***

Evidence -- Closure of evidence -- Opportunity to examine party as witness -- Matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities -- Orders closing evidence and refusing recall set aside subject to payment of costs.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) -- Evidence -- Closure of evidence -- Opportunity to examine party as witness -- One effective opportunity to lead and conclude evidence ought to be granted where party seeks to examine himself as a witness -- Matters should be decided on merits rather than technicalities -- Orders closing evidence and dismissing application for recall set aside subject to payment of costs.

(Paras 7 to 9)

***

Criminal medical negligence -- Anaesthetist giving telephonic post-operative pain management advice after duty hours cannot be held criminally liable for subsequent procedural lapse committed by staff nurse in administering injection -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

***

Criminal negligence -- In absence of direct proximate nexus between telephonic painkiller advice and death caused by acute coronary insufficiency due to 80% coronary blockage, criminal liability of appellant-anaesthetist not sustainable.
***

Medical negligence -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist in case involving epidural anaesthesia rendered medical opinion unreliable and contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1 -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

***

Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Appellant-doctor having been exonerated on merits by Consumer Forum and such finding attaining finality, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical allegations held abuse of process of law.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal medical negligence -- Rash and negligent act -- Degree of negligence -- Anaesthetist whose duty hours had concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse -- Appellant merely suggested administration of painkiller over telephone, which constituted standard medical advice for post-operative pain management and not gross criminal recklessness -- Failure of nurse to accurately locate epidural space may at best amount to deficiency in service giving rise to civil liability, but lacked gross culpability or mens rea necessary to attract Section 304-A IPC -- Essential ingredients of criminal negligence absent -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal negligence -- Proximate cause -- Requirement of direct nexus (causa causans) between negligent act and death -- Painkiller advised by petitioner over telephone -- Deceased found having asymptomatic 80% coronary artery blockage -- Medical evidence proving immediate cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency resulting in heart attack -- Chain of causation too remote to fasten criminal liability upon appellant-anaesthetist -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence -- Expert opinion – Requirement of independent competent medical opinion -- Case relating to administration of epidural anaesthesia -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist -- Effect -- Absence of specialist in concerned branch rendered panel incompetent to evaluate technical nuances of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management -- Reliance on such flawed expert report contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Paras 26, 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Effect -- Consumer Forum after detailed appreciation of evidence exonerating appellant-doctor from liability -- Finding attained finality qua the appellant -- Where exoneration on merits holds allegations wholly unsustainable, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

(Paras 21 to 23)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Recovery of articles -- Recovery of empty phials of calmpose injection, clothes worn and rope at instance of appellant proved through testimony of Investigating Officer -- Viscera report showing diazepham present -- Merely because panch witnesses turned hostile cannot be ground to discard important piece of evidence if recovery is proved through Investigating Officer -- Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 149 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Recovery of articles -- Empty phial of calmpose injection, clothes worn by appellant and rope recovered at instance of appellant -- Prosecution case that accused persons initially administered calmpose injection to deceased persons and thereafter caused injuries resulting in death -- Postmortem report showing shock due to external and internal injuries on vital parts and excessive blood loss -- Viscera report showing diazepham present -- Recovery not vitiated merely because panch witnesses failed to support prosecution case -- Recovery proved through testimony of Investigating Officer -- Recovery held proved -- Conviction upheld.

(Paras 15 to 21)

***

Murder and dowry cruelty -- Deceased subjected to persistent harassment for motorcycle and cash demand -- Medical evidence proving homicidal hanging -- Husband failed to explain injuries sustained by deceased in matrimonial home -- Conviction under Sections 302 and 498A IPC upheld.

***

Burden of proof -- Murder inside matrimonial home -- Husband failed to explain homicidal death of wife -- Adverse inference rightly drawn under Section 106 of Evidence Act.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 498A – Murder -- Dowry demand and cruelty -- Deceased repeatedly subjected to torture for motorcycle and cash demand -- Several panchayat meetings and resolutions effected for compromise -- Direct evidence of father and other witnesses regarding persistent cruelty and harassment -- Deceased found hanging in matrimonial home where appellant-husband was present -- Medical evidence proving simulated hanging/homicidal hanging -- Appellant failed to offer any explanation regarding injuries sustained by deceased prior to death -- Defence of suicide belied by overwhelming medical evidence -- Conviction under Sections 498A and 302 IPC upheld.

(Paras 25 to 31)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder inside house -- Burden of proof -- Where offence takes place inside privacy of house, corresponding burden lies upon inmates of house to give cogent explanation as to how victim succumbed -- Appellant-husband failed to discharge burden or explain homicidal death of wife inside matrimonial home -- Adverse inference rightly drawn against appellant.

(Paras 29 to 31)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Acquittal -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction --Supreme Court declined interference under Article 136.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 364, 302, 396, 201 and 120-B -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recoveries and alleged disclosure statements -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction -- Non-examination of independent witness allegedly present at time of recovery of dead body created serious doubt regarding prosecution claim that recovery was made pursuant to disclosure statement of accused -- Recoveries of tape recorder, wrist watch and towel not connected with crime through legally admissible evidence -- Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof -- When two views are possible and High Court adopts plausible view, Supreme Court would not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice -- Appeals dismissed.

(Paras 24 to 43)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking accused to the murder -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

***

Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement implicating co-accused and made while accused were detained by villagers lacks credibility and cannot form basis of conviction.

***

Recovery of weapon -- Recovery from an open and accessible place without proof of concealment does not satisfy requirements of Section 27.

***

Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Absence of motive assumes significance where chain of circumstances is not complete and raises a reasonable doubt.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 34 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory, extra-judicial confession and recoveries failed to constitute a complete chain of incriminating circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused -- Conviction set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 18 and 20)

B. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 3 and 114 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen together theory -- Proximity between last seen circumstance and death is essential -- Where time gap is large and possibility of intervening circumstances exists, last seen circumstance cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against accused.

(Paras 7 to 9)

C. Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 24 and 30 -- Extra-judicial confession -- Weak piece of evidence -- Exculpatory statement absolving maker and implicating co-accused is inherently unreliable -- Alleged confession made while accused were detained by villagers under accusation of murder lacked credibility and could not form basis of conviction.

(Paras 10 and 11)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Recovery of weapon -- Concealment and knowledge of accused are crucial ingredients of discovery under Section 27 -- In absence of any statement regarding concealment, recoveries made from an open and accessible place do not qualify as recoveries under Section 27 -- Recoveries are of no avail.

(Paras 12 to 15)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Motive -- Though motive is not imperative where chain of circumstances is so complete as to establish only a hypothesis of guilt, absence of motive assumes significance where prosecution case raises a reasonable doubt.

