List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court decided Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (2026). The Court held that non-compliance with Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), does not by itself vitiate a seizure, but may affect its evidentiary value when read with other infirmities. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s (Aurangabad Bench) judgment reversing the acquittal and restored the trial court’s order of acquittal. 

What was the Background of Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was tried for criminal breach of trust under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), now Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
• During investigation, documents were allegedly seized from the appellant’s house. 
• The trial court found that the procedure prescribed under Section 100(7) CrPC had not been followed during the search and seizure, and acquitted the appellant. 
• The State appealed against the acquittal before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. 
• The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant. It:  
  • Relied solely on the testimony of the Investigating Officer (IO), without further corroboration, to treat the seizure as valid. 
  • Held that the absence of the appellant’s signature on the seizure panchnama was not significant. 
  • Reasoned that there was no reason for the police officer to depose falsely about the seizure. 
  • Treated the seized documents as an incriminating circumstance which the appellant had failed to explain. 
• The High Court did so despite the list of seized items not being supplied to the appellant and both panch witnesses turning hostile. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC: 

• There was an infraction of Sections 100(4) and 100(7) CrPC due to non-compliance with their requirements. 
• In such circumstances, the seizure could not be held proved merely on the IO’s deposition without further corroboration. 
• The IO offered no explanation for why a list of the articles seized from the appellant’s house was not furnished to him. 

On the burden of proof: 

• The burden of proving a valid seizure lies on the prosecution, which failed to discharge it in accordance with law. 
• The High Court erred in relying on the seizure and treating it as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 
• The High Court also erred in drawing an adverse inference from the appellant’s failure to explain the seized documents. 

On the effect of procedural violation: 

• Non-compliance with Section 100 CrPC, by itself, does not vitiate a seizure; it is only an irregularity in the investigation. 
• However, when this factor is considered cumulatively with other factors casting doubt on the prosecution case, it weighs in favour of the accused, especially in an appeal against acquittal. 
• In the present case:  
  • Both seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution. 
  • The IO himself admitted several shortcomings in the investigation. 
  • The prosecution’s documentary case suffered from other serious deficiencies. 

On the ingredients of Section 409 IPC: 

• The prosecution failed to establish both entrustment of property and dishonest intention, which are essential ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the trial court’s order of acquittal.

What is Section 103 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with the duty of persons in charge of a closed place to allow search, and lays down the procedure for conducting a search. 
• It corresponds to Section 100 of the CrPC. 

Provisions: 

• Section 103(1): Whenever a place liable to search is closed, the person residing in or in charge of it shall, on demand and on production of the warrant, allow free ingress and afford all reasonable facilities for the search. 
• Section 103(2): If ingress cannot be obtained, the officer may proceed in the manner provided under Section 44(2) BNSS (break open the door or window). 
• Section 103(3): Any person in or about such place who is reasonably suspected of concealing an article for which search should be made may be searched. If the person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. 
• Section 103(4): Before making a search, the officer shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality (or of any other locality, if none is available or willing) to attend and witness the search. 
• Section 103(5): The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized and the places where they were found shall be prepared and signed by the witnesses. A witness to the search shall not be required to attend court unless specially summoned. 
• Section 103(6): The occupant of the place searched, or a person on his behalf, shall be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list, signed by the witnesses, shall be delivered to him. 
• Section 103(7): When a person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared and a copy delivered to that person. 
• Section 103(8): Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search when called upon by a written order shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 222 of the BNS. 

Source: Orissa High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Radha Krishna Pattanaik of the Orissa High Court decided Surendranath Mishra & Ors. v. State of Odisha (2026). The Court held that teachers cannot be prosecuted for abetment of suicide under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) merely for maintaining discipline and reprimanding a student for intoxication, in the absence of any criminal intent. The Court set aside the order of cognizance taken against the teachers and the warden of the school. 

What was the Background of Surendranath Mishra & Ors. v. State of Odisha (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners were teachers and the warden of the school where the deceased, a 16-year-old student, was studying. 
• The petitioners caught certain students, including the deceased, in an intoxicated condition after consuming a substance named ‘Dendrite’. 
• They reprimanded the students and warned them that their guardians would be informed of the episode. 
• It was alleged that, out of fear and embarrassment caused by this warning, the deceased jumped from the 4th floor of the hostel building and died. 
• After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners. 
• The SDJM, Champua took cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Section 107 (abetment of suicide of a child) and Section 3(5) (common intention) of the BNS. 
• Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a criminal revision before the High Court seeking discharge, contending that no prima facie case was made out from the charge-sheet material. 
• The petitioners argued that their act was strictly for enforcing discipline, and that they never intended to harass the deceased or knowingly instigate him to take his own life. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the essential ingredients of abetment of suicide: 

• An act or omission to instigate or aid the commission of suicide is essential to allege abetment. 
• A proximate link between the alleged harassment and the death must be established. 
• Mens rea is crucial: there must be prima facie evidence that the accused acted with the requisite intention. 
• The legal threshold requires proof of active instigation, provocation or intentional aid. 

On disciplinary action by teachers: 

• A routine warning lacks criminal intent. 
• If a student is overly sensitive, a teacher cannot be blamed for a tragic outcome that an ordinary person could not anticipate from basic routine discipline. 
• Standard administrative or academic discipline in a school that is followed by a student’s suicide does not carry the criminal intent needed to constitute the offence. 
• A teacher is under a moral obligation to maintain discipline, and a simple reprimand does not amount to instigation or intentional aid. 
• A disciplinary measure would amount to provocation only where there are repeated, specific allegations of harassment and insult, deliberately intended and without justifiable cause. 

On precedents relied upon: 

• The Court relied on V.P. Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2022) and Thangavel v. The State (2025). 
• These decisions hold that suspending a student for misconduct or enforcing institutional discipline cannot be categorised as abetment if the student later dies by suicide. 
• Mere scolding alone is not a suicide trigger, and a reasonable person cannot anticipate that a standard corrective warning would drive a student to take his own life. 

On the facts of the case: 

• There was no prima facie evidence that the petitioners routinely harassed the deceased or actively and intentionally instigated him. 
• The petitioners had no direct involvement in the death and could not be held responsible for abetting it. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order of cognizance against the petitioners.

What is Section 107 of the BNS? 

About: 

• Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with abetment of suicide of a child or a person of unsound mind. 
• It corresponds to Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It is distinct from Section 108 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 306 IPC), which deals with abetment of suicide generally. 
• Exam note: Section 107 of the IPC defined “abetment”. Under the BNS, abetment is defined in Section 45, while Section 107 BNS covers abetment of suicide of a child. 

Provisions: 

• Section 107: It applies where a child, a person of unsound mind, a delirious person or a person in a state of intoxication commits suicide.  
  • Whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. 
  • The offender is also liable to a fine. 
• Section 108 (comparison): Whoever abets the suicide of any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

What is Abetment under Section 45 of the BNS? 

Section 45 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 107 IPC) provides that a person abets the doing of a thing when they: 

• Instigate any person to do that thing. 
• Engage in a conspiracy with one or more persons to do that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
• Intentionally aid, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.