Criminal Law – Unnatural Offence and Aggravated Sexual Assault – Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Conviction based on minor victim’s testimony – Section 377 attracted where penetration occurs on any part of the body, predominant intent must be sexual – Absence of external injury marks on the victim’s body not sufficient to disprove the offence – Victim’s young age and inability to resist due to overpowering by older boys considered – Held: Conviction upheld as the absence of injury does not negate the offence – Testimony of the child reliable and credible. [Paras 1-27, 30-32]

Child Testimony – Credibility – Assessment – Section 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – Victim’s testimony considered credible despite absence of corroborative medical evidence – Courts emphasize the reliability and trustworthiness of the child’s account – Judicial precedence supports reliance on child testimony if it is convincing and consistent – Prosecution not required to establish violent resistance for offence under these sections. [Paras 13, 19-20, 27-29]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly convicted the petitioners for offences under Sections 377 IPC and 10 POCSO Act – The judgment found valid, legal, and in accordance with the law without any perversity. [Paras 33, 37]

Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint – Civil Revision against Trial Court's Order dismissing application for rejection of suit under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC – Suit challenging decree dated 20.05.1986 alleging fraud and claiming coparcenary rights under amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act – High Court holds no existing coparcenary post-severance of shares in 1986 decree – Ingredients of fraud not specifically pleaded – Held, the suit is barred as the cause of action is illusory and vexatious – Trial Court's order set aside, application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC allowed, plaint rejected. [Paras 1-7]

Hindu Succession Act - Coparcenary Rights – Analysis – Held – Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act confers coparcenary rights to daughters from 25.12.2004 – Decree of 1986 resulted in severance of coparcenary status – No coparcenary existed post-1986 for the plaintiff to claim rights – Claims of fraud unsubstantiated as per Order VI, Rule 4 CPC. [Para 4-5]

Decision – Rejection of Suit – Court finds the trial court's dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC unsustainable – Suit dismissed as it does not disclose a cause of action – Petition allowed, plaint rejected. [Para 7]

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Sections 34, 306 IPC – Petition to Quash FIR – Alleged abetment by threats in February 2019, suicide in May 2019 – Necessity of proximate and live link between threats and suicide – No evidence of contact or threats post-February 2019 – FIR quashed as no direct or indirect act of instigation proven. [Paras 1-27]

Abetment Requirements – Legal Standards – Section 306 IPC – Section 107 IPC – Abetment requires intention and direct act to instigate or aid suicide – Mere mention in suicide note insufficient without evidence of instigation – Precedents emphasize mens rea and proximate cause – Petition allowed, FIR quashed. [Paras 12-26]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Subsequent Proceedings – Petition allowed – FIR No. 62 dated 16.05.2019 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC quashed along with subsequent proceedings including the report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Absence of live link between alleged threats and suicide, no mens rea or direct instigation established. [Paras 26-27]

Constitutional Law – Premature Release of Convict – Articles 14, 226 – IPC Sections 302, 452, 34 – Cr.P.C. Sections 432, 433 – Conviction post-policy change – Determination of applicable policy for premature release – Policy at the time of conviction to be applied – Policy dated 13.08.2008 applicable for conviction in 2009, superseding earlier policy dated 12.04.2002 – Held: Policy prevalent at the time of conviction governs premature release – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-14]

Statutory Interpretation – Policy Supersession – Premature Release – Policy dated 13.08.2008 supersedes policy dated 12.04.2002 – Policy issued under statutory provisions of Cr.P.C. has statutory force – Supreme Court precedent affirms applicability of policy at time of conviction – Petitioner's argument for application of earlier policy without merit. [Paras 4-13]

Decision – Premature Release Denied – Petition dismissed – Impugned orders upheld as they correctly applied the policy in force at the time of conviction – Policy dated 13.08.2008 considered appropriate for cases post-2008. [Paras 12-14]

Partition Law – Mode of Partition – Civil Revision Petition against the trial court's order rejecting the Local Commissioner’s report and appointing a new Local Commissioner – Trial court’s action of reopening the determination of ownership shares and inviting evidence on the same issue – Held, improper and contrary to established legal principles – Trial court directed to proceed with the Local Commissioner’s report and finalize the decree without disturbing the possession of any other co-sharer unless they have made a specific request for partition – Fresh suit for partition suggested for respondents desiring separate possession. [Paras 1-10]

Determination of Ownership Shares – Analysis – Trial court's error in reopening the determination of ownership shares and possession for respondent No. 1 – Held – Preliminary decree already determined petitioner’s share – No other co-sharer, including respondent No. 1, made any claim for separation of their shares – Partition proceedings to be limited to granting possession to the petitioner without reopening ownership issues. [Paras 5-10]

