Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appeal by Accused under Section 302 IPC – The appellants were charged for the murder of Anoop at Nettayam Junction on 08.07.2010 – The first accused inflicted fatal injuries with a chain saw, while the second and third accused allegedly assisted in furtherance of common intention – Trial court convicted all accused under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, sentencing the first accused to life imprisonment with a directive of 25 years without remission and the second and third accused to life imprisonment with differing conditions – High Court reevaluates evidence and modifies trial court findings [Paras 1, 3, 30].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – PW2, PW3, and PW4 were eyewitnesses who identified the first accused as the primary assailant – Inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding the roles of the second and third accused – The second and third accused were not seen carrying weapons or committing overt acts – Witness credibility regarding lighting at the scene questioned, but familiarity with the accused validated their identification – Statements from PW15 and PW5 corroborate partial details of the incident [Paras 4-7, 19-25].

Recovery of Weapons – Legality and Evidentiary Value – MO1 (saw chain) and MO2 (sword) allegedly recovered on the basis of confessional statements of accused – Investigating officer (PW20) failed to specifically prove the exact information received under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Recovery evidence held unreliable due to procedural flaws – Despite this, direct eyewitness accounts regarding MO1 establish its use by the first accused [Paras 22-23, 28].

Common Intention under Section 34 IPC – No substantive evidence proving prior concert or common intention between the accused – No overt acts by the second and third accused – Mere presence at the scene insufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC – The High Court concludes that the second and third accused cannot be held liable for the murder under shared intent [Paras 21, 28].

Scientific Evidence – Blood on MO1 and the clothing of the first accused (MO3 and MO4) corroborated eyewitness accounts – No blood detected on the clothing of the second and third accused – The absence of scientific corroboration further weakens the prosecution’s case against these appellants [Paras 24].

Sentencing – Modification by High Court – The trial court’s directive for 25 years without remission for the first accused exceeded its jurisdiction – Sentence modified to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹50,000 – Conviction and sentence of the second and third accused set aside due to lack of evidence and failure to prove common intention [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal of the first accused partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 upheld – Sentence modified to life imprisonment without restriction on remission [Para 30].
Appeals of the second and third accused allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Accused set at liberty [Para 30].
 

Writ - Mandamus - Compel the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to table - Constitutional Obligation – Laying of CAG Reports – Article 151(2) and Section 48 of the GNCTD Act – Laying of CAG reports in the legislature is a mandatory constitutional obligation under Article 151(2) of the Constitution and Section 48 of the GNCTD Act – Reports provide critical oversight by the legislature for financial accountability – Delay in tabling 14 CAG reports by the NCT Government amounts to disregard for constitutional transparency and accountability – Held: Delay noted but no judicial interference in procedural aspects of summoning the Assembly [Paras 38-41].

Mandamus Against Speaker – Scope of Judicial Review under Article 212 – Petitioners sought mandamus directing the Speaker to summon a special session of the Legislative Assembly to table the CAG reports – Held: Under Article 212 and Section 37 of the GNCTD Act, courts are barred from interfering with procedural matters of the legislature, including summoning of sessions by the Speaker – Regulation of legislative procedure lies solely within the Speaker’s domain – Judicial review is permissible only for substantive illegality, not procedural irregularities – Relief denied [Paras 47.1-47.6].

Examination of CAG Reports by Public Accounts Committee (PAC) – Once laid before the legislature, CAG reports are scrutinized by the PAC as per Rule 192 of the Rules of Procedure of the Delhi Legislative Assembly – The Court noted that with the tenure of the current Assembly ending soon, it would be impracticable to convene a special session at this stage – Examination of reports will occur in the next Assembly [Paras 47.7, 49].

Delay in Forwarding CAG Reports – Accountability of the Executive – CAG reports were held for an inordinate period by the NCT Government before forwarding to the Lieutenant Governor and eventually the Speaker – Noted that such delays undermine the constitutional mandate for financial accountability and transparency – Directions issued to expedite the tabling of CAG reports in the next Assembly session [Paras 40-46].

