List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court decided Teerathraj v. State of U.P. (2026). The Court set aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS) and convicted him under Section 324 IPC (now Section 118(1) BNS) instead. He had already spent more time in prison than the maximum sentence under Section 324 IPC, so the Court ordered his release.

What was the Background of Teerathraj v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The Sessions Court, Raebareli convicted the appellant under Section 326A IPC for an acid attack on the victim. It sentenced him to:  
  • 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, and 
  • a fine of ₹20,000. 
• According to the prosecution:  
  • The victim suffered corrosive burns on his neck, head, chest, back, wrist and thigh, covering about 35% of his body. 
  • He was referred to the District Hospital for treatment. 
• The appellant appealed his conviction to the Allahabad High Court. 
• Looking at the evidence, the High Court found that:  
  • There was no evidence that the victim received any further treatment. 
  • No expert medical opinion had been obtained on the nature of the injuries or whether they had a lasting impact. 
  • A medical certificate dated 30th March 2017, issued 13 days after the incident, recorded no injury and no visible marks on any part of the victim’s body. 
• The incident happened in 2017, before the BNS came into force on 1st July 2024. The case was therefore decided under the IPC. 

Question before the High Court: 

Does a simple burn injury that heals within 13 days, without visible marks or functional impairment, count as “burns” under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS)?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the nature of the injuries: 

• The Court found that the victim’s injuries had healed within 13 days, with no visible marks and no functional impairment. 

On the meaning of “burns” under Section 326A IPC (now Section 124(1) BNS): 

• The provision lists several kinds of injury: permanent damage, partial damage, deformity, burns, maiming, disfigurement, disability or grievous hurt. 
• The Court said the word “burns” is vague. A person can feel a burning sensation of different degrees, and the provision does not say how serious or extensive the burn must be. 
• Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court held that “burns” cannot be read on its own. It must be understood alongside the other injuries listed in the provision. 
• Those other injuries suggest that the injury must be serious enough to alter the body part or gravely affect it for a significant period of time. 
• So the injury must have some lasting impact on the injured body part. 
• A simple burn that heals within 13 days, without visible marks or functional impairment, is not a “burn” within the meaning of Section 326A IPC. 
• Section 124(1) BNS uses the same list of injuries, including the word “burns”, so this reasoning would apply equally to cases under the BNS. 

On the alternative liability of the appellant: 

• After holding that Section 326A IPC was not made out, the Court considered whether the appellant was still liable for causing hurt. 
• The evidence showed that the appellant had poured a corrosive substance on the victim and caused hurt. 
• The Court therefore found that an offence under Section 324 IPC (now Section 118(1) BNS) for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means was made out. 

Directions issued: 

• The conviction under Section 326A IPC was set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC. 
• Section 324 IPC carries a maximum punishment of 3 years’ imprisonment, or fine, or both. 
• The appellant had already been in prison for more than 3 years, so:  
  • he was not required to deposit the fine, and 
  • he was to be released if not required in any other case.

What is Section 326A of IPC and Section 124(1) of  BNS? 

About Section 326A IPC: 

• Section 326A deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 inserted it after the Justice J.S. Verma Committee’s recommendations. 
• Under the provision, a person is liable if they:  
  • cause permanent or partial damage or deformity to any part of a person’s body, or 
  • burn, maim, disfigure or disable any part of the body, or 
  • cause grievous hurt, 
  • by throwing acid on the person, administering acid to them, or using any other means, 
  • with the intention of causing such injury or hurt, or the knowledge that it is likely to be caused. 

About Section 124(1) BNS: 

• Section 124(1) BNS replaces Section 326A IPC and keeps the same ingredients. 
• It adds one more consequence: causing a person to be in a permanent vegetative state. 
• Section 124(2) BNS covers throwing or attempting to throw acid. It replaces Section 326B IPC and carries 5 to 7 years’ imprisonment and fine. 
• Punishment (same under both provisions): 

Imprisonment of either description for at least 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and fine. 

• The fine must be just and reasonable to cover the victim’s medical expenses. 
• Any fine imposed must be paid to the victim. 

Key Features: 

• Acid includes any substance that is acidic, corrosive or burning in nature and can cause bodily injury leading to scars, disfigurement, or temporary or permanent disability. 
• Permanent or partial damage or deformity need not be irreversible. 
• The BNS keeps both of these Explanations. 
• It is a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence, triable by the Court of Session.

What is Section 324 of IPC and Section 118(1) of BNS? 

