List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan of the Supreme Court decided Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer (2026). The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court, and discharged the appellant from the charges of rape on a false promise of marriage, cheating and bigamy.

What was the Background of Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State-Station House Officer (2026) Case? 

• The complainant had a relationship with the appellant, and the two later married. 
• She alleged that before the marriage he had hidden his existing marriage and presented himself as a bachelor. 
• On her complaint, criminal proceedings were started against him for:  
  • rape on a false promise of marriage under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), 
  • cheating, and 
  • bigamy. 
• The record showed that:  
  • she found out within six months that he was already married and had children, and 
  • she still continued to live with him for seven years. 
• The Trial Court and the Kerala High Court did not discharge the appellant. 
• The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• When a woman knowingly continues a relationship with a man after learning that he is already married, can her consent be treated as vitiated, so that he can be prosecuted for rape, cheating and bigamy once the relationship ends?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On free choice and moral judgment: 

• The Court said it has not been given the role of passing moral judgments on how adults exercise their free choice, autonomy and agency. 
• Adults may make choices that are wise or unwise, prudent or reckless. Those choices may have painful or unwanted consequences. 
• That alone does not turn the choices into criminal offences that call for action by the State. 
• Criminal law cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal scores, take revenge or force someone to act in a particular way. 

On the complainant’s conduct: 

• The complainant learnt within six months that the appellant was married and had children, yet she lived with him for seven years. 
• This conduct weakened her claim that she believed she was his lawfully wedded wife. 
• The material on record did not show that she kept believing she was his legally wedded wife, or that the ingredients of the alleged offences were made out. 

On consensual relationships and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC: 

• The Court found that the relationship and the sexual acts were consensual. The appellant had simply decided to withdraw from the relationship. 
• Rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC cannot be inferred from that. 
• A relationship turning sour and bitter cannot, looking back, turn earlier consensual sexual acts into rape. 

On the trend of criminalising failed relationships: 

• The Court was concerned about a growing trend of turning failed consensual relationships into criminal cases. 
• It noted that the trend continues despite courts disapproving of it, and that settlements in such cases often involve large sums of money paid by the male accused. 

On genuine cases and vitiated consent: 

• The Court made clear that its observations do not reduce the seriousness of genuine allegations of rape and sexual assault. Rape remains heavily under-reported, and genuine cases must be pursued firmly. 
• It recognised that in India, where marriage carries great social value, a woman may agree to physical intimacy believing the relationship will lead to, or is based on, a lawful marriage. Her consent then depends on that belief being true. 
• If a woman was genuinely kept completely unaware that her partner was already married, her consent may be vitiated. Otherwise, the protection of Section 376 and Sections 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC would mean nothing for women who are truly wronged. 
• However, this principle must be applied on the facts and evidence of each case, not on mere allegations or moral assumptions. 

Decision: 

• The appeals were allowed. 
• The orders of the Trial Court and the Kerala High Court were set aside. 
• The appellant was discharged from all the offences alleged against him.

What is Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provides the punishment for rape. 
• Section 64(1): Whoever commits rape is punished with rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and is also liable to a fine. 
• Section 64(2): This sub-section lists aggravated forms of rape, which carry rigorous imprisonment of at least ten years, extendable to life imprisonment (meaning the rest of the person’s natural life), along with a fine. 
• Section 64(2)(m): This clause covers a person who commits rape repeatedly on the same woman. 

Key Features: 

• Consent is central: Rape is defined in Section 63 of the BNS. Sexual acts done with a woman’s free and voluntary consent do not amount to rape. 
• Misconception of fact: Under Section 28 of the BNS, consent is not valid if it is given under a misconception of fact and the accused knows, or has reason to believe, that it was given because of that misconception. 
• New offence of deceitful means: Section 69 of the BNS separately punishes sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means or by a promise to marry made with no intention of keeping it, where the act does not amount to rape. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. “Deceitful means” includes marrying after hiding one’s identity. 
• Breach of promise is not always rape: A relationship that is consensual and later breaks down does not make the earlier consensual acts rape. 

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: 

• Section 64 of the BNS corresponds to Section 376 of the IPC. 
• Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS corresponds to Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, which dealt with rape committed repeatedly on the same woman. 
• Section 28 of the BNS corresponds to Section 90 of the IPC. 
• In the present case, the Supreme Court applied Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and held that its ingredients were not made out because the relationship was consensual.

What are Sections 81 and 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Sections 81 and 82 of the BNS appear in the chapter on offences relating to marriage. 
• Section 81: This section punishes a man who by deceit makes a woman who is not lawfully married to him believe that she is, and makes her live with him or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 
• Section 82(1): This section punishes a person who, while their husband or wife is alive, marries again in circumstances where that marriage is void because the spouse is alive. The punishment can extend to seven years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 
• Section 82(2): This section punishes the same offence more severely where the person hides the former marriage from the person they marry next. The punishment can extend to ten years’ imprisonment along with a fine. 