Final Decree Proceedings – Process and Limitations – Held – Final decree preparation is a ministerial act focused on implementing the preliminary decree – Judicial adjudication is limited to ancillary issues – Court below’s action in reframing issues for ownership and possession at this stage is improper – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Shub Karan Bubna vs. Sita Saran Bubna emphasized. [Para 8]

Decision – Order of Trial Court Set Aside – Revision petition allowed – Direction to proceed with Local Commissioner’s report for preparation of final decree – Possession to be handed over to the petitioner as per his entitlement. [Para 10]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, a deed writer, accused in a case involving a fraudulent agreement to sell – Petitioner not a party to the sale – Alleged transaction involved misrepresentation by sellers – Held: Anticipatory bail granted as custodial interrogation not required – Questions regarding the purchaser's duty to verify title and petitioner's role to be determined at trial. [Paras 1-10]

Involvement in Fraud – Role of Deed Writer – Petitioner alleged to have taken commission and written the fraudulent deed – Responsibility to verify title lies with the purchaser – Delay in FIR registration and existence of compromise suggest non-requirement of custodial interrogation – Anticipatory bail appropriate. [Paras 3-8]

Decision – Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Petitions allowed – Petitioners granted anticipatory bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with investigation – State may seek cancellation if petitioners fail to cooperate. [Paras 8-10]

Education Law - Revaluation and Grace Marks - MBBS Examination - LPA challenging denial of grace marks and revaluation request - National Medical Commission Regulations and University Ordinance - Appellant's failure in two subjects - Held, university can award up to 5 grace marks only if the student has failed in one subject and passed all others. - In this case, appellant failed in two subjects, making her ineligible for grace marks. - Ordinance of the university explicitly denies revaluation of MBBS examinations. - Appeal dismissed, confirming the writ court's decision rejecting the appellant's claims for grace marks and revaluation​​.

Grace Marks – Appellant challenged the rejection of her request for awarding grace marks and re-evaluation of her MBBS examination papers – High Court held that the University can grant a maximum of 5 grace marks to a student who has failed in only one subject, provided the student has passed in all other subjects – Appellant failed in two subjects and was therefore ineligible for grace marks as per the National Medical Commission Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 and University Ordinance [Paras 1-3, 9-14].

Re-evaluation – Appellant sought re-evaluation of her examination papers by an independent examiner – High Court noted that the University Ordinance explicitly prohibits re-evaluation of answer books for MBBS and other medical examinations – The request for re-evaluation was denied, and the claim of arbitrary and unjustified treatment by the University was found to be without merit [Paras 4-6, 15-18].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed as the appellant's requests for grace marks and re-evaluation were unsupported by the governing regulations and ordinances – The allegations of malafide against University faculty were found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the legal provisions governing the case [Paras 17, 19-20].

Juvenile Justice – Bail – Section 12 JJ Act – Bail to Juvenile Rule, Exceptions Narrow – Juvenile in conflict with law entitled to bail unless falling under specific exceptions – No specific role or injury attributed to appellant – Appellant in custody since 24.07.2019 – Trial likely to be prolonged – Co-accused granted bail – Held: Bail granted to juvenile appellant. [Paras 1-15]

Juvenile Justice – Statutory Interpretation – Section 12 JJ Act – Bail is a rule, denial only in exceptional circumstances – Court must explicitly consider exceptions under Section 12 JJ Act – Non-consideration of statutory provisions by lower court erroneous – Appellant’s case not covered by statutory exceptions – Grant of bail justified. [Paras 8-14]

Decision – Bail Granted – Appeal allowed – Lower court order set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail subject to conditions – Directions for expeditious trial. [Paras 15-16]

Land Law - Ownership Dispute - Writ Petition under Article 226 - Petitioner sought to quash the orders dismissing his petition and statutory appeal under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of Nazul land as a successor by will, whereas the Gram Panchayat asserted ownership per Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005. The Court upheld the findings of the authorities that the petitioner failed to produce any allotment letter to support the entry of RapatRoznamcha. The entry in RapatRoznamcha without an allotment letter was deemed insignificant. The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the orders of the competent jurisdictional authorities. [Paras 1-10]

Declaratory Petition under Section 11 - Analysis - The Court observed that the Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005 recorded the Gram Panchayat as the owner and the petitioner's father as 'Gair Marusi'. It was established that a 'Gair Marusi' (non-occupant tenant) could not acquire the status and rights of 'Marusi' and claim ownership. Despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner could not provide any evidence of the suit land being Nazul land. [Paras 6-7]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no revenue document or any other evidence suggesting that the suit land was Nazul land allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner. The judgment and decree of the civil court were deemed beyond its jurisdictional competence and thus null. The orders passed by the competent jurisdictional authorities were upheld. [Paras 9-10]