Public Interest Litigation – Service Matter – Non-Maintainability – Petitioner, a ward member of ThenMelpakkam Village Panchayat, filed a writ petition styled as a PIL challenging G.O.(2D) No. 169 dated 08.12.2025 by which the Government of Tamil Nadu allowed the appeals of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 and set aside the District Collector's order directing their removal from the posts of President and Vice-President of the Village Panchayat – Relief sought pertained essentially to a service matter, namely the removal of elected panchayat office-bearers – Held: A PIL is not maintainable in a service matter; writ petition dismissed [Paras 2, 4].

PIL Jurisprudence – Settled Principle – Reiteration – The Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that service disputes cannot be raised by way of public interest litigation – Courts cautioned against entertaining frivolous PILs masquerading as public interest causes and directed that such petitions be dismissed with exemplary costs where oblique motive is apparent – High Courts directed to filter out and throw out such petitions at the threshold on the basis of settled precedent [Para 3].

Pendency of Earlier PIL – No Ground to Entertain Fresh PIL – The petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 9473 of 2023, also as a PIL, against the same Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 for alleged misappropriation of public funds, and the same was pending before the Court – Scope of the earlier writ petition being misappropriation of public funds, and that petition being pending, no good ground was found to entertain a fresh PIL in a service matter arising from action taken pursuant to the earlier proceedings [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Interim applications stand closed.

Forest Law – Confiscation of Vehicle – Nature of Confiscation under Section 49 vis-à-vis Section 51, Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 – Petitioner's truck bearing No. AS-17B-9317 was intercepted on 12.08.2018 while transporting teak logs from Mizoram with discrepancies in transit pass and logs found unmarked – Vehicle seized and administratively confiscated vide order dated 17.01.2020 by Authorised Officer (DFO Cachar) under Section 49(4) of the Regulation – Confiscation upheld in appeal before Additional District Judge, Cachar, in revision before this Court, and SLP before the Supreme Court dismissed on 07.11.2023 – Held: Confiscation under Section 49(4) is administrative in nature and constitutes only a temporary measure; final and irrevocable confiscation can be ordered only by a Criminal Court under Section 51 upon conviction of the accused for a forest offence; the word "confiscation" in Section 49 is a misnomer as Section 49 provides for a stage prior to actual confiscation [Paras 17–22, 28].

Forest Law – Two Parallel Processes of Confiscation – Mutually Exclusive or Dependent – Sections 49 and 51, Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 – Forest Department contended that administrative confiscation under Section 49(4) and judicial confiscation under Section 51 are independent and mutually exclusive processes – Held: Coordinate Benches of this Court in Jogeshwar Borah v. State of Assam, Jaminur Rahman v. State of Assam and Sambhu Saha v. State of Assam have consistently held that confiscation under Section 49 is of temporary nature and final confiscation under Section 51 can only occur upon conviction – Decisions of Supreme Court pertaining to Forest Laws of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, which hold the two processes to be independent, do not govern in view of binding coordinate Bench decisions of this Court on the Assam Forest Regulation [Paras 19–26].

Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Investigation – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Section 528 BNSS – Criminal investigation into the forest offence initiated in 2018 remained pending and incomplete for more than seven years without any explanation from the department – No charge-sheet filed, no final report submitted – Held: Right to speedy investigation is a facet of Article 21; if investigation continues for an unduly long period without adequate justification, the accused is at liberty to invoke Section 528 BNSS/482 CrPC; delay in completion of investigation functions as one of the grounds for quashing, and the Court must also consider other attendant circumstances – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 27–33].

Forest Offence – Compoundability – Withdrawal of Similar Cases – Section 62, Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 – Forest offences under the Regulation are compoundable at the instance of the Forest Authority – Government of Assam had issued Notifications dated 21.10.2022 and 20.09.2024 for withdrawal of petty/minor criminal cases; forest offences are not excluded from the said scheme – A similar forest offence case (CR Case No. 4/2019) involving confiscation by DFO Cachar was withdrawn and vehicle directed to be released in Criminal Petition No. 572 of 2025 – Held: Quashing of criminal proceedings would not prejudice the department especially when petitioner has been deprived of his vehicle for seven years; criminal proceedings quashed and DFO directed to release the vehicle [Paras 29–34].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed — Criminal proceedings in Offence Report No. OR No. DH/6 of 2018-19, DVL/65 of 2019-20 quashed — Authorised Officer/DFO, Cachar Division, directed to release truck bearing registration No. AS-17B-9317 to the petitioner upon verification and usual formalities.