About Section 324 IPC: 

• Section 324 punishes voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. 
• It applies where hurt is caused (other than in cases covered by Section 334 IPC, grave and sudden provocation) by means of:  
  • any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, 
  • any instrument that, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, 
  • fire or any heated substance, 
  • any poison or corrosive substance, 
  • any explosive substance, 
  • any substance that is harmful to inhale, swallow or receive into the blood, or 
  • any animal. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for up to 3 years, or fine, or both. No upper limit on the fine is specified. 

About Section 118(1) BNS: 

• Section 118(1) BNS replaces Section 324 IPC and keeps the same list of dangerous weapons and means. 
• The exception now refers to Section 122(1) BNS (hurt on grave and sudden provocation), which replaces Section 334 IPC. 
• Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for up to 3 years, or fine up to ₹20,000, or both. 
• Section 118(2) BNS covers grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. It replaces Section 326 IPC. 

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News? 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court decided Sh. Somnath Kharbanda (Since Deceased) Through His LRs v. Smt. Arvinder Kaur (Since Deceased) Through Her LRs (2026). The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the legal representatives of two deceased sellers and upheld the trial court’s order to refund the ₹4 lakh earnest money to the prospective buyer.

What was the Background of Somnath Kharbanda v. Arvinder Kaur (2026) Case? 

• On 21st June 2008, the parties signed an agreement to sell a property in Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, for a sale price of ₹40 lakh. 
• The buyer paid ₹4 lakh as earnest money. The remaining ₹36 lakh was due on or before 5th September 2008. 
• The agreement set out what would happen if either side defaulted:  
  • If the buyer failed to complete the deal, the earnest money could be forfeited. 
  • If the sellers defaulted, they had to pay the buyer double the earnest money. 
• The buyer sued to recover ₹8 lakh (double the earnest money). She alleged that the sellers had not provided the property’s title documents for verification. 
• The sellers argued that:  
  • The buyer had failed to pay the balance amount, so they were entitled to forfeit the earnest money. 
  • They had suffered a loss because a purchase of another property fell through, and they forfeited ₹4.60 lakh they had paid as earnest money in that deal. 
• The trial court rejected the buyer’s claim for double the earnest money. It directed the sellers to refund the original ₹4 lakh with interest. 
• The sellers’ legal representatives then filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court (RFA 814/2026). 

Question before the High Court: 

• Can a seller forfeit earnest money automatically when the buyer breaches an agreement to sell, or must the seller prove the loss suffered?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: 

• The Court referred to Section 74, which allows reasonable compensation for breach where the contract names a sum payable on breach or contains a penalty clause. 
• The Court said that the amount named in the contract only sets the outer limit of compensation. It is not an amount the party is automatically entitled to. 

On the precedents relied upon: 

• Relying on Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das and Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority, the Court repeated that a sum stipulated in a contract does not become recoverable just because a breach has happened. 
• A party that wants to keep such an amount must show that legal injury resulted from the breach. Where the loss is capable of proof, it must be proved. 

On the sellers’ claimed loss: 

• The sellers said they lost ₹4.60 lakh in another property deal because the buyer did not perform her part. 
• However, the receipt and agreement to sell for that other deal were de-exhibited, because the sellers could not produce the original documents. 
• No other reliable evidence was produced to prove either:  
  • that the other transaction existed, or 
  • why it was not completed. 
• The loss could have been proved through documents or by examining the seller in the other transaction. Because the sellers did neither, they failed to establish the loss they claimed. 

Decision: 

• The Court held that the trial court was right to order the refund of earnest money. 
• The appeal was dismissed.

What is Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872? 

About: 

• Section 74 deals with compensation for breach of a contract where a penalty is stipulated. 
• It applies when a contract names:  
  • a sum to be paid if the contract is breached, or 
  • any other stipulation by way of penalty. 
• In either case, the party who suffers from the breach can receive reasonable compensation from the party in breach. This compensation cannot exceed the amount named or the penalty stipulated. 
• The party is entitled to this whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused by the breach. 

Key Features: 

• No distinction between liquidated damages and penalty: Indian law does not follow the English distinction between the two. Both are treated alike, and only reasonable compensation is awarded. 
• Ceiling, not entitlement: The amount named in the contract is the maximum that can be awarded. It is not automatically the amount payable. 
• Proof of loss: The words “whether or not actual damage or loss is proved” do not remove the need to prove loss where loss can be proved. They only cover cases where loss is difficult or impossible to prove. 
• Legal injury is necessary: Compensation under Section 74 assumes that the breach has caused some legal injury. 

Relation with Section 73: 

• Section 73 provides compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. This covers loss that arises naturally in the usual course of things, or that the parties knew, when they made the contract, was likely to result from the breach. 
• Section 74 applies where the parties have agreed in advance on a sum or penalty. Even then, the Court awards only reasonable compensation within that limit.