401. Rape – No medical examination -- Acquittal -- Prosecutrix and her parents themselves never fully co-operated with the medical staff, thereby adversely impacting the credibility of their version of events -- Non-allowance of medical examination by an alleged rape-victim raises negative inferences against them – Prosecutrix was 19 years old at the time of the alleged occurrence – High Court has microscopically examined the entire evidence before firmly opining that the accused-respondent deserves the benefit of the doubt – Appeal against judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court, dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 20.02.2025

402. Probation to accused – Compensation to complainant -- Keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that he is not a previous convict, it is obligatory upon the Court to extend the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict – Petitioner ordered to be released on probation – To balance the rights of the complainant with the benefit of probation extended to the petitioner, Court directed the petitioner-accused to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.02.2025

403. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Deceased 16 year old -- Multiplier -- Deceased was studying in 11th standard at the time of the accident on 27.05.2013 -- Notional income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.15,000/- per month -- Future prospects 40% given -- Deceased was unmarried, 50% deduction would be applicable -- Claimants would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses and Rs.48,000/- each (Rs.40,000+20% increase) towards loss of consortium – Total compensation comes to Rs.24,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount awarded. (P&H HC) Decided on: 19.02.2025

404. Right to bail u/s 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. – Scope of -- Sub-section (2) of Section 437 of the Code can be divided in two parts -- The first part would indicate that it is mandatory, but in the next breath, the legislature has given discretion to the Magistrate not to grant bail by assigning reasons -- Provisions of Section 437(6) cannot be considered to be mandatory in nature and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right of bail in favour of accused -- Reasons for rejection of application under sub-section (6) have to be different and little more weighty than the reasons that may be relevant for rejection for bail at the initial stage. Following factors would be relevant: 1. Whether the reasons for being unable to conclude trial within sixty days from the first date fixed of taking evidence, are attributable to the accused? 2. Whether there are any chances of the accused tampering with evidence or causing prejudice to the case of the prosecution in any other manner? 3. Whether there are any chances of abscondence of the accused on being bailed out? 4. Whether accused was not in custody during the whole of the said period? If the answer to any one of the above referred fact situations or similar fact situations is in affirmative then that would work as a fetter on the right that accrues to the accused under first part of sub-section (6) of Section 437 of the Code -- Right accrues to him only if he is in custody during the whole of the said period. (SC) Decided on: 18.02.2025

405. Pre-mature release -- Duty of Government -- It is the obligation of the appropriate Government to consider cases of all convicts for grant of premature release as and when they become eligible for consideration in terms of the policy -- It is not necessary for the convict or his relatives to make a specific application for grant of permanent remission -- District Legal Services Authorities shall maintain the relevant date of the convicts and as and when they become eligible to a consideration for grant of premature release, they shall do the needful -- The State Legal Services Authorities shall endeavour to create a portal on which the data as aforesaid can be uploaded on real time basis. (SC) Decided on: 18.02.2025

406. 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. (SC) Decided on: 17.02.2025

407. Forfieture of gratuity -- Misappropriation of meagre amounts -- It is trite that even if minimal amounts are misappropriated it would constitute a misconduct warranting termination -- However, on the question of forfeiture of gratuity, Appointing Authority should have taken a more sympathetic approach -- Appointing Authority directed to limit the forfeiture to 25% of the gratuity payable and release the balance amounts. (SC) Decided on: 17.02.2025

408. Compensation to employee – Interest thereupon -- Interest liability arises on default of the employer, in paying the admitted compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due and if there is such default, necessarily interest shall run at the rate provided -- Interest runs from the date of the accident -- 12% simple interest per annum necessarily has to be applied. (SC) Decided on: 17.02.2025

409. Divorce – Permanent alimony -- Decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- Permanent alimony of Rs. 50,00,000/- granted -- Once the lis between the parties was finally settled and permanent alimony of a lump sum amount was awarded, nothing further survives for consideration -- All pending matters inter se parties would stand closed -- Final order of maintenance shall be the full and final adjudication of any maintenance proceedings between the parties, leaving no scope for further claims in this regard. (SC) Decided on: 17.02.2025