Cyber Crime – Bank Account Freezing – Educational Institution – Disproportionate Action – Sections 41A CrPC, 420 IPC, 66(D) IT Act – Writ Petition Allowed – Petitioner-school's entire bank account frozen by respondent-bank acting on notice issued by Cyber Crime Police, Varanasi, in Crime No.50/2024, on the ground that a parent of a student was allegedly involved in cyber offences and had remitted school fees of Rs.5,00,000/- as part of alleged crime proceeds – School had, upon receipt of Section 41A notice, promptly and bona fide reversed the said amount to the source account – Held: Freezing of the entire account of an educational institution solely because it received a legitimate fee payment from an allegedly accused parent constitutes a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and disproportionate measure – Petitioner cannot be penalised for receiving bona fide fee payments in the ordinary course of its functioning – Notice dated 11.03.2026 quashed – Bank directed to mark lien to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only, subject to outcome of Crime No.50/2024, while permitting the institution to freely operate the account for amounts exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- [Paras 4–9].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Notice dated 11.03.2026 quashed – First respondent-bank directed to mark lien on petitioner's account to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- only – Petitioner permitted to operate account freely for amounts exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- – Lien subject to outcome of proceedings in Crime No.50/2024.

Arbitration Law — Competence-Competence — Section 16 — Arbitral Tribunal's Jurisdiction — Writ Court Interference — Petitioner and respondent no. 2 were partners in M/s Arch Construction; disputes arose regarding payments from Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., leading to criminal proceedings and invocation of arbitration — Respondent filed application under Section 11 of the Act on May 31, 2023, approximately six years after invocation of arbitration on September 4, 2017 — High Court appointed sole arbitrator vide order dated August 5, 2025 — Petitioner filed application under Section 16 of the Act raising limitation as a jurisdictional objection, which was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the High Court's order appointing the arbitrator had become final and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to re-examine the limitation for filing the Section 11 application — Held: Arbitral Tribunal patently erred in law — The impugned order quashed and Tribunal directed to decide the limitation issue on merits as a preliminary objection under Section 16 [Paras 2, 5, 27, 33–37].

Writ Jurisdiction — Interference with Interlocutory Arbitral Orders — Article 226 — Scope and Conditions — Writ court ordinarily does not interfere with interlocutory orders of an Arbitral Tribunal — However, interference is warranted in exceptional rarity: (i) where a party is left completely remediless under the statute; (ii) where clear bad faith is shown; or (iii) where the order is so patently perverse that it stares the court on the face — In the present case, the Tribunal declined to decide a jurisdictional issue it was bound to decide, thereby abdication of jurisdiction constituting patent illegality warranting intervention — Held: The present case falls within the exceptional category warranting writ court interference [Paras 11–14, 24, 27, 33].

Section 16 — Doctrine of Competence-Competence — Scope — Limitation as Jurisdictional Issue — Section 16 of the Act gives full effect to the doctrine of competence-competence, empowering the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction including all objections as to existence and validity of the arbitration agreement — Limitation being a jurisdictional issue is arbitrable and must be decided by the Tribunal — A party is not precluded from raising a jurisdictional plea merely because it participated in the appointment of the arbitrator — Held: The Tribunal is duty bound to rule on the issue of limitation for filing the Section 11 application and cannot abdicate this jurisdiction on the ground that the referral court's order has attained finality [Paras 16, 19–21, 25–26, 32].

Section 11(6-A) — Scope of Referral Court — Minimal Judicial Interference — Post the 2015 Amendment, the jurisdiction of the referral court under Section 11 is confined to examining the existence of the arbitration agreement — nothing more, nothing less — All other preliminary issues including limitation for appointment of the arbitrator are to be left open to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal — The High Court at the Section 11 stage is not required to conduct a laborious inquiry into mixed questions of fact and law — Held: The referral court's order does not operate as res judicata on the question of limitation before the Arbitral Tribunal; the Tribunal retains full power under Section 16 to rule on such jurisdictional questions [Paras 21–23, 28, 34].