(Para 17)

***

First appeal -- Substantial compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC -- Detailed reappreciation by First Appellate Court sufficient to sustain reversal of Trial Court decree.

***

Fraud -- Registered GPA-based sale transactions – Plaintiff failed to establish that transactions were mere loan-security arrangements or were vitiated by fraud – Burden of proof remains on plaintiff; in absence of foundational facts, presumption of genuineness of registered sale transactions stands.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 – First Appellate Court, being the final court on facts, is required to independently reappreciate entire evidence and assign reasons while reversing Trial Court decree – Requirement is of substantial compliance and not mere technical formality – Detailed reappreciation of oral and documentary evidence, including loan transactions, Exs. B7 and B9, possession, mutation entries, limitation and conduct of parties, held sufficient compliance – Judgment not liable to be interfered with on ground of alleged non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

(Para 40-42)

B. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 53A, 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 – Registered GPA – Execution of sale deeds pursuant to GPAs – Fraud alleged -- Burden of proof – Appellant executed registered GPAs in favour of respondents; original title deeds were handed over and registered sale deeds executed followed by mutation entries and subsequent transfers – Burden to prove that transactions were only loan-security arrangements and not genuine sale transactions lies upon the plaintiff – Mere allegation of fraud or fiduciary misuse is insufficient without foundational facts – Burden does not shift to respondents unless foundational facts are first established.

(Paras 43, 44)

C. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), Sections 54 and 55 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Sections 101 to 103 and 114 – Registered sale deeds pursuant to GPA – Fraud alleged – Delay and conduct – Appellant executed registered GPAs and sale deeds in 1998; mutation entries continued for several years and multiple subsequent transactions were effected – No cancellation of GPAs or legal action for nearly a decade – Explanation of delayed knowledge rejected in view of appellant and PW-1 being engaged in real estate business – Non-examination of appellant and attesting witnesses to receipts and GPAs – No expert evidence of forgery or interpolation – Plea of forgery of Exs. B7 and B9 rejected – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 45-58)

Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Death of wife in matrimonial home -- Medical evidence proving strangulation and not suicide -- Missing ornaments, ligature marks and injury on cheek inconsistent with hanging -- False defence through alleged suicide note -- Failure of husband to explain incriminating circumstances within special knowledge -- Conviction upheld.

***

Motive -- Murder -- Once prosecution establishes complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt of accused, failure to prove motive is not fatal to prosecution case.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Complete chain -- Deceased wife found dead inside matrimonial home -- Post-mortem revealing ligature marks around neck, fracture of hyoid bone and trachea and cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation -- Trial Court and High Court rightly relying upon medical evidence and surrounding circumstances to conclude homicidal death -- Missing left ear-ring, right leg anklet and toe-rings held significant circumstance, as such articles were unlikely to go missing in case of suicidal hanging -- Fresh injury mark on cheek further corroborating prosecution case -- Conduct of accused in taking deceased to another private hospital despite first doctor declaring her dead also found incriminating -- Alleged suicide note not accepted and found to be part of false defence -- Circumstances cumulatively forming complete chain pointing only towards guilt of accused and excluding every hypothesis of innocence -- Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld.

(Paras 16, 18 to 20, 26)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Unnatural death in matrimonial home – Facts within special knowledge -- Burden to explain -- Murder -- Appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation in statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding circumstances leading to death of deceased -- Failure to discharge burden under Section 106 held to be additional link in chain of circumstances after prosecution established foundational facts.

(Paras 20 to 22)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 201 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Absence of proof of motive -- Effect -- Once prosecution establishes complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proving guilt of accused, failure to prove motive is not fatal to prosecution case.

(Para 23)

***

Hostile witness -- Evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence.

***

Postmortem report -- Evidentiary value -- Postmortem report by itself not substantive evidence -- Requires corroboration by oral evidence of medical expert.

***

Independent witnesses -- Incident alleged to have occurred on public road with vehicular movement and presence of nearby persons -- Failure of prosecution to examine any independent witness assumes significance and renders occurrence doubtful.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 323 -- Murder -- Conviction -- PW3 turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story -- Other witnesses did not support prosecution case regarding holding of Panchayat about the issue of elopement of the sister of the accused and the deceased. -- No other evidence which could corroborate the factum of holding of Panchayat etc. -- No independent witness examined though incident allegedly occurred on busy public road -- Medical evidence suffered from discrepancies and contradictions -- Held, prosecution failed to prove occurrence, genesis and motive of crime -- Evidence weak and unreliable -- Conviction unsustainable -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 5 to 10.4)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 145, 157 and 159 -- Hostile witness -- Admissibility and evidentiary value -- Evidence of hostile witness remains admissible and can be relied upon once corroborated by other reliable evidence.

(Paras 8.3 to 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Medical evidence -- Postmortem report -- Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence -- Medical expert required to satisfactorily explain discrepancies and contradictions appearing in postmortem report -- Failure to explain inconsistencies diminishes evidentiary value of medical evidence.

(Paras 6 to 6.1)

***

Panchayat (Haryana) -- Election petition -- All contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

***

Handwriting expert – Report -- It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

***

A. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – Necessary party -- All contesting candidates -- In terms of the provisions of Section 176 of the 1994 Act, all contesting candidates should have been impleaded as parties and the impleading of only the returned candidate was not sufficient.

(Para 19)

B. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- Election petition – Report of the handwriting expert – It is of advisory value and the science of examination of handwriting is not a perfect science.

(Para 19)

C. Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994), Section 163, 176 – Election petition – An election cannot be set aside on the mere asking of another contesting party.

(Para 20)

***

Family pension -- Entitlement -- Second marriage during subsistence of earlier marriage -- Long cohabitation and documentary evidence of marriage -- Even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) Hindu Marriage Act, relationship not immoral -- Entitlement to family pension upheld on principles of social justice and economic empowerment -- Appeal allowed and family pension granted.

***

Constitution of India, Article 14 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955), Section 5(i) -- Evidence Act, 1872 (Act No. 1 of 1872), Section 114 -- CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, Rule 50 -- Family pension to second wife -- Entitlement -- Appellant claiming family pension of deceased employee as widow -- Marriage disputed on ground of subsisting first marriage -- Evidence of affidavit of deceased, Parivar Register entry and long cohabitation produced – In Section 9 petition marriage held to be nullity -- Presumption of valid marriage drawn under Section 114 Evidence Act based on long cohabitation -- Held, even if marriage is void under Section 5(i) HMA, such relationship though illegal is not immoral -- Financially dependent partner cannot be denied relief solely on that ground -- Claim of the appellant for grant of family pension is governed by the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules -- Interpretation of pension rules to advance social justice, dignity and economic empowerment of women -- Object of family pension analogous to maintenance jurisprudence -- Deceased had treated appellant as nominee and cohabitation continued for long period -- Appellant held entitled to family pension as widow for purposes of CCS Pension Rules -- Impugned judgment set aside -- Appeal allowed.

