1). Supreme Court: Failure to Name Some Accused in FIR is a Relevant Fact Under Section 11 of Evidence Act 

Case Background:

The Supreme Court recently decided a case concerning the reliability of an FIR (First Information Report) in a murder case. The complainant, the father of the deceased, initially named only one accused in the FIR. However, later, he claimed that two more people were involved in the crime. The issue before the Court was whether this omission of the two names weakened the prosecution’s case.

Issue of the Case:

The key issue was whether the complainant’s failure to name two of the alleged perpetrators in the FIR, despite claiming to be an eyewitness, affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court examined whether such an omission could be considered a "relevant fact" under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Court Observations:

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan noted that a person who witnesses a crime usually provides all relevant details in the FIR, including the names of all perpetrators. If an eyewitness omits certain names, it raises doubts about the truthfulness of their account.

The Court observed:

• If the complainant truly saw three people committing the crime, he would have mentioned all of them in the FIR.
• His failure to do so suggests that his claim of being an eyewitness may not be reliable.
• This omission, though ordinarily irrelevant, becomes a "relevant fact" under Section 11 because it makes the prosecution’s version of events highly improbable.

Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused and dismissed the State’s appeal. The Court ruled that the omission of two perpetrators’ names in the FIR weakened the prosecution’s case and created doubt about the credibility of the complainant’s version.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that any fact that makes the existence of a fact in issue either highly probable or highly improbable is relevant. Here, the omission of two names made it improbable that the complainant had truly witnessed the crime. (Section 9 of BSA)

The Court also relied on the Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 1026) case, which held that important omissions in an FIR could affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case and are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.

Significance of the Judgment:

This ruling highlights the importance of FIRs in criminal cases. It establishes that:

• An FIR should ideally mention all important facts known to the complainant.
• Significant omissions in an FIR can weaken the prosecution's case.
• Courts will examine whether omissions in an FIR make the prosecution's story highly improbable under Section 11 of the Evidence 

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that an FIR must contain all crucial details to be considered credible. If an eyewitness later adds details that were missing from the FIR, it can raise doubts about their testimonyand weaken the case. This ruling serves as an important precedent for criminal trials, especially in cases relying on eyewitness accounts.

Case Name: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raghuvir Singh

2). Supreme Court: Wife Can Claim Maintenance from Second Husband Even if First Marriage Isn’t Legally Dissolved

Case Background:

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a woman can claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved. The woman (Appellant No.1) had married her second husband (Respondent) without obtaining a formal divorce from her first husband. The second husband was aware of this fact when he married her.

After they had a child and later separated due to disputes, the woman sought maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Initially, the Family Court granted her maintenance. However, the Telangana High Court denied her maintenance, ruling that her marriage with the second husband was void since her first marriage was still legally subsisting.

The woman then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue of the Case:

The key question before the Supreme Court was:

"Can a woman claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is still legally subsisting?"

Court Observations:

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court’s ruling and granted maintenance to the woman. The Court made the following key observations:

1. No Legal Bar Under Section 125 CrPC – There is no restriction under Section 125 CrPC that prevents a woman from claiming maintenance from her second husband, even if her first marriage was not legally dissolved.
2. Second Husband’s Knowledge of First Marriage – The second husband knew about the first marriage when he married her, not just once but twice. Since he willingly entered into the relationship, he cannot later deny maintenance on the grounds that her first marriage was not legally ended.
3. Mutual Separation from First Husband – The woman and her first husband had mutually separated through an MoU (Memorandum of Understanding). Although this was not a formal divorce decree, the evidence showed that they had ended their marital ties, were living separately, and she was not receiving maintenance from him. This meant that, in reality, she was no longer in a marital relationship with her first husband.
4. Right to Maintenance as a Legal and Moral Duty – The Court emphasized that maintenance is not a favor but a legal right. It cited the case of Mohd. Abdul Samad vs. State of Telangana and Another, highlighting the financial difficulties faced by homemakers in India. The Court ruled that denying maintenance to the woman would leave her financially vulnerable.

Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the Family Court’s order granting maintenance to the woman.
• The Telangana High Court’s decision was set aside.
• The second husband cannot escape responsibility by arguing that the marriage was void.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 125 CrPC – This section provides for maintenance to wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. The Court interpreted the term "wife" broadly to include women in void marriages if they were financially dependent. (Section 144 of BNSS)

Significance of the Judgment:

This ruling strengthens the social welfare objective of Section 125 CrPC by ensuring that:

1. Women in vulnerable situations receive maintenance, even if their marriage is technically void.
2. A husband cannot avoid responsibility if he knowingly marries a woman whose previous marriage was not legally dissolved.
3. Legal separation is not the only factor—practical realities such as mutual separation and lack of financial support from the first husband must also be considered.