410. Public Utility Services – Permanent Lok Adalat – Territorial Jurisdiction – Insurance policy was issued from Chandigarh Branch, whereas, the place of occurrence/ accident is in district Auraiya (Uttar Pradesh) – Application preferred by the petitioner before the PLA at Gurugram is a misconceived motion, on account of territorial jurisdiction – Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Court of territorial jurisdiction in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.02.2025

411. Condonation of delay in OA – Time spent in wrong Forum/ RTI information – Consideration of -- Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable for condonation of delay -- It is a settled law that if a wrong remedy has been taken up by any litigant, the period spent for pursuing the wrong remedy can be condoned, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act -- O.A. field after obtaining documents under the RTI Act said to be bona fide -- Petitioner had suffered serious accident and had also subsequently remained hospitalized on account of heart ailment – Delay deserved to be condoned -- Since the order of termination is an issue before the Court, the same has to be examined on merits – Matter remitted back to Central Administrative Tribunal and directed to decide the OA afresh on merits. (P&H HC) Decided on: 15.02.2025

412. Contradiction in statement – Circumstantial evidence – Acquittal -- Significant improvements and omissions in the evidence of PW-3 -- Omissions are so relevant that they become contradictions in view of the Explanation to Section 162 of the CR.P.C. -- Thus, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-3 as reliable -- PW-1 is not a witness to the theory of last seen together -- Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the theory of last seen together was proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt -- When the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established -- There must be a chain of circumstances so complete as not to leave any ground for any conclusion inconsistent with the innocence of the accused -- Two significant circumstances forming the chain have not been established -- Conviction and sentence set aside (SC) Decided on: 13.02.2025

413. Statutory rules – Rule of natural justice – Opportunity of hearing – Requirement of -- It is a well-settled principle of law that while administrative actions and statutory rules that impact citizens’ rights are subject to judicial review, the notion that the State must provide a prior hearing to affected individuals during the exercise of its rule-making power is fundamentally flawed. (SC) Decided on: 13.02.2025

414. Undisclosed income – Penalty -- Section 271AAA is a penalty provision, it has to be strictly construed -- The fact that the assessee has surrendered some undisclosed income during the course of search or that the surrender is emerging out of the statements recorded during the course of search is not sufficient to fasten the levy of penalty -- The onus is on the Assessing Officer to satisfy the condition precedent stipulated in the said Explanation, before the charge for levy of penalty is fastened on the assessee -- Appellant admitted Rs.2,27,65,580/- as income for AY 2011-12 during the search before DDIT (Inv.) as well as substantiated the manner in which the said undisclosed income was derived and paid tax together with interest thereon, albeit belatedly -- Consequently, all the conditions precedent mentioned in Section 271AAA(2) stand satisfied and, therefore, penalty under Section 271AAA(1) is not attracted on the said amount of Rs.2,27,65,580/-. (SC) Decided on: 13.02.2025

415. Second bail application -- There is no prohibition in filing a fresh bail application after the earlier was rejected or cancelled, if granted. (SC) Decided on: 13.02.2025

416. Cheating – Acquittal – Money taken for sending abroad -- Incident happened in the year 2001, however, written complaint made after two years -- In the complaint, nowhere, mentioned that complainant or his father had arranged an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- by taking loan or by arranging the same from their relatives -- Nothing brought on record to show that any travel agency is being run by the accused persons -- Prosecution has neither proved source of amount nor the fact that who induced the complainant to pay the amount and to whom the payment was made -- As such, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt – Acquittal order, upheld. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.02.2025

417. Schedule Private Bank – Freeze of account -- Maintainability of writ -- Petitioner company deposited more than 10 crores in its current account maintained with the respondent bank -- Withdrawal of amount belonging to petitioner from its current account is withheld by the respondent bank on account of its unilateral decision to freeze the petitioner’s bank account on the request of third respondent and lodging of an FIR by her regarding a matrimonial dispute. -- There is no order passed by any competent court to freeze the petitioner’s bank account. -- There is no action or order of the investigating authority in any criminal case to freeze such bank account, either. -- No provision exists in law conferring authority upon the respondent bank to adjudicate private claims of the Director regarding their matrimonial dispute. Objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition dismissed -- Writ petition allowed, order passed by the respondent bank quashed. (All. H.C.) Decided on: 13.02.2025