(Paras 1–5, 7–12, 14–21)

***

Additional evidence (SPA) at appellate stage cannot be permitted in absence of due diligence and explanation for non-production at trial, as it would amount to filling lacunae – Application dismissed.

Registered Sale Deed carries presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to depose – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of principal on personal facts – Adverse inference drawn – Appeal dismissed.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27(1), (1)(aa) – SPA in additional evidence at appellate stage – Permissible only on proof of due diligence and inability to produce evidence at trial despite best efforts –Applicant has not exercised due diligence and cannot be permitted at this stage to improve his case or fill up lacunae in his case by leading additional evidence -- Application dismissed.

(Para 1)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 3 Rules 1 and 2, Section 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 54 -- Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 60(2) -- Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of validity – Allegation of fraud – Burden of proof – Power of Attorney (SPA) – Scope of deposition – Second Appeal – Registered Sale Deed bearing thumb impression and photograph carries presumption of truth and validity – Allegation of fraud not proved as plaintiff failed to step into witness box and led no evidence – SPA holder cannot depose on behalf of plaintiff regarding facts within personal knowledge of principal – Non-examination of plaintiff warrants adverse inference – Contradictory pleas regarding sale consideration – NOC supports case of defendants – High Court in second appeal has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Courts below – Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 15 to 32)

***

S. 351 BNSS/ S. 313 Cr.P.C. -- Failure to put vital incriminating circumstances including medical evidence of rape, DNA report and forensic evidence to accused -- Trial Court relying upon such material for conviction and award of death sentence -- Serious prejudice caused -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded to Trial Court from stage of recording statements of accused.

***

A. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Ss. 5 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376-AB and 302 -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- POCSO offence and murder -- DNA report and forensic evidence -- Conviction based partly on DNA evidence matching victim's blood with articles recovered from accused -- Such incriminating material not put to accused during examination under S. 313 -- Reliance thereon held prejudicial.

(Paras 39-46)

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Examination of accused -- Must bring to notice of accused each material incriminating circumstance separately and intelligibly -- Omnibus and composite questions reproducing prosecution evidence do not satisfy statutory requirement.

(Paras 35-38, 44)

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 351 -- Circumstances not put to accused -- Resultant prejudice -- Irregularity held curable -- Conviction and sentence set aside -- Matter remanded for fresh examination of accused and decision afresh from that stage.

(Paras 46-47)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 3 – Affidavit of plaintiff in rebutal -- Suit for permanent injunction – Petitioner-plaintiff sought to place affidavit Ex. PW4/A on record by way of rebuttal evidence – Held, if the petitioner-plaintiff intended to lead rebuttal evidence, he ought to have reserved his right to do so at the time of closing his affirmative evidence -- However, no such reservation was made -- Consequently, the affidavit Ex. PW4/A cannot be permitted to be taken on record by way of rebuttal evidence.

(Para 2-8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Murder – Conviction based on dying declaration – Evidentiary value – Dying declaration recorded by Magistrate in question-answer form after medical certification of fitness –Plea of tutoring by relatives found to be a bald assertion – Though eyewitnesses turned hostile, medical evidence corroborated the dying declaration – Dying declaration found reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and High Court not suffering from manifest error warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6–13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 26 -- Dying declaration -- Generally speaking, these declarations enjoy a special position given the timing and the nature thereof -- This position rests on a philosophical understanding that when a person is about to meet his maker or in other words the oncoming of death and its finality is imminent, considerations which may force a person to speak other than the truth pale into insignificance and what does fall from them would, therefore, be only the truth – It is exception to the rule of hearsay and, if a Court finds it consistent, believable and free of tutoring, can convict the person named therein.

(Para 9)

***

Dowry death -- Mere proof that death occurred within seven years of marriage is insufficient -- Prosecution must establish that death was caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances and that there existed a live and proximate link between dowry-related cruelty or harassment and the death.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Dowry death -- Essential ingredients -- Death within seven years of marriage by itself not sufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC -- Prosecution required to prove that death was caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances and that deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before death -- Post-mortem report disclosed no injuries, viscera report ruled out poisoning and cause of death remained unascertained -- Ingredient relating to unnatural death held not proved -- Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside.

(Paras 12-22, 36-38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Dowry demand -- Mere demand for articles or valuables not amounting to dowry demand unless accompanied by cruelty or harassment connected therewith -- To invoke statutory presumption under Section 113-B, prosecution must establish a live and proximate nexus between death and dowry-related cruelty inflicted soon before death -- Vague allegations of demand unsupported by evidence of specific acts of cruelty or harassment held insufficient to sustain conviction.

(Paras 29-35)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Presumption as to dowry death -- Expression "shown" occurring in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act requires foundational facts to be proved by prosecution before statutory presumption can arise -- Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death.

(Paras 27-30)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 148, 149, 201, 452 – Regular bail – Murder -- Material witnesses including the bua of the deceased not supported the prosecution case -- They have not identified the petitioners even when the CCTV footage was put to them during cross-examination -- Whether the remaining evidence available against the petitioners is sufficient to establish their culpability shall be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial -- Petitioners are in custody since 14.06.2024 but only 04 of the 29 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, trial not likely to be concluded anytime soon – Bail allowed.

(Para 5)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311A – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Cheque bounce complaint – Expert evidence – Specimen handwriting of stranger/ third party – Permissibility of – Persons whose specimen handwriting is sought are neither the complainant nor the accused in the proceedings and are only witnesses to the case – Being third parties to the litigation, the Court cannot direct them to give specimen handwriting -- Application rightly dismissed.

(Para 5-8, 11)

Scope of S. 528 BNSS -- Inherent powers u/s 528 BNSS are to be exercised sparingly and cannot be used unless the order reflects patent illegality or miscarriage of justice

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Inherent power u/s 528 of BNSS -- Scope of – Cane be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice -- Jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity or results in manifest miscarriage of justice -- Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible or to re-appreciate the factual aspects which have already been considered by the trial Court.

(Para 8)

B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint -- Marking or exhibiting of a document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the same in accordance with law -- Party relying upon the document still carries the burden to establish its execution, authenticity and admissibility -- If such proof is not forthcoming, the Court is always competent to eschew the document from consideration at the stage of final adjudication.

