List of Current Affairs

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev, in Kirti Verma v. State of UP (2026), held that directions for re-recording a statement under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before a Magistrate can only be issued under exceptional circumstances. The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a gang-rape victim who sought re-recording of her statement, finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting such relief. 

What was the Background of Kirti Verma v. State of UP (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner was a gang-rape victim who had her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 164 CrPC) before a Magistrate. 
• She approached the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition, seeking directions for re-recording her statement. 
• Her primary contention was that the statement had not been correctly recorded by the Magistrate and that its recording amounted to a gross violation of the express provisions of Section 183 BNSS. 
• She further alleged that the statement was not read over to her, nor was she given an opportunity to confirm its correctness. 
• Central Issue: 
• Whether the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, could direct re-recording of a victim's statement under Section 183 BNSS, and if so, under what circumstances. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Purpose of Section 183 BNSS: 

• The Court observed that the primary purpose of Section 183 BNSS is to provide a safe, voluntary, and judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions and statements during a criminal investigation. 

No Statutory Mandate for Repeated Recordings: 

• The Court held that Section 183 BNSS does not contemplate or authorise repeated recordings as a standard procedure.  

It remarked:"The purpose is to record a reliable, voluntary statement/confession once… There is no statutory mandate for multiple recordings of the same person's statement under Section 183 BNSS. Police statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC) can be recorded multiple times if needed during investigation, but magisterial statements under Section 183 BNSS are exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability." 

When Re-Recording May Be Directed: 

The Court outlined specific exceptional circumstances where a fresh recording may be directed: 

• Where a prior statement was allegedly coerced or not voluntary. 
• Where the statement was improperly recorded. 
• Where fairness demands re-recording due to new material facts, witness hostility, or serious procedural lapses. 
• Where the integrity of the original statement is seriously compromised, especially in sensitive cases such as sexual offences or POCSO matters. 
• Where the victim claims the statement was not read over to her, raising serious questions about procedural compliance. 

Power Not to Be Exercised Routinely: 

• However, the Court emphatically stated that this power cannot be exercised as a general rule.  
• It remarked,"High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, if justified to rectify injustice, may issue directions for recording a second statement under Section 183 BNSS, but it cannot be exercised as a general rule where the victim alleges that her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS was not read over to her or that she was not given an opportunity to confirm its correctness." 

Finding on Facts: 

• On perusing the victim's earlier statement, the Court noted that the statement clearly showed it had been given without any duress, that the petitioner had read the statement herself, and that she had signed it thereafter. All procedural aspects had been followed. 
• Finding no extraordinary circumstances warranting re-recording, the Court dismissed the writ petition. 

 What is Section 183 BNSS?  

About:  

• Section 183 of BNSS deals with the recording of confessions and statements.  
• This Section corresponds to Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.  

Who Can Record: 

• Any Magistrate of the district where the offence was registered, regardless of whether they have jurisdiction in the case. 
• Can be recorded during investigation, under any law, or before commencement of inquiry/trial. 
• Police officers granted Magistrate powers cannot record confessions. 

Mode of Recording: 

• Can be recorded through audio-video electronic means in the presence of the accused's advocate. 

Safeguards Before Recording a Confession: 

• Magistrate must explain that the person is not bound to confess. 
• Must warn that the confession may be used as evidence against them. 
• Must be satisfied that the confession is voluntary. 
• If the person refuses to confess at any point, the Magistrate cannot authorise police custody. 

Procedural Requirements: 

• Must be recorded as per Section 316 (examination of accused). 
• Must be signed by the person confessing. 
• Magistrate must append a memorandum certifying voluntariness, presence, and correctness. 

Recording of Statements (Non-Confession): 

• Recorded in the manner best suited to the circumstances. 
• Magistrate has power to administer oath. 