Final Directions – The Court declined to direct the Speaker to summon a special session but emphasized the importance of laying CAG reports in the newly constituted Assembly without delay – Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 49-50].
 

Bail Application – Offenses under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Motor Vehicles Act – Applicant arrested for rash driving under the influence of alcohol (42.5% BAC), evading checkpoints, and damaging public property – Charged under Section 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (non-bailable), along with bailable offenses under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Motor Vehicles Act – Prosecution alleged negligence and resistance to lawful directives [Paras 2-3, 5].

Applicant’s Defense – Misuse of Police Powers Alleged – Applicant argued that charges under Section 110 BNS were misapplied – Only rash driving was evident – Asserted educational background and professional standing as mitigating factors – Claimed prolonged incarceration without justification [Para 4].

Judicial Observations – Bail Granted with Conditions – High Court noted:
Applicant’s youth, professional background, and familial support mitigate risk of absconding.
Two months of incarceration deemed sufficient for the non-violent offense.
Bail granted with conditions to perform community service, deposit costs for damages, and surrender driving license during compliance period.
Held: Further incarceration unwarranted, considering the prima facie facts, background of the applicant, and societal contribution through community service [Paras 6-9].

Community Service as Bail Condition – Applicant directed to perform community service by holding an awareness banner reading "Don't Drink and Drive" for three months at a traffic junction – Compliance report to be filed by the Traffic Officer [Para 8(iv)].

Decision – Bail granted on furnishing ₹1,00,000 PR bond with sureties – Additional conditions of community service, compensation for damages, and cooperation with trial proceedings imposed – Non-compliance or repetition of the offense to lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 8-10].
 

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Failure to Report – Section 21 r/w Section 19(1) POCSO Act – Petitioner, a gynecologist, accused of failing to report minor's pregnancy and alleged unauthorized abortion – Medical records showed victim's age as 18 years, as disclosed by her and parents at the time of treatment – No evidence of deliberate failure to report crime – Held: Doctors are not required to investigate victim’s age absent prima facie doubts – Mere absence of reporting based on disclosed age does not attract criminal liability【Paras 9-10】.

Medical Ethics – Abortion and Miscarriage – Sections 312, 313 IPC – Victim admitted with severe bleeding and symptoms of miscarriage – Treatment rendered to save life – No evidence of voluntary or unauthorized abortion – Held: No prima facie case under Sections 312, 313 IPC – Prosecution quashed【Para 10】.

Standard of Investigation – Implication of Doctors under POCSO Act – Investigating officers must ascertain deliberate intent or omission by doctors before invoking Section 19(1) POCSO Act – Mechanical inclusion of doctors in POCSO cases without evidence condemned – Directions issued to Director General of Police to ensure compliance【Para 11】.

Decision – Prosecution Quashed – Final report against petitioner in SC No. 495/2020 quashed – Directions issued to avoid unwarranted implication of doctors in similar cases – Investigative accountability emphasized【Paras 12】.
 

Motor Accident Claim – Medical Expenses – Unreasonable Denial by Claims Tribunal – Enhancement Ordered – The Claims Tribunal had awarded only Rs.30,000/- as compensation for medical expenses despite the claimant submitting medical bills totaling Rs.1,08,385/- (Ex. A.9) – The Tribunal’s reduction was based on the assumption that treatment at a Government Hospital involved minimal expenditure, without adequate inquiry or evidence to support such an assumption – Held: Claimant is entitled to Rs.1,08,385/- for actual medical expenses, and the award is enhanced by Rs.79,000/- (rounded off) under this head [Paras 12-13].

Permanent Disability – Compensation for Loss of Amenities – Enhanced – The claimant suffered 20% permanent disability, including shortening of his left leg, which the Tribunal held did not affect his earning capacity as a restaurant supervisor – However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- for disability – Held: Considering the claimant's young age (32 years) and lifelong impact of the disability, an additional Rs.15,000/- is granted for loss of amenities [Paras 14-15].