(Para 10)

C. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Cheque bounce complaint  – Evidence by attorney -- Once the attorney had been duly substituted to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the complainant and the complainant’s evidence was still continuing, the tendering of documents during the course of such evidence cannot be said to be wholly impermissible – Contention that the documents could not have been tendered by the Special Power of Attorney without prior permission of the Court does not merit acceptance -- Other party retains full liberty to challenge the admissibility, mode of proof and evidentiary value of such documents during cross-examination and at the stage of final arguments.

(Para 11)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – A dying declaration is a very important species of evidence capable of proving the crime proper and identifying the accused, an exception to hearsay having been provided by Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act -- Court should be satisfied it is made by the deceased without any prompting or tutoring or coercion or is a mere figment of imagination -- Then conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration and there is no requirement of any corroboration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Form of declaration -- It can be reduced to writing or can be oral, as testified by reliable witnesses -- It can be one or numerous and if more than one; exculpatory and inculpatory, it is for the Court to find out which is believable -- It can be a lengthy one or a short one, so far as the crime is spoken of and identification of the perpetrator comes through -- It can be a single narrative or in a question and answer form -- It can either have a history of the rancour between the perpetrator and the victim or can be merely the brief statement of the incident.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Medical condition/ opinion -- The capacity of the injured to make the statement, both physical and mental, need not be necessarily certified by a doctor and would rest again on the satisfaction of the Court on an analysis of the testimony of the various witnesses and the other evidence coming forth in trial -- If the Court is satisfied of the fit state of mind of the injured from the evidence on record, a contrary medical opinion or an absence of it will be inconsequential.

(Para 13)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Where to made -- It can be made before a Magistrate; Executive or Judicial, a Doctor, a Police Officer, a relative or a third party whose presence is not doubtful -- The desire of the declarant to live, through the truth despite fear of imminent death cannot be easily brushed aside.

(Para 13)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Son and daughter-in-law accused of murder – Acquittal – Lapses in investigation and trial – Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Investigation found to be grossly deficient – Scene mahazar not drawn, no forensic examination conducted at the scene of crime and no independent witnesses examined – Cause of fire not investigated and presence of the accused near the crime scene not established – Delay in registration of FIR despite prior information received at the police station and presence of police officials at the scene constituted a serious lapse – Manner in which the FIS was recorded cast doubt on the conduct of the Investigating Officer – Dying declarations ought to have been recorded with greater caution and preferably in the presence of a doctor with certification – Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence must be put to the accused in their entirety under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a duty cast upon both the Court and the Prosecutor – Failure to do so may vitiate the prosecution case – Acquittal recorded by the High Court upheld.

(Para 21-32)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Negligence – Tribunal’s finding based primarily on the registration of FIR – Held, independent reassessment required on the basis of the material available on record -- Registration of FIR against the claimant cannot be treated as conclusive proof of negligence.

(Para 6, 11)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 -- Negligence --  Acquittal order -- Additional evidence in appeal allowed – Said judgment has direct bearing on the finding of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal -- Though acquittal in a criminal case does not ipso facto establish negligence of the opposite party in civil proceedings, it certainly demolishes the foundation of the learned Tribunal’s reasoning which rested entirely upon the registration of FIR and pendency of trial.

(Para 8)

C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 114(g) -- Negligence – Non-examination of driver – Adverse inference -- Respondent No.1/ driver despite contesting negligence, did not step into the witness box to depose on oath -- In such circumstances, adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act is liable to be drawn.

(Para 9)

D. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Contributory negligence -- Accident occurred on hilly road and claimant was driving downhill, greater caution was expected from him – Failure to regulate speed and maintain adequate control contributed to accident – Principle of contributory negligence attracted – Respondent driver held primarily negligent but claimant held contributorily negligent to extent of 50%.

(Para 12)

E. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Contributory negligence – Injury case -- Claimant aged 23 years suffered 45% permanent disability in right leg – Functional disability assessed at 40% – Notional income assessed at Rs.2,000 per month – Applying multiplier of 18 with 40% future prospects, loss of future earning capacity assessed at Rs.2,41,920 – Additional compensation awarded towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, transportation, attendant and special diet totalling Rs.40,000 – Total compensation assessed at Rs.2,81,920 – After deduction of 50% on account of contributory negligence, claimant held entitled to Rs.1,40,960 with interest @ 7% per annum from date of claim petition – Insurance company liable to satisfy award.

(Para 14-19)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27, 106 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Recovery of dead body at the instance of the accused – Ransom calls made from the deceased’s mobile phone – Sale of the deceased’s mobile phone by the accused – Recovery of the deceased’s scooty at the disclosure of the accused – Identification of the deceased by relatives and known persons though the body was partially decomposed – Medical evidence establishing homicidal death due to throttling by ligature – Recovery of the dead body and other articles from places known only to the accused constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance – Identification of the deceased cannot be discarded merely on the ground that DNA test was not conducted – Circumstances proved form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused – Conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court held justified – Appeal dismissed – However, considering that the accused has undergone more than 15 years of imprisonment, liberty granted to apply for remission in accordance with the applicable policy.

(Paras 12–30)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial Evidence – Last seen together theory – Failure to establish proximity and reliable identification – Effect – No clear-cut time specified on which the death occurred, when it is trite that the last seen together theory projected by the prosecution should be proximate to the death of the victim – It is the roommates of the deceased who informed PW1 that they were told by a friend of the deceased that he was going to meet A1 in the evening -- The roommates of the deceased were not examined -- Identification of the accused by a witness for the first time in the police station, without holding a Test Identification Parade -- Nothing on record to indicate ownership of auto rickshaw, who was alleged to be driver of auto rickshaw, who had picked up three persons and dropped them near scene of occurrence --   Ransom calls hence remained an unsolved puzzle – Last scene theory not proved -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 13-16, 31)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Confession statement -- Confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made -- Confession allegedly made by the appellants is of no use in bringing home a conviction, especially when there was no corroboration available, of the statements made, from other valid evidence -- Admissions were only that made in the confessional statements, of the death having occurred in the presence of the accused, on the day the deceased was found missing, which is not worthy of acceptance – Conviction set aside.

(Para 29-31)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63(c) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Court cannot put the testator in its shoes, and Court should step into his – Court cannot substitute its opinions in place of that of the testator; his desire prompted by his own justifications -- As is trite, Court would only ensure that, sitting in the arm-chair of the testator the rule of prudence is satisfied for the exclusion.

