Gang Rape – Minor Prosecutrix – Sections 376(D), 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 5(g), 6 POCSO Act – Conviction Upheld – Both appellants convicted for gang-raping a 14-year-old girl from Scheduled Caste community – Trial court sentenced each appellant to 20 years rigorous imprisonment – High Court on appeal finds testimony of prosecutrix clear, consistent and inspiring confidence – FSL report showing human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing corroborates the prosecution case – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction and sentence affirmed; appeal dismissed [Paras 31-32].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix's age proved through school Scholar Register, admission form and transfer certificate showing date of birth as 15.08.2000, establishing her age as 14 years on the date of incident – Appellants argued X-ray/ossification test showed age between 17-18 years – Held: School records prevail over medical opinion; ossification test is relevant only in the absence of documents under Rule 12(3) of the 2007 Rules; victim was below 18 years on the date of incident; question of consent does not arise [Paras 11-13].

Test Identification Parade – Non-Conduct – Admissibility of Court Identification – Victim admitted she did not know the accused prior to the incident and learnt their names during the incident when they called each other by name – No TIP conducted during investigation – Held: Identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation and failure to hold TIP does not make court identification inadmissible; substantive evidence is identification in court; court identification is valid in given circumstances if witness is trustworthy and reliable [Paras 26-30].

Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Sufficiency for Conviction – Testimony of prosecutrix (PW-5) corroborated by her mother (PW-6), aunt (PW-4), sister (PW-8) and aunt (PW-9) to whom she narrated the incident immediately thereafter – Medical evidence confirming ruptured hymen and FSL report confirming human semen on victim's slide and accused's clothing – Held: Conviction can be based solely on the trustworthy statement of the prosecutrix even without independent corroboration; minor contradictions do not affect the core case [Para 31].

Defence of Alibi – Not Proved – Defence examined DW-1 (father of accused Amit Kol) and DW-2 (brother of accused Ajay) claiming accused were at Jamuna Tola for labour work on the date of incident – Held: Under Section 11 of the Evidence Act the distance must be so great as to make presence at the scene impossible; no such situation exists; defence of alibi not proved by cogent evidence; no material contradiction or motive for false implication established [Para 25].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(D) IPC affirmed – Appellants to serve 20 years rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court.

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Super Speciality Course – Pending Criminal Case – Bail – Right to Continue Studies – Petitioner enrolled in M.Ch. (Urology) course at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences could not appear for the November-2025 examination due to registration of Crime No.179/2025 by Madanapally Police, Andhra Pradesh for offences under the BNS and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act – Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapally on 05.01.2026 – Respondents opposed continuation of course citing pendency of the criminal case – Held: Pendency of a criminal case, where trial is yet to conclude, does not render the accused guilty – No impediment exists for the petitioner to continue his course and appear for examination – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit petitioner to continue course till May/June-2026 – Respondent 4-University directed to permit petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit the petitioner to continue M.Ch. (Urology) course till completion in May/June-2026 – Respondent No. 4-University directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility.

Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.

Education Law – Year Down Categorisation – Attendance Shortfall – Unit Test Absence – Validity of YD Classification – Petitioner's attendance during Third Semester fell below 30% against the prescribed minimum of 75% under Clause 3.6.1 (Criteria 1) of the Student Handbook – Petitioner also remained absent in both Unit Tests in violation of Clause 3.6.2 (Criteria 2) – University issued communication dated 30.01.2026 placing petitioner in "YD" category without declaring end-semester examination result – Held: YD classification is a lawful and necessary consequence of failure to satisfy Criteria 1 and Criteria 2; petition dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Academic Progression – YD Rule – Independent Bar – End-Semester Result Irrelevant – Petitioner contended that YD status could not be invoked without first declaring end-semester examination result – Held: Failure to fulfill attendance (Criteria 1) and Unit Test requirements (Criteria 2) operates as a distinct and independent bar to academic progression, irrespective of the outcome of the end-semester examination – Plain reading of Clause 3.6 of Student Handbook leaves no ambiguity in this regard [Para 14].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – Interim Judicial Direction – No Waiver of Academic Deficiency – Petitioner argued that the University's proposal permitting him to appear in the Third Semester examination, acted upon pursuant to order dated 14.12.2025 in W.P. No. 46548/2025, created an estoppel against imposition of YD – Held: An interim or ad-hoc arrangement permitting a student to merely appear in an examination cannot operate to waive substantive statutory academic deficiencies; mandate of the Rule remains undisturbed [Para 15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – YD categorisation upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 – No order as to costs.

