daughter Shyla Joseph (respondent), who was excluded from inheritance. 
• The testator's daughter claimed the Will was unauthentic due to defective attestation proof. 
• Only one attesting witness (DW-2) survived for trial; the other had died. 
• In DW-2's examination-in-chief, he failed to explicitly state that he saw the other attesting witness (Xavier) sign the Will. 
• Trial Court and Kerala High Court accepted this as an "incurable defect," ruling the Will unproved under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. 
• The propounders (testator's other children) appealed to the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, held that the omission in examination-in-chief was cured during cross-examination by the plaintiff's own counsel. 
• The bench clarified: "If we look at the examination-in-chief alone, it cannot be said that there was proof of the other witness having put his signature... However, this missing piece was supplied in cross-examination." 
• The Court affirmed DW-2's testimony on the testator's sound testamentary capacity, rejecting challenges to his physical condition. 
• Regarding exclusion of one daughter, the Court applied the "rule of prudence" but held it satisfied judicial conscience, as exclusion was limited and reasoned by the testator. 
• "The Court could neither place itself in the position of the testator nor supplant his reasoning with its own notions of fairness," it emphasized, directing courts to examine from the "armchair of the testator." 
• The appeal was allowed, declaring the Will validly proved. 

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Examination of Witnesses? 

About: 

• The examination process extracts truth and relevant points from witnesses through three stages: examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination 
• Governed by Chapter 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) 

Examination-in-Chief: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Examination of a witness by the party who calls them; first step of examination. 
• Process: Witness elaborates facts and circumstances of the case based on their knowledge. 
• Conducted by: The witness's own advocate or party. 
• Status: Part of judicial proceedings. 

Cross-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Interrogation of a witness by the adverse party. 
• Purpose: To test the credibility of the witness after examination-in-chief. 
• Conducted by: The opposing party's advocate. 
• Status: Essential part of judicial proceedings. 

Document Production During Cross-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 139 of IEA and Section 144 of BSA. 
• Process: Witnesses can be summoned to produce documents during cross-examination. 
• Limitation: A person summoned only to produce documents cannot be cross-examined unless specifically called as a witness. 

Permissible Questions in Cross-Examination: 

• Subject matter and character: Questions regarding the witness's character are allowed (Section 140 of IEA; Section 145 of BSA). 
• Leading questions: Permitted during cross-examination (Section 143 of IEA; Section 146 of BSA) - these questions suggest their own answers. 

Re-Examination: 

• Legal provisions: Section 137 of IEA and Section 142 of BSA. 
• Definition: Third and final step where the party conducts examination after cross-examination. 
• Scope: Questions should relate to matters arising from cross-examination. 
• New questions: If new matters arise, they are subject to cross-examination with court permission. 
• Status: Not an essential part of judicial proceedings. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court, in Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025), held that articles recovered from the accused during a personal search cannot be classified as discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).  

• The Court clarified that Section 27 applies only when the accused has concealed an object and its discovery is a direct result of disclosure.

What Was the Background of Shaik Shabuddin v. State of Telangana (2025) Case? 

• The case stemmed from the killing of a woman, after being dropped near a village by her husband one morning, she went missing and could not be contacted.  
• Her body was found the next day in bushes along a nearby road.  
• The prosecution alleged that three accused followed her, raped her in an isolated area, and slit her throat to eliminate evidence.  
• They were charged under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act.   
• They were convicted under Sections 302 and 376D read with Section 34 IPC, along with provisions of the SC/ST Act. 
•  The trial court awarded death penalty, which the High Court converted to life imprisonment without remission, relying significantly on alleged confessional statements, and supposed Section 27 recoveries. 
• The Supreme Court was called upon to evaluate whether such recoveries and disclosures were legally valid.

What were the Court's Observations?

• The Court held that the materials “recovered” were already in the possession of the accused at the time of arrest. 
•  These were handed over during a routine personal check, not discovered from any concealed location. 
• Therefore, Section 27 did not apply because: 
  • There was no prior concealment. 
  • Discovery was not a consequence of disclosure.
• The Court observed that “There was no concealment as such… on an arrest, when the material objects could have been seized from the body of the accused on a mere search by the police, the attempt to convert it into a recovery under Section 27 cannot at all be accepted.” 
• While upholding the conviction, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment without remission to 25 years' imprisonment without remission. 

What is Section 27 of IEA? 

About: 

• Section 27 of the IEA created a limited exception to the rule that confessions made to police are inadmissible. 
• It permitted only that portion of an accused’s statement to be proved which distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a result of the information given. 

Key Provisions of Section 27 of IEA: 

• Applies only when the accused is in police custody. 
• Permits proving only that part of the information which directly leads to the discovery of a relevant fact (e.g., a weapon, stolen property). 
• The rationale is that discovery lends credibility to that part of the statement. 

Requisite Essentials to Invoke Section 27 of IEA:  

• This was laid down in the case of Preumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police (2023) where the Court held the following:  
  • Firstly, there should be a discovery of fact. The facts should be relevant as a consequence of information received from the accused person.  
  • Secondly, the discovery of such a fact must be deposed to. This means that the fact should not already be known to the police.  
  • Thirdly, at the time of receipt of information, the accused should be in custody of the police.  
  • Lastly, only so much information as relates distinctly to fact thereby discovered is admissible.  
  • This words fact discovered would include the following:   
  • The “place” from where the object is produced. 
  • The knowledge of the accused as to this.

Provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: 

• The content of IEA Section 27 is now included as a proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Confessions to Police). 
• This proviso keeps the same rule: 
  Only the part of the accused’s statement that directly leads to discovery is admissible.