(Para 28)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63(c) – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 – Will – Deposition on leading question in cross-examination – Evidential value -- Presence of the testator and the attesting witnesses and the signatures affixed on the will by each of them have been stated by DW-2 in his deposition – Attestation by other witness was not deposed to -- High Court found that though in the examination-in chief, the witness did not depose on the attestation by the other witness, in cross-examination to a leading question he answered that all persons signed on the will on the date when the witness signed the same – High court held that that by the leading question, the answer was put in the mouth of the witness and hence, it lacks probative value and fell short of the mandate u/s 63(c) of the ISA, 1925 read with Section 68 of the IEA, 1872 – Held, what was lacking in the examination-in-chief was brought out in the cross examination by way of a positive suggestion -- Leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value -- Testator was also established to be of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of the will -- There can be no interference to the Will which stands proved unequivocally.

(Para 6, 29)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 498A, 304B, 328 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113B – Constitution of India, Article 14, 21 -- Dowry death – Presumption – Regular bail by High Court – Cancellation of -- Marriage took place on 22.02.2023, and the death occurred on 05.06.2023 i.e. within four months of marriage – Dying declarations to the father and elder sister, coupled with consistent testimony of relatives and post-mortem noting of an abrasion suggestive of restraint, satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 304B IPC -- Consequently, the presumption u/s 113B of the Evidence Act arises inexorably against Respondent No. 1/ husband -- High Court, however, failed to take this statutory presumption into account, and instead relied solely on general bail principles -- Courts has to evaluate the gravity of the offence, the nature of accusations and the prima facie evidence while considering bail – Held, such heinous offences strike at the very root of human dignity and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality and life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India -- They corrode the moral fibre of the community, normalize violence against women, and erode the foundations of a civilized society -- Judicial passivity or misplaced leniency in the face of such atrocities would only embolden perpetrators and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice -- A firm and deterrent judicial response is, therefore, imperative, not only to uphold the majesty of law and do justice in the present case, but also to send an unequivocal message that neither law nor society will countenance barbarities born out of the evil of dowry -- Bail cancelled.

 (Para 17.1, 17.2, 25-26)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 – Additional evidence -- Video footage and photographs -- Placing on record – On application moved by complainant, the learned trial Court permitted the complainant to place certain documents on record, i.e. the video footage and photographs of the incident – Claimed by the complainant that in the video footage and photographs, the incident has been recorded and given to the Investigating Officer also, but the Investigating Officer having been under the influence of accused-petitioners, has not collected the above mentioned evidence – Held, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned trial Court in permitting the complainant to bring the above mentioned documents on record -- At this stage, when permission to produce the above mentioned documents has been accorded, the admissibility of the above mentioned documents cannot be looked into -- Appreciation of above mentioned point can take place at the time of final adjudication of the trial.

(Para 12, 13)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 73 -- Suit for declaration and injunction -- Comparison of signatures/ handwriting -- Scope -- In a suit for declaration and injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case -- Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Act, can only be invoked for an admitted document.

(Para 1-4)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 59 -- Injured eye witness version -- Ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it -- Testimony of an injured eyewitness is accorded a special status in law -- As being a stamped witness, his presence cannot be doubted -- Deposition by the injured eyewitness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies -- Keeping in view the principle that an injured eyewitness enjoys a presumption of truth and the fact that the same is supported by the medical evidence, testimony does not suffer from any infirmity and has to be considered while fixing the guilt of the appellants.

(Para 33-37)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 -- Motive -- Motive although is a relevant factor in all criminal cases, it, however, is not a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of the accused persons -- Motive even in a case which rests on an eyewitness account, lends strength to the prosecution’s case -- Fact of motive has to be seen in the light of the other cogent evidence available -- Fact of a prior enmity on account of the boundary dispute establishes the motive for the commission of the offence.

(Para 42, 43)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception 4, 302 – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Nature and extent of injuries, coupled with the surrounding circumstances, leave no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted -- Use of the sharp edges of spades, phawadas to deliver fatal blows on the heads of the deceased demonstrates that the assailants acted with a clear motive and object of permanently eliminating them, thereby committing their murder -- Thus, the circumstances to bring the case under the fourth exception to Section 300 of the IPC do not exist.

(Para 45)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154 -- Delay in FIR -- It is a settled position that delay in filing of the FIR cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the prosecution when there is direct evidence and when the delay in filing the FIR is well explained.

(Para 46)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 -- Non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of the prosecution if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence.

(Para 49)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 173 -- Omission by Investigation officer – Effect of -- Any omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot go against the prosecution’s case -- Story of the prosecution is to be examined dehors such omission by the investigating agency -- Otherwise, it would shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.

(Para 50)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 3, 65B – Electronic records – Document – Exhibition of Compact Disc (CD) – Playing of CD during deposition – Requirement of -- Author of the video not only deposed that he recorded the video, but he also gave a certificate, as contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, to make the CD admissible in evidence – High Court did not dispute that the electronic record was duly exhibited -- High Court opined that the video would become relevant only if it is played during deposition of each witness so that the witness could explain its contents in his own words resulting in a transcript of the video – Held, this is a strange and unacceptable reasoning for the simple reason that the CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s) -- It is not the requirement of law that the contents of the video would become admissible only if it is reduced to a transcript in the words of a witness who created the video or is noticed in the video.

(Para 19)

B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293 – NDPS – Chemical examiner – Deposition of – Requirement of – As far as non-production of Chemical Examiner as a witness is concerned, u/s 293 of CrPC, report of a Chemical Examiner is admissible even if he is not produced as a witness though, the Court may summon and examine him as to the subject matter of the report -- There is no requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under sub-section (1) of Section 293 of CrPC.

(Para 21)

C. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS – Production of contraband in Trial – Requirements of – Mere non-production of the seized contraband during trial may not be fatal if there is reliable evidence in respect of its seizure, drawing of samples therefrom, and FSL report relating to the sample drawn from the seized material – However, to ensure that no adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution for non-production of the seized contraband, documents prepared in terms of the provisions of Section 52-A, inter alia, evidencing preparation of inventory of seized contraband and drawing of samples therefrom, would have to be brought on record – Likewise, evidence should be there that the sample drawn from the inventory was sent to FSL in a sealed container/ envelop, as per guidelines, and that the seal was found intact at the end of FSL – This is to obviate any doubt regarding sample being tampered in transit – Similarly, FSL’s report along with the sample tested by it is to be placed on record so that there remains no doubt regarding the sample tested.

(Para 30, 31)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 386(b)(i), 391 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 52A – NDPS -- Re-trial – Additional evidence -- High Court, observed that the representative sample was not opened before the Court at the time of recording of statement of the concerned witness -- Be that as it may, this was not a ground to direct for a retrial when the appellate court has power to take additional evidence u/s 391 of CrPC, which, inter alia, can be exercised to exhibit a document or material already on the record of the Court -- And if those defects are fatal to the prosecution, the appellate court is free to take its decision as may be warranted in the facts of the case. But, in any event, it cannot be a ground to direct a re-trial.