Properties Beyond Jurisdiction – Counter Claim Rightly Rejected – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Premi House, Guna – Defendant No. 8 (petitioner), a legal heir of Babulal, filed counter claim seeking partition and declaration of title in respect of properties at village Ruthiyai, District Guna, which fell within jurisdiction of Court at Raghogarh and not Guna Court – Trial Court rejected counter claim; appellate court dismissed appeal – Held: Counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) is required to be treated as a plaint and governed by rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction; when counter claim properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are valid [Paras 10-14].

Section 17 CPC – Suits for Immovable Property in Different Jurisdictions – Counter Claim Cannot Be Read with Plaint – Petitioner invoked Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together to argue that since one property was within Guna Court's jurisdiction, the entire counter claim was maintainable – Held: Counter claim is independent of the plaint and must satisfy requirements of Section 17 CPC independently – Section 17 requires that the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same – No cause of action was pleaded in the counter claim nor was there any similarity of cause of action between plaint and counter claim; Section 17 CPC not attracted [Paras 12-16].

Counter Claim – Must Be Against Plaintiff – Not Against Co-Defendants – Counter claim is further liable to be rejected on the ground that it was vague and did not mention addresses of properties at serial nos. 2 to 5 – Relief of partition claimed was against co-defendants only and not against plaintiffs – Cause of action for filing counter claim not specifically pleaded – Counter claim can be filed by defendant against plaintiff and may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant, but cannot be solely directed against co-defendants [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Miscellaneous petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court rejecting counter claim upheld – No interference warranted.

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of manufacturing and selling goods by misusing established brand identity – FIR and charge-sheet disclose prima facie offences of cheating, forgery and deception – High Court declined to quash proceedings holding that disputed facts require trial and continuation of prosecution not an abuse of process [Paras 10, 24–25].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope and Limits – Inherent powers to be exercised sparingly and in rare cases – Court cannot undertake detailed examination of evidence or adjudicate disputed facts at threshold – Held: Only prima facie case to be seen [Paras 10–12].

Commercial Dispute vs Criminal Offence – Petitioners contended matter is civil in nature relating to trademark/copyright – Held: Allegations indicate fraudulent conduct and deception of consumers, thus not purely civil dispute [Paras 5–7, 21].

Cheating and Fraud – Use of Deceptive Branding – Allegations of rebranding inferior goods with names of reputed companies to mislead consumers – Held: Such conduct, if proved, constitutes dishonest intention attracting penal provisions [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Application of Bhajan Lal Principles – Quashing permissible only where allegations do not disclose offence or proceedings are mala fide – Present case does not fall within such categories [Para 11].

Trial – Role of Court – Determination of issues like intention, deception, and misuse of brand requires appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot act as trial court under Section 482 CrPC [Para 23].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Prayer for quashing FIR and criminal proceedings rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Service Law – Reservation – 50% Ceiling – Backlog Vacancies – Advertisement by OPSC – Impugned advertisement (No. 9 of 2024-25) advertised 5248 posts of Medical Officers (Group-A, Junior Branch), with 411 posts for UR, 736 for SEBC, 1620 for SC and 2481 for ST – Petitioners contended that reserved category vacancies at 4837 far exceeded the 50% ceiling when measured against 411 UR posts, violating the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney and R.K. Sabharwal – Held: Advertisement could not have been issued in the manner so done; backlog vacancies ought to have been segregated from current vacancies in terms of Article 16(4-B) and the decision in Sangam Nath Pandey [Paras 2, 6.1, 6.2].

Constitutional Law – Article 16(4-B) – Backlog Vacancies – Segregation Mandatory – Backlog vacancies of reserved category candidates are to be treated as a separate class and cannot be clubbed with current year vacancies for the purpose of determining the 50% ceiling – Both the Government requisition dated 12.02.2025 and the consequential advertisement failed to segregate backlog vacancies from current vacancies – Held: Non-compliance with Article 16(4-B) and the mandate in Sangam Nath Pandey renders the advertisement defective [Paras 3.2, 6.1].

Service Law – De-reservation of Backlog Posts – Base Level Posts – Not Permissible – Petitioners sought de-reservation of SC/ST backlog vacancies not filled for more than three recruitment years under Section 7 of the ORV Act, 1975 – State relied on clarification dated 20.03.2008 issued by SC & ST Development Department, based on M. Nagraj, holding that base level posts cannot be de-reserved – Held: Since the posts in question are base level posts, this Court is not inclined to direct de-reservation of backlog vacancies meant for SC, ST and OBC candidates [Para 6.3].