418. Show cause notice – Challenge to -- Writ jurisdiction -- Writ Court should not entertain any petition, seeking to challenge a show cause notice unless the Court is convinced that the same has been issued by an authority having no jurisdiction, or the same is tainted with mala fides. (SC) Decided on: 12.02.2025

419. Void marriage – Maintenance to spouse – Permanent alimony – Right of -- A spouse whose marriage has been declared void u/s 11 of the 1955 Act is entitled to seek permanent alimony or maintenance from the other spouse by invoking Section 25 of the 1955 Act -- Whether such a relief of permanent alimony can be granted or not always depends on the facts of each case and the conduct of the parties -- Grant of relief u/s 25 is always discretionary. (SC) Decided on: 12.02.2025

420. Culpable homicide – Causing death due to negligence -- Appellant/ qualified medical practitioner conveyed/ instructed staff nurse to administer an injection over telephone which injection when administered to the patient, apparently reacted, resulting into his death – Registration of the FIR u/s 304 Part I IPC and the subsequent submission of police report u/s 173 (2) CrPC also u/s 304 Part I IPC cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed, Trial Court to waive the accusation under 304 Part I IPC and to proceed after reading over accusation under Section 304-A, IPC. (SC) Decided on: 12.02.2025

421. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased 20 year old was a student of B.A. Final Year -- Date of the accident was 25.07.2004, the notional income of the deceased assessed as Rs.10,000/- per month -- Loss of future prospects 40% -- Multiplier of 18 applied – 50% deduction -- Claimant-appellant would be entitled to Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards loss of estate and Rs.18,000/- (Rs.15,000+20% increase) towards funeral expenses – Rs.50,000/- awarded for Loss of love and affection -- Total compensation assessed at Rs.15,98,000/- -- Interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. (P&H HC) Decided on: 11.02.2025

422. Life and liberty – Ground of arrest – Communication of – Burden to prove -- Fundamental right of accused – Duty of Magistrate – Violation of Article 21, 22 -- Entitlement of accused for bail : a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

423. Domestic violence – Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Nothing on record to show that the parents witnessed any of the incidents of physical harassment of the complainant at the instance of the appellants -- Complainant in her complaints did not assign any specific role to the appellants concerning the demands of dowry and physical and mental harassment of the complainant, except for making a sweeping allegation without specific details -- Appellants do not live with the principal accused -- While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad -- Criminal proceedings quashed. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

424. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case – Consented compensation – Enhancement – Permissibility of -- Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court -- Despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party – Compensation enhanced to Rs.17,82,825/-. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

425. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Split method of dependency – Deceased was to retire after 2 year of date of death -- Normally Courts and Tribunals have to apply the multiplier as per the judgement of this Court in Sarla Verma case (2009) 6 SCC 121 : 2009 INSC 506 -- Any deviation from the same warrants special reasons to be recorded -- Deceased was a technically qualified person and people are generally healthy at that age and continue working even after retirement -- Compensation on account of loss of income while applying the multiplier of 9 by the Tribunal without applying the split method is the correct calculation on that account -- Future prospects @ 15% awarded -- Loss of estate and funeral expenses, the amount of ?15,000/- each -- Consortium, there are three claimants, namely, the widow, one son and one daughter, they would be entitled to compensation on account of loss of consortium @ ?40,000/- each. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

426. RTI -- Exemption to disclose personal information -- Disclosure of marks of other candidate in an examination – Held, disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 -- To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

427. Abetment of suicide – Quashing of proceedings -- Charge-sheet, as it stands, appears to have proceeded in an unidimensional manner by accepting the version of the complainant and his family members as the gospel truth – Whether any investigation to explore any other angle was pursued, a stoic silence of State -- None of the ingredients required in law to make out a case u/s 306 IPC to be even remotely mentioned in the charge-sheet or are being borne out from the material on record – Held, charge-sheet filed by the police and the cryptic order of cognizance, the proceedings cannot be allowed to be carried on against the appellants -- Proceedings quashed – SIT constituted for re-investigation. (SC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