The Supreme Court’s decision provides relief to women in financially vulnerable positions, ensuring that they are not left without support simply because of legal technicalities. It reinforces the broad and humanitarian interpretation of Section 125 CrPC, making it clear that maintenance is a duty, not a privilege.

Case Name: SMT. N. USHA RANI AND ANR. VERSUS MOODUDULA SRINIVAS

3). Punjab & Haryana HC Ruling: Additional Accused Cannot Be Summoned for Unrelated Offence in Ongoing Trial

Case Background:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently quashed a summoning order issued against a wrestling coach in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case. The case involved a 16-year-old victim who was reported missing on September 29, 2021, and later recovered.

An FIR was registered under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376 of the IPC, along with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. During the investigation, charges were filed against a different accused. However, after the victim testified in court, the prosecution sought to summon the wrestling coach as an additional accused. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, allowed this request on September 24, 2024, which led the coach to challenge the order in the High Court.

Issue of the Case:

The key question before the High Court was:

"Can the wrestling coach be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC when the allegations against him were unrelated to the primary case?"

Court Observations:

A bench comprising Justice Amarjot Bhatti reviewed the case and made the following observations:

1. Requirements for Summoning Additional Accused under Section 319 CrPC
   • The court must examine the nature of evidence against the accused.
   • It must assess whether the additional accused can be tried along with the main accused already facing trial.
2. Allegations Against the Coach Were Unrelated to the Case
   • The victim alleged that the coach raped her in 2018 while she was training at his akhada (wrestling school).
   • The primary case was about her disappearance in 2021, which was unrelated to the 2018 allegations.
   • The two incidents could not be connected and, therefore, did not justify summoning the coach as an accused in this trial.
3. No Initial Allegations Against the Coach
   • When the FIR was first registered, the coach was not mentioned.
   • Even when the victim was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Jhajjar, no allegations were made against him.
   • It was only during her statement to the magistrate that she accused the coach for the first time, which the Court noted as an improved version of her account.

Court Ruling:

• The summoning order dated September 24, 2024, was quashed.
• The coach could not be tried along with the main accused since his alleged actions were not linked to the incident in the FIR.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Allows courts to summon additional accused only if stronif strong evidence suggests they committed an offences connected to the case. (Section 358 of CrPC)
• Section 363 IPC: Punishment for kidnapping. (Section 137(2) of BNS)
• Section 366-A IPC: Inducing a minor girl for forced or illegal intercourse. (Section 99 of BNS)
• Section 376 IPC: Punishment for rape. (Section 64 of BNS)
• Section 4 of POCSO Act: Punishment for penetrative sexual assault against a minor.

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Limits the misuse of Section 319 CrPC – Courts cannot summon additional accused unless there is a clear connection between their alleged actions and the main trial.
2. Prevents wrongful prosecution – People should not be dragged into trials based on unrelated allegations.
3. Protects fair trial principles – The judgment ensures that only relevant accused are prosecuted together.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling emphasizes that summoning an additional accused requires strong, case-related evidence. Since the allegations against the wrestling coach were unrelated to the main FIR, the Court set aside the summoning order, reinforcing the principle that each case must be tried based on its own facts and circumstances.

Case Name: XXXX v. State of Haryana 

4). Punjab & Haryana High Court: Magisterial Inquiry Before FIR Under Section 175(3) BNSS Prevents Misuse of Police Power

Case Background:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently ruled on the scope of Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) while quashing a Magistrate's order for re-investigation in a case related to an attempt to murderincident reported in 2012.

The case involved a Daily Diary Report (DDR) lodged on June 5, 2012, under Section 323 IPC (now Section 115(2) BNSS), which is a non-cognizable offense. During the investigation, the accused was declared innocent, and a cancellation report was submitted.

However, in August 2024, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the cancellation report before the trial court. As a result, the Magistrate ordered a re-investigation of the matter. The accused then challenged this order in the High Court.

Issue of the Case:

The key question before the High Court was:

"Can a Magistrate order re-investigation simply because the complainant is dissatisfied with the cancellation report, especially after a long delay?"