Service Law – Recruitment – Moulding of Relief – State Crunch – Doctor Shortage – Considering the State's submission that there is a complete dearth of doctors and the selection process has already been completed, this Court, relying on Sangam Nath Pandey and Jarnail Singh (Para 35), permitted the Commission to recommend 411 UR category candidates as well as 411 reserved category candidates proportionately to the percentage of reservation – The Department is further permitted to fill up reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation from the Commission [Para 6.4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions – Commission permitted to recommend 411 UR and 411 reserved category candidates proportionately – Department permitted to fill reserved category posts from backlog vacancies after receipt of recommendation – Interim order vacated.

Probate Law – Revocation of Probate – Caveatable Interest – Challenge to Title of Testator – Application Not Maintainable – Testator Rajeshwari executed Will dated 23.08.2005 bequeathing properties at Satara inter alia in favour of the Applicant (son-in-law) – Probate granted on 13.12.2011 – Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (brother and nephew of testator) filed application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for revocation of probate contending that testator had no title in the bequeathed properties since the earlier Will of their mother Radhabai in favour of Rajeshwari was cancelled by a subsequent Will in favour of Chandrahas – Held: Respondents are questioning title of testator and not asserting any right of inheritance through the testator; such persons are strangers to probate proceedings and do not possess caveatable interest; revocation application is not maintainable [Paras 11-12, 24, 26, 29-30].

Caveatable Interest – Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments – Reconciliation – Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha lays down that a person questioning existence of title of testator or capacity to dispose of property on grounds outside law of succession is a stranger to probate proceedings and cannot maintain a caveat – G. Gopal v. C. Bhaskar, rendered subsequently without noticing Krishna Kumar Birla, held that a person having even a slight interest in estate of testator can file a caveat – Conflict noted and reference made in Jagjit Singh v. Pamela Manmohan Singh but reference remained unanswered as appeal was withdrawn – Saroj Agarwalla v. Yasheel Jain (2017) followed Krishna Kumar Birla – Held: Following A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation v. Tahsildar, High Court must reconcile conflicting judgments and follow the one whose facts are more in accord with the case at hand; on reconciliation, G. Gopal is distinguishable as it involved caveator likely to succeed through testator's own settlement deed; Krishna Kumar Birla applies where challenge is to title of testator [Paras 13-15, 18, 23-24].

Probate Court – Jurisdiction – Title Cannot Be Determined – Probate Court is only concerned with due execution, attestation and testamentary capacity of testator – It is not competent to determine whether testator had title or authority to bequeath the properties or whether properties were joint ancestral or self-acquired – Challenge to title falls outside the purview of probate proceedings and must be adjudicated in a substantive suit – Respondents had already instituted a civil suit for title adjudication [Paras 19, 26, 29].

Probate – Optional Where Will Executed Outside Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction – Section 57 of Indian Succession Act only specifies class of Wills for which probate is necessary (those made in or relating to immovable property within Presidency towns) – For Wills executed outside those limits or relating to properties outside such limits, probate is merely optional and not prohibited – Grant of probate in respect of Will executed at Pune relating to properties at Satara is not invalid [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Civil Revision Application allowed – Order dated 20.12.2022 rejecting Applicant's maintainability objection set aside – Miscellaneous Application No. 616 of 2013 for revocation of probate held not maintainable and dismissed – Pending Interim Application also disposed of – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Pension – Deduction – Rule 139, Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 – Post-Retirement Proceedings – Respondents retired as Engineer-in-Chief and Chief Engineer respectively from the Water Resources Department – No departmental proceedings initiated against them during service – After retirement, explanations sought for alleged irregularities in disposal of desilted soil under three schemes for 2014-15 – Orders of 5% deduction from pension for two years passed under Rule 139 without conducting full-fledged departmental or criminal proceedings, without issuing charge memos, without appointing inquiry officer and without affording due opportunity of hearing – Held: Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to exercise power under Rule 139(c) – Condition precedent not fulfilled – Orders of deduction rightly quashed by Single Judge – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31-41].

Rule 139 – Two Circumstances for Reduction of Pension – The first circumstance is that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory, which requires examination of the entire service record and not a single instance of irregularity – The second circumstance is proof of grave misconduct in a departmental or judicial proceeding – In the present case neither was it alleged that entire service was thoroughly unsatisfactory nor was grave misconduct proved in any proceeding – Both conditions for reduction of pension not satisfied [Paras 31-36].

Rule 43(b) – Procedure for Post-Retirement Departmental Proceedings – Where departmental proceedings are initiated after retirement, the same must be in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service may be made – The same condition is equally applicable for reduction of pension under Rule 139(c) – Where a power is conferred to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all [Paras 28-40].

Delay Condonation – I.A. Nos. 1797 of 2025 and 6797 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 145 days and 93 days respectively in filing the appeals – Reasons found satisfactory – Delay condoned [Paras 1-4].

Decision: Both Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Orders of the learned Single Judge quashing the orders of deduction of pension confirmed – All pending interlocutory applications dismissed.