(Para 33)

A. Karewa marriage – Void marriage -- At the time of alleged Karewa Mariage between S and SR, wife of SR namely L was still alive -- It is settled law that second marriage, during subsistence of first marriage, is null and void.

(Para 16)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 27 – Additional evidence -- Application for additional evidence by way of DNA test to establish paternity of the defendants No.3 to 6 -- Plaintiff had moved the said application three-and-a-half years after initiation of appeal -- Plaintiff had failed to explain as to why the said application for producing evidence in question was not moved during trial; and why the said evidence was not produced before the learned trial Court -- Needless to say, the said facts were in the knowledge of the plaintiff during trial -- However, he failed to exercise due diligence -- No error in the dismissal of the said application of the plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the learned Lower Appellate Court.

(Para 17)

A. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Legal Principles -- A Will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Act, 1872, that is examination of at least of one of the attesting witnesses -- However, unlike other documents, when a Will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of living -- This casts a solemn duty on the Court to ascertain whether the Will propounded had been duly proved -- Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator -- Only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the Will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the Will be accepted as genuine.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Proof of Will -- Parameters to ascertain ‘suspicious circumstances’ vitiating a Will –

-- Deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession

-- Prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the Will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act.

(Para 16)

C. Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Section 63 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 68 -- Will in favour of nephew – Wife/ natural heir – Will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the 1^st respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance – Nothing has come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter – Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of testator by 1^st respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple – Ordinarily, in a Hindu/ Sikh family, last rites are performed by Male Sapinda relations – A cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the Will, gives rise to serious doubt that the Will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the ‘free will’ of the testator – Held, non-mention of 1st respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the Will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant.

(Para 19, 20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 106 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39, 102 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – DNA evidence – Acquittal -- Despite the presence of DNA evidence, it has to be discarded for the reason that proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of the evidence in the course of the Appellant-convict's conviction -- DNA evidence is only of probative value, subject to the condition that it is properly dealt with – DNA evidence collected has been rendered unusable, it suffers from various shortcomings in as much as there is large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc. -- None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant-convict -- Chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime -- Conviction of the Appellant-convict vacated, he is directed to be released forthwith -- Appeal allowed.

(Para 35, 43, 45)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 39 -- DNA Evidence – Procedure to be followed – Directions issued, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. Here only we may clarify that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.

2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48-hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.

4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to  maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.

The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required -- States requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance.

(Para 44, 45)

Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 14, 20 -- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section  5, 122 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 43, 66, 72 -- Divorce petition -- WhatsApp messages – Privileged communication -- Learned Family Court permitted the respondent/ plaintiff/ husband to mark the exhibits on the WhatsApp chats produced by him in his evidence -- Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court, the instant petition by wife -- Held that:

(a) the evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected. The possible misuse of this rule of evidence, particularly in the context of the right to privacy, can be addressed by prudent exercise of judicial discretion by the Family Court, not at the time of receiving evidence but at the time of using evidence at the stage of adjudication;

(b) merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact. Admitting evidence is not even reliance by the court on such evidence. Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court;

(c) the test of ‘relevance’ ensures that the right of a party to bring evidence to court, and thereby to a fair trial, is not defeated. What weight is to be given to evidence so brought-in, and whether or not the court ultimately relies upon such evidence for proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact, is always in the discretion of the court.

(d) merely because a court allows evidence to be admitted, does not mean that the person who has illegally collected such evidence is absolved of liability that may arise, whether in civil or criminal law or both;

(e) such evidence must be received and treated with caution and circumspection and to rule-out the possibility of any kind of tampering, the standard of proof applied by a court for the authenticity and accuracy of a such evidence should be more stringent as compared to other evidence.

(Para 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 38)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 142, 148, 323, 506 -- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023), Section 9 -- Quashing of FIR/ Charge-sheet – Plea of alibi – Held, plea of alibi put forward by the petitioners cannot form a ground for quashing the impugned challan -- Veracity of the defence put up by the petitioners can be gone into by the trial court – High Court in exercise of its powers u/s 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial -- In case, the petitioners feel that their defence of alibi has not been investigated by the Investigating Agency, it is open to them to approach the learned trial Magistrate before whom charge sheet has been filed and seek further investigation of the case -- Petition dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Relevant fact – Absconding of accused – Effect of -- Mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation -- But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct u/s 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind -- Needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act.

(Para 10.9.2)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8 – Motive – Circumstantial evidence -- Motive is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person -- While proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal.

(Para 10.11.2, 10.11.3)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- If upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, Court see no reason why it should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused -- If such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination.

(Para 10.12.1)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence – Onus of proof -- Recovery of weapon – Effect of -- Prosecution cannot depend on the false alibi or unproven defence plea since the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the prosecution case and the onus never shifts to the accused – If weapon of crime was traced to the accused, it was incumbent upon the appellant/ accused  to explain the circumstances of the recovery of the weapon with which a linkage has been established with the injury suffered by the deceased through scientific evidence -- Apart from claiming ignorance and denying the various incriminating evidence presented during the trial, the appellant chose not to adduce any evidence to explain these circumstances -- Silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the Prosecution.

(Para 10.15)

E. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Circumstantial evidence -- If upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, no reason why it should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused -- If such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination.

(Para 10.12.1)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Non-explanation of evidence by accused -- Adverse inference -- Examination of an accused u/s 313 CrPC is to enable the accused to prepare and strategize his defence – Accused will have all the opportunities to discredit any prosecution witness or question any evidence and lead his defence evidence if any -- Despite the incriminating evidence which has come up against him has been pointed out to him by the Court, he has not explained any of these but merely denied or feigned ignorance to which necessary inference can be drawn against him.

(Para 10.16.1, 10.16.2)

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder -- Circumstantial evidence -- Last seen theory – Dead body of the deceased was recovered in a decomposed state, three days after the deceased was last seen together with the appellant -- As per postmortem, the death occurred 3/4 days before the postmortem examination -- Dead body was discovered with gunshot wounds on the head -- A double barrel gun with 2 spent and 1 live cartridges were recovered at the instance of the appellant -- As per the opinion of the ballistic expert, the gun showed signs of discharge and was in working condition, pellets and wads were recovered from the brain/ skull of the dead body, and these could have been fired through the gun examined and the double-barrel gun could be dismantled. Following circumstances and acts of the appellant strengthens the linkage.