Court Observations:

A bench comprising Justice Harpreet Singh Brar reviewed the case and made the following observations:

1. Section 175(3) of BNSS Introduces Additional Safeguards
   • The provision requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and consider the submissions of the policebefore directing FIR registration.
   • The power to conduct an inquiry must be exercised liberally, ensuring that the decision to initiate an investigation is reasonable and justified.
   • This prevents unnecessary police intervention and avoids wasting public resources.
2. Difference Between ‘Further Investigation’ and ‘Re-Investigation’
   • The Court distinguished between ‘further investigation’ and ‘re-investigation’:
     • Further investigation (under Section 173(8) CrPC, now Section 193(9) BNSS) means continuing an investigation if new material is found.
     • Re-investigation, on the other hand, completely nullifies previous findings, which is not permittedunless there are strong reasons.
   • In this case, there was no fresh evidence, making the order for re-investigation unjustified.
3. Magistrate’s Limited Options When a Cancellation Report is Filed
   • When the police submit a cancellation report stating that no offense has been committed, the Magistrate can:
     1. Accept the report and close the case.
     2. Disagree and issue a process against the accused.
     3. Direct further investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS).
   • However, the Magistrate cannot simply order a re-investigation without valid reasons.
4. Delay of 12 Years Violates Fair Trial Principles
   • The Court noted that the complainant did not specify what was missing in the original investigation.
   • The Magistrate’s decision lacked proper reasoning, indicating non-application of judicial mind.
   • Ordering re-investigation after 12 years would result in an unjustified prolonged trial for the accused.

Court Ruling:

• The order for re-investigation was quashed.
• The Daily Diary Report (DDR) was also quashed, as the case had remained inactive for 12 years.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 175(3) of BNSS: Requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry before directing an FIR. (Section 156(3) of CrPC)
• Section 193(9) of BNSS (formerly Section 173(8) CrPC): Allows further investigation only when new material emerges.
• Section 115(2) of BNSS (formerly Section 323 IPC): Deals with punishment for causing hurt (non-cognizable offense).

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Strengthens safeguards under BNSS – The judgment ensures that Magistrates exercise discretion properlybefore ordering an FIR or investigation.
2. Prevents misuse of re-investigation – Accused persons cannot be harassed by repeated investigations without valid reasons.
3. Protects the right to a fair trial – The ruling upholds the principle that criminal proceedings should not be unnecessarily prolonged.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling reinforces that re-investigation cannot be ordered simply based on a complainant’s dissatisfaction. The Magistrate must apply judicial reasoning and ensure that police intervention is justified. Since the case had been inactive for 12 years, the Court quashed the re-investigation order and the DDR, protecting the accused from an unwarranted prolonged trial.

Case Name: Pawan Kharbanda v. State of Punjab and another

5). Chhattisgarh High Court: Second Wife Cannot Be Prosecuted for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC 

Case Background:

The case involved a woman (complainant) who was legally married to her husband since 2006. The couple had a daughter in 2009. However, the husband and his family allegedly started mistreating the complainant and eventually forced her out of their home when the husband married another woman (the petitioner) in May 2011, without obtaining a divorce from the complainant.

The complainant tried to file an FIR but was unsuccessful. She then filed a criminal complaint, naming her husband, the second wife (petitioner), and two other persons as accused. Based on her complaint, a criminal case was registered under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives), 494 (bigamy), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.

The second wife (petitioner) approached the trial court, seeking to be discharged from the case, arguing that she could not be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC, as she was not previously married. However, the trial court rejected her plea, prompting her to file this petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against her.

Issue of the Case:

The key question before the Court was:

"Can a person who is single and marries someone whose first marriage is still valid be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC?"

Court Observations:

A bench comprising Justice Arvind Kumar Verma reviewed the case and made the following key observations:

1. Section 494 IPC Targets Only the Already Married Person
   • The language of Section 494 IPC clearly states that the offense applies to a person who has a living spouse and remarries.
   • It does not criminalize the actions of a person who was single at the time of marriage, even if they married someone whose first marriage was still valid.
2. Legislative Intent Behind Section 494 IPC
   • The law is meant to punish the spouse who violates the sanctity of marriage by remarrying without obtaining a legal divorce.
   • The second wife, if unmarried before, does not commit any offense under this section.
3. Petitioner (Second Wife) Cannot Be Prosecuted
   • The prosecution did not claim that the petitioner was previously married at the time she married the complainant’s husband.
   • Therefore, she cannot be held liable for bigamy.
   • The husband, who married again without divorce, is the one who should be prosecuted under Section494 IPC.