Compensation Enhancement – Interest and Liability – Total compensation enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realization – The insurance company and the vehicle owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensation [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Oversight – Failure of Claims Tribunal to Consider Evidence – The Claims Tribunal failed to analyze the claimant’s medical bills properly and relied on assumptions rather than evidence – This approach was held to be unreasonable, necessitating modification of the award [Para 13].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.1,84,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization. Respondent Nos. 1 (vehicle owner) and 2 (insurance company) are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent (insurance company) is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within one month, after giving credit for any amounts already deposited.

Civil Writ - Challenge to the legality and procedural Mass Transfers of Panchayat Officials – Violation of Legislative Intent and Guidelines – Petitioners challenged mass transfers of Panchayat officials alleging they were carried out in violation of Section 89(8-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and guidelines framed in Kera Ram v. State of Rajasthan – Held: Legislative intent under Section 89 emphasizes decentralization and respect for the autonomy of Panchayati Raj Institutions – The State’s use of the non-obstante clause to bypass Panchayats in routine administrative matters constitutes colorable exercise of power and undermines democratic decentralization [Paras 2-6].

Non-Obstante Clause – Scope and Misuse in Panchayat Transfers – Non-obstante clause in Section 89(8-A) of the Panchayati Raj Act grants overriding powers to the State – However, such powers must be used sparingly and not to completely override the statutory and constitutional powers vested in Panchayati Raj Institutions – In this case, the invocation of the clause to conduct a massive transfer drive involving over 1,000 officials violated the principles of decentralized governance [Paras 3, 6, 27].

Compliance with Transfer Guidelines – Procedural Safeguards and Transparency – Guidelines framed in Kera Ram mandate consultation with elected Panchayat representatives for district-level and Zilla Parishad transfers – Held: The State's actions failed to adhere to these procedural safeguards, rendering the transfer orders procedurally flawed – Directions issued for reconsideration of transfer orders with specific reasons and compliance with guidelines [Paras 3, 8].

Administrative Ban on Transfers – Procedural Clarity and Continuation of Orders – The State’s reliance on a transfer ban imposed by the Chief Secretary was addressed – Held: Fresh orders passed in compliance with this judgment will be deemed a continuation of earlier orders, and no prior sanction will be required under the Chief Secretary's circular dated 03/01/2024 [Para 10].

Interim Relief – Transfer Orders Put on Hold – Impugned transfer orders were stayed for 30 days to allow the State to review and reconsider them in compliance with the law and guidelines – Directions issued to Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, to review the transfers and provide reasons where State power is exercised [Paras 7-9].

Directions:

•    Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, to review all transfer orders within 30 days and segregate cases requiring the exercise of State powers under Section 89(8-A) with specific reasons.
•    Transfer orders for the remaining cases to be reconsidered and passed by Panchayat bodies in compliance with the law and guidelines.
•    Interim stay on the impugned transfer orders for 30 days.
•    Fresh administrative decisions to be treated as a continuation of earlier orders, exempting them from the requirement of prior sanction under the circular dated 03/01/2024 [Paras 7-10].

Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to reconsider the transfer orders in accordance with statutory provisions and judicially framed guidelines, ensuring transparency, procedural rigor, and respect for the autonomy of Panchayati Raj Institutions.

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope of High Court's Interference under Section 100 CPC – Reversal of Trial Court's Findings – Validity of Lower Appellate Court's Judgment – The High Court held that under Section 100 CPC, interference is permissible only if the findings of the first appellate court are manifestly perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to established legal principles – Held: The first appellate court correctly appreciated evidence, and the second appeal did not disclose any substantial questions of law warranting interference [Paras 17, 27].

Burden of Proof – Declaratory Suit – Title Not Established – Suit Must Fail – In a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear and unambiguous title over the property – The appellants/plaintiffs failed to prove their vendor's title or ownership over the disputed property – Held: Revenue records, pattadar passbooks, and land revenue receipts cannot confer ownership and are insufficient to establish title in the absence of corroborating evidence [Paras 19, 22].

Adverse Evidence – Vendor's Admissions – Adverse Impact on Plaintiffs' Case – The plaintiffs' vendor (PW-3) admitted that the property in question belonged to the American Baptist Foreign Mission Church and that he lacked the authority to alienate it – These admissions effectively negated the plaintiffs' claim to title and possession [Paras 20-21].