Key Features: 

• Deceit is the core of Section 81: The offence requires that the woman was actually deceived into believing she was lawfully married. 
• Exceptions to bigamy: Section 82 does not apply where:  
  • a competent court has declared the earlier marriage void, or 
  • the earlier spouse has been continuously absent for seven years and has not been heard of as alive, provided this is disclosed to the person being married. 
• Concealment aggravates the offence: Hiding a former marriage from the new spouse attracts higher punishment under Section 82(2). 

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya of the Supreme Court decided Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2026) on 2nd November 2026. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the husband’s conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with his sentence of life imprisonment.

What was the Background of Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• The deceased, Vimalbai, was married to the appellant, Ramkishan. 
• The prosecution’s case was that the accused persons harassed and treated her cruelly over unlawful dowry demands. 
• According to the complainant, Narayan (PW-2), Vimalbai told her family during visits to her parental home that:  
  • the accused beat her, 
  • they tortured her mentally and starved her, and 
  • in one incident she was tied with a rope and lowered into a well, with a threat to kill her if the dowry demands were not met. 
• Vimalbai died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. At the time, she was alone with the appellant. 
• The appellant’s defence was that her death was an accident. He claimed she had a sudden epileptic seizure and giddiness while they were having sexual intercourse. 
• The Courts below convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 
• The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• When a wife dies an unnatural death in the matrimonial home while she is alone with her husband, does Section 106 of the Evidence Act place a burden on the husband to explain how she died? And what happens to the case if he gives no explanation, or a false one?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• The Court stressed that Vimalbai was alone with the appellant in the matrimonial home when she died an unnatural death. 
• Because the appellant had custody of his wife inside the privacy of the home, Section 106 put a heavy statutory burden on him. He had to give a cogent, credible and satisfactory account of how her death came about. 
• He did not discharge this burden. Instead, he put forward a false and made-up defence of an epileptic seizure, and the medical evidence and post-mortem findings ruled that defence out. 

On the precedent relied upon: 

• The Court relied on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006), which held that Section 106 places a matching burden on the inmates of a house to explain how a crime committed inside it took place. 
• Inmates cannot stay silent and offer no explanation by arguing that the burden lies entirely on the prosecution. 

On the false defence as an additional link: 

• The appellant failed to give a plausible explanation, and he also raised a false defence. 
• Taken together, these provided an additional incriminating link that completed the chain of circumstantial evidence. This established his guilt for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. 

On the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• PW-2 gave clear evidence of persistent harassment and cruelty over dowry demands. 
• His testimony was strongly corroborated by:  
  • Sambhaji Turatwad (PW-3), the mediator who arranged the marriage, 
  • Ramrao (PW-4), the father of the deceased, who confirmed the repeated demands and physical abuse, and 
  • Vaijnath Sambhaji Marpatwar (PW-5) and Mahajan Munjaji Yembalwad (PW-6), two independent neighbours of the deceased’s parental home. 
  • The Court therefore held that the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 113B, and that the Courts below were right to convict them. 

Decision: 

• The appeal was dismissed. 
• The conviction and the sentence of life imprisonment were upheld.

What is Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the burden of proving a fact that is especially within someone’s knowledge. 
• It says that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on that person. 
• It falls under Chapter VII of the BSA, which deals with the burden of proof. 

Illustrations: 

• (a) When a person does an act with an intention different from what the nature and circumstances of the act suggest, that person must prove the intention. 
• (b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. A must prove that he had a ticket. 

Key Features: 

• Exception to the general rule: Under Section 104 of the BSA, whoever asserts a fact must prove it. Section 109 is an exception to that general rule. 
• Prosecution’s primary burden remains: Section 109 does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It comes into play only after the prosecution has proved the foundational facts. 
• Inmates of the house: When a crime takes place inside a house, out of public view, the people living there are expected to explain how it happened. 
• Silence or a false explanation counts against the accused: If the accused gives no explanation, or a false one, about facts especially within their knowledge, this can serve as an additional link in a chain of circumstantial evidence. It cannot be the only basis for a conviction. 

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• Section 109 of the BSA is the same as Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The wording and both illustrations are unchanged. 
• Section 106 of the IEA says that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on that person. 
• In the present case, the Supreme Court applied Section 106 of the IEA because the incident happened before the BSA came into force. 
• In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006), the Supreme Court held that Section 106 places a matching burden on the inmates of a house to explain how a crime committed inside it took place. Inmates cannot stay silent and argue that the burden lies entirely on the prosecution.

What is Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 118 of the BSA deals with the presumption as to dowry death. 
• It applies when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that soon before her death that person subjected her to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. 
• In such a case, the Court shall presume that the person caused the dowry death. 

Key Features: 

• Mandatory presumption: The words “shall presume” make the presumption compulsory once its foundational facts are proved. The accused can still rebut it. 
• Meaning of dowry death: “Dowry death” has the same meaning as in Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which was earlier Section 304B of the IPC. 
• “Soon before her death”: There must be a close and live link between the cruelty or harassment and the death. 
• Burden shifts to the accused: Once the prosecution proves the foundational facts, the accused must rebut the presumption. 

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 

• Section 118 of the BSA is the same as Section 113B of the IEA. 
• In the present case, the Supreme Court held that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the IEA.