(i) The appellant remained hidden from 11.07.2006 till 22.07.2006. He was arrested on 22.07.2006 after extensive search on numerous locations after the identification of the identity of the dead body on 14.07.2006.

(ii) The appellant had misled his friends, his family members and that of the deceased.

(iii) Personal effects of the deceased like gold chain was recovered from the appellant.

Appellant’s silence and failure to explain any of the incriminatory circumstances, would strengthen the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence against him as proved by the Prosecution -- Conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court which the High Court upheld does not warrant any interference.

(Para 10, 11)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 A – Additional evidence in suit -- Order 18 Rule 17 A of the CPC which provided for production of additional evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence has already been deleted from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -- Thus, there is no right to lead additional evidence.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17A -- Application for comparison through handwriting expert -- Suit for declaration and for possession in 2011 -- Reliance in the suit upon compromise dated 25.10.2010 -- In the written statement it was plea that the compromise dated 25.10.2010 was a result of fabrication -- Once the petitioner has taken the said plea in his written statement, then it was open to him to have led all evidence in support of the said plea till the time his evidence was closed – On 08.08.2023 i.e., after more than 12 years of institution of the suit, an application seeking permission for comparison through handwriting expert filed – After evidence had been closed, application cannot be allowed.

(Para 5, 6)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17 – Recall/ further examination of witness – Stage of – Scope of -- If it appears to a court trying the suit at any stage of the proceedings that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness it can always do so -- This power can be exercised even at the stage of writing a judgment by the court -- Power is to be used for removing ambiguities, for clarifying the statement and not for the purposes of filling up the lacuna in a party's case -- Power can be exercised by the Court at its own initiative and may even be so done at the instance of a party.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 165 -- Recall/ further examination of witness – Cross-examination – Permissibility of -- Section 165 of the Evidence Act provides that a Judge may in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness about any fact relevant -- If the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 are read along with the provisions of Section 165 of the Evidence Act it is clear that the power to recall and re-examine a witness is exclusively that of the court trying the suit -- The parties to the suit cannot take any objection to the question asked nor can they be permitted to cross-examine any witness without the leave of the court -- If circumstances warrant, an opportunity to a party to re-call a witness for examining, cross-examining or re-examining can be granted by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C.

(Para 7, 10)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 161, 162 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 165 -- Statements recorded u/s 161 of CrPC cannot be used for any purposes in a trial due to the embargo placed u/s 162 CrPC, however, the power of the Trial Court u/s 165 Evidence Act is wide enough to put questions based on the statement u/s 161 CrPC to any witness or party at any stage to secure the ends of justice.

(Para 54)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 84, 302, 304 Part II – Murder – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Mens-rea – Intention -- Plea taken by the appellant/ accused that she was under the influence of some invisible power during commission of crime, a reasonable doubt arisen as regards existence of intention, thus of mens rea for causing death -- Following aspects considered:

(i) During the commission of crime, the appellant was shouting that she is killing her children;

(ii) Post the incident, the appellant, on being asked the reason behind her act, kept on crying and repeating that she has killed her children. This is corroborated by other prosecution witnesses as well;

(iii) The appellant did not try to flee the scene of crime even after being left alone in the house by PW-1;

(iv) Complete absence of motive behind the commission of crime in background of the fact that the appellant loved her children very much, as also acknowledged by the prosecution witness;

(v) The nature of relation between the accused and the deceased i.e., of a mother and child.

(vi) Absence of any strained domestic relationships or any such motivating factor.

In the absence of any conclusive medical evidence with regards to the mental condition of the appellant, it may not be enough to extend the benefit of exception as encapsulated in Section 84 IPC so as to acquit the appellant in the present case -- Nevertheless, the circumstances are enough to cast a shadow of doubt about the existence of the intention of the appellant to commit the crime -- Case falls under “culpable homicide of the third degree” – Conviction of the appellant converted under Part II of Section 304 IPC from that of Section 302 IPC -- Appellant has already undergone more than 9 (nine) years and 10 (ten) months of sentence, reduced to the period already undertaken by her without any fine.

(Para 57-61)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302, 304 Part II – Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Mens-rea – Intention – Duty of Trial Court -- Trial courts should keep in mind while dealing with plea taken by an accused, especially when it relates to homicide, that the accused was under the influence of certain invisible force or where the prosecution is also totally unable to explain circumstances which motivated him or her to commit the act of homicide or where the evidence on record unambiguously show totally inexplicable but highly intriguing, strange and unusual circumstances under which the crime was committed as happened -- Certain circumstances which are beyond his/ her control and which may indicate unsoundness of mind even temporarily, incapacitating the accused to take a conscious and informed decision -- It may put a question mark on the “intention” of the accused in committing such a crime, in which event, the benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused as regards proof of intention and mens rea, as it would determine the nature of conviction and sentence which may be imposed.

(Para 63, 64)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151 -- Additional evidence – Rebuttal evidence -- Plaintiff-petitioner is setting up entirely a new case by way of leading additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings -- Jamabandi, which is now sought to be produced to show the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner, was to be produced in the affirmative as the onus was upon plaintiff -- Having not led the evidence in the affirmative, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot now be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the case by leading the said evidence as additional evidence --  Question of permitting the judgment to be produced as additional evidence qua which there are no pleadings would not arise.

-- Application itself is totally bereft as to why the said evidence was not led earlier.

-- There is not even a whisper that the plaintiff-petitioner was not aware of this evidence at the time of leading his evidence in the affirmative.

Application for additional evidence dismissed by Trial court – No fault, revision dismissed.

(Para 1, 4, 7-9)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 23A, 25, 27 – Additional evidence – Additional Issue – Remitting back of appeal – Permissibility of -- First Appellate Court is a Court of fact and law both and the application for additional evidence can be allowed -- First Appellate Court erred in remitting the matter back to the trial Court after framing additional issue and permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence -- First Appellate Court has neither set aside the judgment of the trial Court on merits nor it has formed an opinion that re-trial of the case is necessary -- Hence, the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court to the limited extent of remitting the matter back to the lower Court set aside and the first appeal is restored to its original number -- Court will proceed in accordance with Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC.

(Para 7-10)

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Mandatory or discretionary -- Provisions of Rule 6 are enabling, discretionary and permissive -- They are not mandatory, obligatory or peremptory -- If the court is of the opinion that it is not safe to pass a judgment on admissions, or that a case involves questions which cannot be appropriately dealt with and decided on the basis of admission, it may, in exercise of its discretion, refuse to pass a judgment and may insist upon clear proof of even admitted facts.