Court Ruling:

• The second wife cannot be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC.
• The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 494 IPC (Bigamy): Penalises a person who, having a living spouse, marries again without obtaining a divorce. The punishment includes imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine. (Section 82(1) of BNS)
• Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives): Provides punishment for cruelty or harassment of a wife. (Section 85 & 86 of BNS)
• Section 34 IPC (Common Intention): Holds multiple accused responsible for an offences committed together. (Section 3(5) of BNS)

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Clarifies the Scope of Section 494 IPC – Ensures that only the spouse violating marriage laws is prosecuted, not an innocent second spouse.
2. Prevents Misuse of Law – Ensures that Section 494 IPC is not misused to target the second spouse unfairly.
3. Strengthens Protection for Women – Reinforces that women forced into a second marriage unknowingly should not be criminally charged.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that Section 494 IPC applies only to a person who remarries while their first marriage is still valid. The second wife (if previously unmarried) cannot be prosecuted under this provision. Therefore, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, reinforcing that only the legally married spouse violating bigamy laws should be held accountable.

Case Name: Dr. Manju Sinha v. Smt. Pyari Dadsena & Anr.

Case No: CRMP No. 2197 of 2024

6). Allahabad High Court: Minor Sexual Assault Survivors Suffer Silently Rather Than Falsely Implicating Anyone

Case Background:

A man accused of raping an 11-year-old girl applied for bail before the Allahabad High Court. The accused was arrested in September 2023 and was booked under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The father of the victim, who was also the complainant, claimed to be an eyewitness and reported that the crime took place inside their own house. The victim had given statements under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS confirming the incident.

Issues of the Case:

The primary issue before the Court was:

1. Should the accused be granted bail in a rape case involving a minor?
2. Do minor discrepancies in the victim’s statement affect the prosecution’s case?
3. Is penetration necessary to constitute rape under the law?

Court Observations:

A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh made the following key observations:

1. Credibility of the Victim’s Testimony

• The Court emphasized that a minor girl in India, especially in rural areas, would rather suffer in silence than falsely accuse someone of sexual assault.
• Victims of rape undergo severe trauma, and it is unlikely that they would falsely implicate an innocent person.
• The victim’s statement remains primary evidence in rape cases, and minor discrepancies do not weaken her allegations.

2. No Need for Medical Corroboration in Rape Cases

• The accused argued that the medical report did not show signs of force or penetration, meaning no rape had occurred.
• The Court rejected this argument, stating that lack of medical evidence does not automatically disprove rape allegations.
• The victim’s statement itself is sufficient to establish the offense, and medical reports are only supportive evidence.

3. No Penetration Required for Rape Conviction

• The accused claimed that the victim had not explicitly stated that penetration occurred in her statements.
• The Court clarified that penetration is not a necessary requirement under Section 63 of BNS, particularly when the victim is below 12 years old.
• Even if penetration did not occur, the accused would still be guilty under Section 65(2) of BNS, which covers sexual offenses against children below 12 years.

4. Presumption of Guilt Under POCSO Act

• The Court cited Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which states that when a person is accused of a sexual offense against a minor, the Court must presume that the accused is guilty unless proven otherwise.
• Since the accused failed to prove his innocence, the Court refused to grant bail.

Court Ruling:

• The bail application of the accused was rejected.
• The Court held that the victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to establish the offense.
• The accused would face trial under Section 63 BNS (Rape) and Section 65(2) BNS (sexual offenses against children below 12 years).

Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 63 BNS (Rape) – Defines rape and its punishments. (Section 375 of IPC)
• Section 65(2) BNS – Covers sexual offences committed against children below 12 years of age. (Section 376 AB of IPC)
• Section 180 & 183 BNSS – Deals with recording victim statements during investigation. (Section 183 BNS- Section 261 of BNS) (Section 180 of BNS-Section 242, 243, 252, 253, 249, 489C of IPC)
• Section 29 POCSO Act – Presumption of guilt against an accused in child sexual abuse cases.

Significance of the Judgment:

1. Strengthens Protection for Child Victims – Reaffirms that victim statements are crucial evidence in rape cases.
2. Ensures Strict Enforcement of POCSO Act – Highlights that courts must presume guilt unless the accused proves otherwise.
3. Expands the Definition of Rape – Clarifies that penetration is not necessary to establish a rape offense under BNS.
4. Discourages Bail for Sexual Offenses Against Minors – Sets a strict approach for granting bail in child rape cases, ensuring that accused individuals do not misuse legal loopholes.

The Allahabad High Court refused bail to the accused, reinforcing that minor inconsistencies in a victim’s statement do not weaken a rape case. The Court prioritised the victim’s testimony and upheld the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act, ensuring that justice is served in cases involving sexual offences against children.

Case Name - Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025