428. Common intention in free fight case – Incident occurred after Panchayat proceedings -- Manner of occurrence and the number of injured on both sides makes it apparently a case of ‘free fight’ or spontaneous rather than pre-meditated crime – Nothing on record to show that the accused other than “S” had any knowledge or intention that “S” was going to cause death -- “S” was not carrying any gun when the Panchayat proceedings were going on – Other accused can be held liable for their individual act and cannot be held vicariously liable. (P&H HC) Decided on: 07.02.2025

429. Kidnapping -- Age of prosecutrix -- There are two contradictory opinions given by two medical experts – Doctor/ PW-3 states that according to the X-ray reports, the age of the prosecutrix was around 14 years, however, Chief Medical Officer/ DW-2 opined that the age of the prosecutrix was around 18 years -- In view of the two conflicting medical opinions, we are of the opinion that the benefit ought to have been given to the appellant-accused. (SC) Decided on: 06.02.2025

430. Criminal intimidation – House trespass – Quashing of FIR -- Allegations in the FIR are totally absurd -- When complainant has not filed any suit, there is no question of appellants threatening him of dire consequences if he does not withdraw the suit – Complainant and his relatives are in the habit of filing false and malicious cases against the appellants only on account of long-standing civil dispute pending between them – Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants would be nothing else but an abuse of the process of law – Chargesheet and summoning order quashed and set aside. (SC) Decided on: 06.02.2025

431. Maintenance payable from the date of application or the date of the Order? – Delay in decision – Daughter attained majority – Effect of -- Section 125 of the Code is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to protect the wife and children from destitution and vagrancy and, in the usual course, it would not be appropriate to disadvantage the applicant for the delay in the disposal of the application by the judicial system -- Respondent no.2/ husband ordered to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant, from the date of filing of the maintenance petition before the Family Court -- Daughter attained majority -- Having due regard to the scheme of Section 125 of the Code, maintenance awarded in her favour will only be payable up to the date of her attaining majority. Rajnesh’s case (2021) 2 SCC 324 = 2021(1) L.A.R. 311 = (2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15586 relied. (SC) Decided on: 04.02.2025

432. Equitable mortgage – Rights in personam -- Where ‘equitable mortgages’ have been created based on deposit of part-deeds or documents purporting title or evincing intention of parties to create an interest, all such deposits will be a valid mortgage in equity and the charge that might have been created prior in time will assume priority over any subsequent charges or mortgagors -- However, since such a mortgage is an ‘equitable mortgage’ any rights flowing from such mortgages are only of personal character and only rights in personam and as such will not operate against any strangers or subsequent incumbrancers unaware of such equitable mortgage -- Right of the lender to apportion or appropriate the subject property for repayment of loan only a right to take such an action rather than a right in the property itself. (SC) Decided on: 04.02.2025

433. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Expedite decision on appeal – Suspension of sentence -- On joint request of the parties, petitioners exempted from depositing an amount of Rs.43,65,125/- i.e. 20% of the amount of compensation during the pendency of the appeal, before the Appellate Court -- Since the complaint was initially filed on 11.01.2018 and a period of 7 years has lapsed, after the institution of the complaint, the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within a period of 04 months. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.02.2025

434. Conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Appeal – Suspension of sentence -- Deposit of 20% compensation – Requirement of -- Petitioners/ convicts directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by trial Court by the Appellate Court -- No reason given by the Court while issuing directions -- Condition of depositing of 20% of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court imposed for the purpose of suspension of sentence, set aside -- Appellate Court directed to re-consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and then to pass appropriate order in accordance with the law laid down in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (SC) 2024(2) L.A.R. 323 = (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 and till then not to take any coercive action against the petitioners. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.02.2025

435. Murder – Acquittal -- Fingerprints from the car had been taken but the report was not exhibited, which was the best evidence to establish that the accused and the deceased had been in the car where the deceased had been murdered – As per the case of the prosecution, the accused had first administered a stupefying substance to the complainant who felt intoxicated, however no attempt was made to take samples of the blood and urine of the complainant -- No stupefying substance was recovered at the instance of the accused pursuant to his arrest -- Chain of circumstantial evidence is certainly not complete so as to conclusively point towards the guilt of the accused – Appeal allowed, accused acquitted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.02.2025