(Para 28-30)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 -- Judgment on admissions – Stage of – Right of -- Rule authorizes the court to enter a judgment where a claim is admitted and to pass a decree on such admitted claim -- This can be done at any stage -- Plaintiff may move for judgment upon admission by the defendant in his written statement at any stage of the suit although he has joined issue on the defence -- Defendant may apply for dismissal of the suit on the basis of admission by the plaintiff in rejoinder.

(Para 39)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6, Order 8 Rule 5 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 58 – Partial judgment/ decree on admissions – Since the object of sub-rule (1) is to enable the plaintiff to get judgment on admission of the defendant to the extent of such admission, he must get the benefit thereof immediately without waiting for the determination of “non-admitted claim” -- Sub-rule (2) makes it imperative for the court to draw up a decree in terms of judgment on admission which can be executed by the plaintiff -- In such cases, there may be two decrees; (i) in respect of admitted claim; and (ii) in respect of “non-admitted” or contested claim.

(Para 42)

D. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 12 Rule 6 – Judgment on admissions – A decree under Rule 6 may be either preliminary or final.

(Para 43)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Last seen theory -- Prosecution relied on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confessions, and circumstantial evidence including recovery of articles and fingerprints –PW-2 (alleged eyewitness) and PW-12 (last seen witness) disbelieved due to delayed statements – Extra judicial confessional statements disbelieved by High court – Recovery of slippers and a wheel spanner with alleged fingerprints of the accused was held insufficient to establish guilt in absence of a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant – Conviction u/s 302 IPC set aside, holding prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

(Para 6, 7, 19-25)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 118 -- Interested witness -- First cousin’s witness -- It is settled position of law that merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony -- The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.

(Para 9)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 300 Exception IV, 302, 304, Part 1 -- Murder -- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Place of incident is near the house of accused persons -- Possibility of a quarrel taking place on account of previous enmity between the accused persons and the deceased; and in a sudden fight in the heat of the moment, the appellant along with the co-accused assaulting the deceased cannot be ruled out -- Weapons used are a stick and the blunt side of the axe, these tools are easily available in any agricultural field -- It therefore cannot be said that there was any premeditation -- Case would not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of IPC and the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC -- Appellant has already undergone the sentence of 6 years 10 months – Appellant sentenced to the period already undergone.

(Para 12-15)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Injury to prosecutrix – Requirement of law -- Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix -- It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case -- Absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution.

(Para 11)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Evidence of prosecutrix – Value of -- Evidence of a prosecutrix in a case of rape is of the same value as that of an injured witness and conviction can be made on the basis of the sole testimony of the prosecutrix.

(Para 13)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 207, 216, 293 -- Framing of charge – Fair opportunity before sending to trial -- On 5th November, 2016, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the appellant/ accused even though he had been provided with the copies of the relied upon documents on that very day – Till this date the appellant was neither represented by a privately engaged defence counsel nor did the trial Court offer him the services of a legal aid counsel -- Apparently, proper opportunity was not given to the appellant before framing charges against him and sending him for trial.

(Para 15)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Rape – Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Fair trial – Undue haste – Forensic Science Laboratory report was presented on 1st and 3rd December, 2016 and the trial Court took it on record – Order sheets of trial court are  silent  on the aspect of whether the copy of the said FSL report was ever provided to the appellant -- For the first time on 11th January, 2017, on the request being made by the appellant, one Advocate, was appointed as an amicus curiae to represent him in the trial -- Recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses began on the very same day, i.e., 11th January, 2017, and the process was concluded within 27 days, i.e., on 6th February, 2017 -- During this short period, the amicus curiae appointed to defend the appellant was changed on 31st January, 2017 -- No possibility that the defence counsel could have had a reasonable opportunity to prepare the matter and conduct the cross-examination from the witnesses – Held, trial was not conducted in a fair manner and appellant was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

(Para 13-16, 58)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Rape -- murder -- Last seen theory -- Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- FIR does not contain a whisper that anyone from the village had seen the child-victim in the company of the appellant, any time prior to her dead body being found -- Conduct of the witnesses in remaining silent and not disclosing to the police regarding they having seen the appellant taking away the child-victim with himself, completely demolishes the prosecution case regarding the theory of last seen -- Appellant acquitted of the charges.

(Para 34, 35, 58)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376A, 302, 366, 363, 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 5, 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45, 106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 293 – Rape – Murder -- Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- DNA report was merely exhibited in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) who undeniably is not connected with the report in any manner – Very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes – Non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence -- Appellant is acquitted of the charges.

(Para 38-40, 58)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 45 -- Comparison of signature with photocopy of partnership deed -- Permissibility of -- Held, signatures cannot be verified from a photocopied document.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder -- Recoveries were made after several days of the incident and no bloodstains etc. were found on the weapons -- PW-15, the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination, deposed that the seized weapons were not shown to him -- Knives etc. were also not produced in court -- All the seizure witnesses turned hostile -- Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution -- Clothes of the accused were not seized and sent for forensic examination to find out whether there were any bloodstains --  Medical evidence confirmed multiple stab injuries on his body leading to profuse bleeding and death -- It is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the murder of the deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence -- However, no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death of deceased -- Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt -- Conviction and sentence of the appellants set aside.

(Para 21-25)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rule of evidence -- Under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply -- Instead, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability.

(Para 13)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 112 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 12(1)(i-d), 13(1)(i-a) – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 38 -- Divorce – Voidable marriage -- DNA test to assess  paternity of child – Marriage on 17.02.2022 – On medical check-up on 30.07.2022 wife was found pregnant for 8 month s – Petitioner filed a petition for declaration that the petitioner is not at all the father of daughter born to the respondent on 30.07.2022 -- Petitioner has filed a petition u/s 13(1)(i-a) read with Section 12(1) (i-d) of the Hindu Marriage Act as well as he has raised the question of paternity of the child -- His case is based on premarital pregnancy of the respondent -- Even on perusal of dates, there is prima facie reason to suspect the paternity -- As such the issue can be resolved by directing to conduct a DNA test as prayed -- Petitioner, respondent and her child directed to undertake a DNA test at Government Medical College, Nagpur within one month

(Para 18)

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 115 – Doctrine of estopple -- Withdrawal of NOC to commence Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital – Held, there can be no indefeasible right claimed on the basis of the grant issued, which is illegal -- There is no promise offered by the State or the Government by reason of the invalid order issued by the Department -- When officers of the government acts outside the scope of authority, the plea of promissory estoppel would not be available, especially since the doctrine of ultra vires comes into operation and the government cannot be held bound by the unauthorised actions of its officers – Withdrawal of NOC, upheld.

(Para 1, 10-13)