Special Provisions for Sexual Offence Victims: 

• Applies to offences under Sections 64–79 and 124 of BNS, 2023. 
• Statement must be recorded as soon as the offence is reported to police. 
• Preferably recorded by a woman Magistrate; if unavailable, by a male Magistrate in the presence of a woman. 
• For offences carrying 10+ years, life, or death sentence — statement of the witness brought by police must be recorded. 
• For mentally/physically disabled persons — interpreter or special educator must assist, and recording must be done through audio-video electronic means, preferably mobile phone. 
• Such a statement is treated as examination-in-chief, enabling cross-examination at trial without re-recording. 

Forwarding of Record: 

• The recorded confession or statement must be forwarded to the Magistrate who will inquire into or try the case. 

Source: Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) 

 Why in News? 

Justice Shreeram Shirsat of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, in Shobhit Kumar v. State (2026), held that a man's threat to commit suicide unless a minor girl accompanied him constitutes "enticement" under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

• The Court upheld his conviction under Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 376 (rape) of the IPC, and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, affirming the Fast Track Court's sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. 

 What was the Background of Shobhit Kumar v. State (2026) Case? 

• The victim was a 16-year-old girl residing in Panaji, Goa. 
• The accused, aged 32, asked her to meet him at the Panaji Bus Stand on December 11, 2021. 
• He threatened that if she did not come, he would commit suicide. 
• Fearing he might harm himself, the victim left her home without her guardian's knowledge or consent. 
• The accused subsequently took her to Ahmedabad, where a rented room had been arranged. 
• On January 3, 2022, the victim called her mother, disclosing that the accused had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions and that she wished to return home. 
• Police arrested the accused, and a Fast Track Court sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment along with fines. 
• The accused challenged his conviction before the Bombay High Court. 
• Central Issue: 
• Whether threatening a minor girl with suicide to compel her to leave her guardian's custody amounts to "enticement" under Section 363 IPC, thereby constituting kidnapping. 

 What were the Court's Observations? 

Suicide Threat as Enticement: 

• Justice Shirsat held that the accused's threat to commit suicide unless the victim accompanied him was a deliberate act of inducement and enticement. The victim left home not of her own free will, but under the coercive influence created by the accused in her mind. 
• The Court observed that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused forcibly removed the victim — it was sufficient to establish that she was caused to go by the influence exerted upon her. 

Emotional Duress Sufficient for Kidnapping: 

• The Court held that inducement need not take the form of physical force. Emotional manipulation — including threats that create fear or compel action — is sufficient to establish enticement under Section 363 IPC. 

Victim's Testimony Found Credible: 

• Justice Shirsat found the victim's testimony to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring. Her statement clearly established that she had left her mother's custody only because she feared the accused would harm himself. 

Conviction Upheld: 

• The Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, Section 376 IPC, and the POCSO Act. 

 What is Kidnapping under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?  

About:  

• Section 137 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the offence of Kidnapping. It states that- 

 (1) Kidnapping is of two kinds: kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship––  

(a) Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India;  

(b) Whoever takes or entices any child or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such child or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such child or person from lawful guardianship.  

Explanation.––The words “lawful guardian” in this clause include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such child or other person.  

Exception. —This clause does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.  

(2) Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 

What is Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 64 in the BNS provides punishment for rape  
• Earlier it was dealt with under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code,1860 
• Section 64(1) establishes the general punishment for rape as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine. 
• Section 64(2) provides enhanced or aggravated forms of rape with more severe punishments. 
• Section 64(2)(h) specifically deals with a situation where a person "commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant." 
• The punishment prescribed for offences under Section 64(2)(h) is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of the person's natural life), along with a fine. 
• This provision considers rape of a pregnant woman as an aggravated form of sexual assault, recognizing the additional vulnerability of pregnant victims and potential harm to both the woman and her unborn child. 
• Section 64(2)(h) is one of several circumstances listed in Section 64(2) where the law imposes more severe punishments due to the particularly egregious nature of the offence. 
• This section recognizes that committing rape with the knowledge that the victim is pregnant demonstrates heightened culpability warranting enhanced punishment. 
• The classification of this offence under Section 64(2) rather than 64(1) reflects the legislature's intent to treat such cases with greater severity.