Property of a Religious Institution – Non-Alienability Without Proper Authority – The property in question was recorded in the name of Reverend Stanton Dora, representing the American Baptist Foreign Mission Church – Church property is not alienable without proper authorization – Plaintiffs' claim of title based on an unverified sale deed was held invalid [Para 21].

Permanent Injunction – Denial Due to Failure to Prove Title – Since the appellants failed to establish title over the property, they were not entitled to a consequential relief of permanent injunction – Declaratory relief is a prerequisite for such an injunction [Para 27].

Decision: The second appeal is dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are upheld, affirming the reversal of the trial court's judgment. The first appellate court correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to establish title over the disputed property and that their vendor lacked the authority to sell church property. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to either a declaration of title or a permanent injunction.
 

Eviction Suit – Definition of Lessor – Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Suit Maintainable – The plaintiff, as an owner of the property and a partner in the lessor partnership firm, was held to be a lessor under the lease deed. The lease deed explicitly included partners of the firm as lessors, which enabled the plaintiff to maintain the eviction suit. The Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit on this ground was held to be erroneous. – Held: Plaintiff entitled to maintain the suit as a lessor. [Paras 42–47]

Eviction Suit – Non-joinder of Agent as Party – Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Objection Overruled – The Trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit for non-joinder of Sanat Kumar Samanta, who was merely an agent appointed by the partnership firm for rent collection and correspondence. The court held that agents do not constitute necessary parties in eviction suits unless they are vested with legal rights under the lease. – Held: Non-joinder of the agent does not affect the maintainability of the suit. [Paras 58–59]

Ownership vs. Lessor Relationship – Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act – Paramount Title Not Sufficient – Ownership alone does not entitle an individual to maintain an eviction suit under the Transfer of Property Act. The provisions under Chapter V emphasize the lessor-lessee relationship. The plaintiff must also be a lessor under the lease agreement to issue notice under Section 106 and seek eviction. – Held: Plaintiff’s paramount title is not sufficient to override the lessor-lessee relationship; however, the plaintiff qualified as a lessor under the lease deed. [Paras 38, 45]

Eviction Decree – Notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act – Service of Notice Proved – The plaintiff successfully proved service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the defendants. The court set aside the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit and granted an eviction decree in favor of the plaintiff. – Held: Eviction decree granted. [Paras 60–63]

Damages – Remand to Trial Court for Limited Consideration – The court remanded the case to the Trial Court for the limited purpose of adjudicating damages payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the proceedings on damages within six months. – Held: Eviction decree granted; damages to be adjudicated on remand. [Paras 64–65]

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the eviction suit was decreed. The Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit was set aside, and the case was remanded for limited consideration of damages. Ninety (90) days were granted to the defendants to vacate the premises.
 

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Possession and Title – Concurrent Findings – The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming possession and ownership of the plaint schedule property. Both the trial and first appellate courts found that the plaintiff had proven possession and ownership through documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds and a mortgage with the State Bank of India. The courts rejected the defendant’s claim of title to a different property and found no misrepresentation of the suit schedule property. – Held: The plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction; appeal dismissed. [Paras 18–21]

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 of CPC – No Substantial Questions of Law – The High Court reiterated that it can interfere in a second appeal only when the findings of the lower courts are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to law. The findings of the trial and appellate courts were based on admissible evidence, and the appellant failed to establish any substantial questions of law. – Held: No grounds for interference; judgments of lower courts upheld. [Paras 16–21]

Admissions in Evidence – Boundaries of Suit Property – Defendant’s Admissions Affirm Plaintiff’s Case – The defendant admitted during cross-examination that the boundaries of the plaint schedule property matched the registered sale deed (Ex.A-1), supporting the plaintiff’s possession and ownership claims. These admissions further weakened the defendant's case. – Held: Plaintiff’s evidence corroborated; defendant’s case unsustainable. [Paras 18–20]

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the trial court and first appellate court granting a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff were upheld.