436. Divorce -- Dispute between the parties remains only concerning the maintenance amount and both the parties have agreed to the grant of divorce – Husband has already remarried, the present parties stayed together for only about two months after the marriage, have no intention to continue their marital relationship, the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband has evidently broken down irretrievably – No interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court and confirmed by the High Court. (SC) Decided on: 31.01.2025

437. Rape with wife – Quashing of FIR -- As per Exception 2 u/s 375 of IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife cannot be termed as rape and, hence, a charge under Section 376 of IPC cannot be sustained against the appellant -- The conduct of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 in failing to enter appearance despite sufficient notice is reflective of the fact that it is a dead case where no purpose shall be served in continuing the criminal proceedings alleging charges of rape against the appellant -- No prima facie case constituting any offence is made out against the appellant and—FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed – Appeal allowed. (SC) Decided on: 31.01.2025

438. Estopple -- Appellant acted upon clause 49.5 and sought an extension of time on three occasions – Claim in the letter dated 25th January, 2017 was made by the appellant after giving solemn undertaking on 14th January, 2015 not to make any claim other than escalation in respect of delays in the completion of work, the claim made was contrary to the undertakings -- By the undertakings, the appellant agreed not to make a claim contrary to what is provided in clause 49.5; and therefore, by conduct, the appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of clause 49.5. (SC) Decided on: 31.01.2025

439. Part time sweeper – Regular pay scale -- Appellants were appointed on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector’s prescribed rates -- Appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive -- They are covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years and fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay-scale -- Designation as ‘part-time’ sweepers does not affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless -- Appellants fighting this battle for regular pay-scale since 2016 and they have extended their service to the State for substantial years -- But more importantly they have proven that their situation is covered under the State issued Circular and Rules – Held, it confers upon them a legal right to avail regular pay-scale. (SC) Decided on: 31.01.2025

440. Appointment of teachers -- Change in eligibility criteria – Permissibility of -- Advertisement was issued on 19.07.2023 and the eligibility criteria was set out as per 2022 Recruitment Rules -- By which the candidates must have passed Teachers Eligibility Test conducted by the State of Jharkhand – By notice dated 10.01.2024, applications were called from the residents of Jharkhand possessing CTET and STET qualification between 19.01.2024 to 23.01.2024 -- Amendments in 2022 Recruitment Rules were brought on 29.01.2024 with intent to give statutory backing for changing the eligibility in the on-going recruitment process -- Later, the amendment in the advertisement was made -- Held, this amount to change the rules of game after the game has begun – Therefore, the entire action on the part of the State Government is arbitrary and contrary to the law -- Revised eligibility criteria introduced cannot be applied to the ongoing recruitment process. (SC) Decided on: 30.01.2025

441. Domestic worker – Rights of – Despite their growing demand, this indispensable workforce has also been the most vulnerable to exploitation and abuse -- Direction given to the Ministry of Labour and Employment in tandem with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to jointly constitute a Committee comprising subject experts to consider the desirability of recommending a legal framework for the benefit, protection and regulation of the rights of domestic workers -- The composition of the Expert Committee is left to the wisdom of the Government of India and its concerned Ministries -- It will be appreciated if the Committee submits a Report within a period of 6 months, whereupon the Government of India may consider the necessity of introducing a legal framework which may effectively address the cause and concern of domestic workers. (SC) Decided on: 29.01.2025

442. Acquittal by trial court -- Conviction in revision – Power of -- Sub-section (3) of Section 401 CrPC prohibits/ bars the High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction -- Defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, the State Government responsible -- It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor -- High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants -- Appeals allowed -- Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside -- State Government directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- each to the three appellants towards compensation within a period of four weeks. (SC) Decided on: 29.01.2025

443. Murder – Acquittal -- Contradiction in statements – Disclosure statement -- Recovery of knife – Value of -- Difficult to believe the testimony of PW-4 and PW-5 for the following reasons: a. The statement made by both the eyewitnesses that the appellant inflicted two to three stab wounds on the back of the deceased with a knife are omissions; b. The version of PW-4 that he was standing at a distance of fifteen feet from the scene of occurrence is also an omission; c. The statement of PW-5 that PW-4 was present at the time of the incident is an omission. His statement that the deceased fell on his chest is an omission. d. Both the witnesses did not report the incident to the Police. According to PW-4, he informed the incident to one Sumesh, who has not been examined; e. Both the witnesses did not take the deceased to a hospital; and f. Though other persons were present at the time of the incident, the said witnesses have not been examined. Once evidence of two witnesses is disbelieved, the only remaining evidence against the appellant is of the recovery of the knife at his instance – It is not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside. Manoj Kumar Soni’s case 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984 relied. (SC) Decided on: 29.01.2025

444. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Sudden fight -- From the evidence, as placed on record, it is difficult to come to a finding that the appellant had come with a premeditated mind to kill the deceased -- Possibility of an altercation taking place between the appellant and the deceased for some reason and the appellant assaulting the deceased in the heat of passion on account of a sudden fight, cannot be ruled out -- Appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC -- As such, the conviction of the appellant under Part I of Section 304 IPC would meet the ends of justice. (SC) Decided on: 29.01.2025

445. Murder -- Common intention -- For convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds -- It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime -- It must be established that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused -- Prosecution failed to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4/ appellants had common intention with accused No.1-JS prior to the accused No.1-JS’s shooting at the deceased resulting in her death – Conviction set aside. (SC) Decided on: 28.01.2025

446. Recovery of weapon -- Investigating Officer neither proved nor exhibited the disclosure statement of the appellant accused during his deposition -- Investigating Officer did not distinctly identify the accused persons at whose instance, the particular weapon, i.e., axe (kulhari) or dagger (katari), was recovered -- No indication in the testimony that he took the signatures of the accused persons on the recovery memos -- Not even this, the said witness did not even state that he signed and attested the memorandums under which the recoveries were effected -- Therefore, the substratum of the prosecution case regarding the disclosure statements rendered by the appellant-accused and the recoveries allegedly made in furtherance thereof remains unproved for want of proper evidence. (SC) Decided on: 28.01.2025

447. Extra-judicial confession – Recovery – Murder – Rape -- Acquittal -- Extra judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence -- Normally it is given to persons who enjoyed the confidence and trust of the accused – Not on evidence that PW-9 enjoyed the confidence of the accused so as to safely infer that the accused would have made a clean breast of things to PW-9 -- PW-22 does speak of Police taking PW-9 into custody in connection with this case -- So many omissions in the statement of PW-9 -- Moreover, there is no corroboration in material particulars and hence Court rejected the extra judicial confession -- Merely based on the recovery no conviction for the offence charged could be sustained against the appellant – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted. (SC) Decided on: 28.01.2025

448. Legitimacy/ Paternity of child – Presumption – DNA Test -- Issue hinges on two primary prongs requiring detailed analysis: (i) the difference between legitimacy and paternity, and consequently, the circumstances under which the presumption of legitimacy is displaced to permit an enquiry into paternity; and (ii) the exercise of ‘balancing of interests’ and evaluating the eminent need for a DNA test -- Legitimacy determines paternity u/s 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, until the presumption is successfully rebutted by proving ‘non-access’. (SC) Decided on: 28.01.2025

449. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Common intention – Acquittal – Appellant/ I.S. attributed the role of having caught hold of the deceased from his legs -- Neither was he armed and nor has any injury been attributed to him -- Had he shared a common intention with other appellant/ accused / YK to commit murder he would not have gone unarmed -- It cannot be presumed that appellant-IS was aware of the concealed weapon and accompanied YK to the spot with the common intention to commit the offence of murder – IS/ appellant/ accused given benefit of doubt, acquitted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 28.01.2025

450. Conversion from one religion to another religion by misrepresentation, force, fraud, undue influence, coercion, allurement -- Regular bail – Discretion of Court -- The offence alleged is not that serious or grave like murder, dacoity, rape etc. -- Trial court declined bail as trial courts seldom muster the courage of granting bail, be it any offence -- However, at least, it was expected of the High Court to muster the courage and exercise its discretion judiciously -- Grant of bail is a matter of discretion, but discretion has to be exercised judicially keeping in mind the well settled principles of grant of bail -- Discretion does not mean that the judge on his own whims and fancy declines bail saying conversion is something very serious -- Petitioner is going to be put to trial and ultimately if the prosecution succeeds in establishing its case, he would be punished – Bail allowed. (SC) Decided on: 27.01.2025