Self-Contradictory Order — Arbitral Tribunal accepting legal position but acting contrary to it — Arbitral Tribunal in its impugned order acknowledged that limitation is a jurisdictional issue within its domain and further noted that the respondent's plea of continuing cause of action had no force — Yet it declined to decide the limitation issue on the ground of lack of jurisdiction — Held: An order that records a legal position, accepts it, and then acts contrary to it without reasoning is inherently contradictory and completely perverse on the face of the record [Paras 31, 32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated October 9, 2025 of the Sole Arbitrator quashed and set aside — Arbitral Tribunal directed to adjudicate the issue of limitation for appointment of the arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act as a preliminary objection under Section 16 of the Act on merits, after granting opportunity of hearing to parties — Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the limitation issue — No order as to costs [Paras 35–39].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act – Accused Police Constable posted at Aya Nagar Check Post demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification from the informant Narender Kumar for returning his identity card confiscated during a police checking on the intervening night of 26.07.1994-27.07.1994 – Trap was successfully laid on 30.07.1994 – Tainted currency recovered from the left pocket of the accused – Left hand wash and pocket wash tested positive – Accused convicted by trial court and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment on each count with sentences running concurrently – On appeal, accused deceased during pendency – Legal heirs not coming forward – Appeal considered on merits following the dictum in Bani Singh vs. State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 – Held: Conviction upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 9-10, 26-27].

Non-Examination of Informant – Does Not Abate Prosecution – PC Act Cases – Informant Narender Kumar remained untraceable despite repeated summons and was not examined before the trial court – Held: In cases where the complainant/informant is unavailable, dead or turns hostile, the demand of illegal gratification can still be proved through testimony of other witnesses, documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence – The case does not abate nor does it automatically result in acquittal merely because the informant was not examined – Demand proved through the testimony of the panch witness PW5 [Paras 15, 21].

Panch Witness – Sole Testimony – Sufficiency – PW5 (panch witness) who accompanied the informant throughout the trap proceedings fully stood by the prosecution case and was not discredited in cross-examination – No material was shown to suggest he was an interested or partisan witness – Held: Evidence is to be weighed and not counted – Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if found wholly reliable – Testimony of PW5 coupled with recovery of tainted currency from the accused's possession sufficiently establishes both demand and acceptance [Para 22].

Statutory Presumption – Section 20 PC Act – Once Foundational Facts Proved, Burden Shifts to Accused – Section 20 PC Act mandates a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution, but such presumption is not automatic and can only be invoked after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of demand and acceptance – Held: Once demand and acceptance stood proved from the testimony of PW5 and recovery of tainted currency, the presumption under Section 20 stands invoked – The accused failed to discharge the burden by adducing any cogent or credible evidence to rebut the presumption [Paras 23-24].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19(1)(c) PC Act – Competent Authority – Validity – Sanction for prosecution accorded by Vivek Gogia, IPS, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police – Accused contended that since he was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the sanctioning authority was incompetent – Held: Under Sections 12 and 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Additional DCP is expressly empowered to appoint and remove officers of subordinate rank including constables – The test under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act is whether the sanctioning authority is competent to remove the accused from office – Since that power expressly vests in the Addl. DCP, the sanction is valid [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld – One year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, sentences running concurrently, confirmed.

Criminal Law — Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — Direction for Registration of FIR — Interlocutory Order — Revisability — Magistrate's Discretion — Complaint under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC filed alleging rape on false promise of marriage — Judicial Magistrate declined to direct registration of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and instead directed complainant to lead preliminary evidence treating it as a private complaint — Additional Sessions Judge, in revision, relying on Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, set aside the order and directed registration of FIR — Petitioner challenged the revisional order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Held: Order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and is amenable to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. — However, Additional Sessions Judge erred in mechanically applying Lalita Kumari without considering nine-month delay in filing complaint, prior extortion FIR registered against the complainant, absence of need for complex police investigation, and the Magistrate's duly considered police station report — Impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge set aside — Order of Judicial Magistrate restored — JMIC directed to proceed with the matter as a private complaint in accordance with law [Paras 1–22].

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. — Magistrate's Discretion — Not Mandatory to Direct FIR Registration — A Magistrate is not bound to mechanically direct police investigation in every complaint case — Direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is warranted only where the information reveals commission of a cognizable offence and police investigation is necessary to dig out evidence not available with the complainant nor procurable without State assistance — Where the complainant is in possession of complete details of the accused and no complex or scientific investigation is required, the complaint case procedure ought to be adopted — Powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice and not as a matter of course [Paras 17–18, 21] — Relied upon: Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC Online SC 238.

Interlocutory Order — Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. — Bar on Revision — An order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. allowing or rejecting a prayer for registration of FIR is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. — Such an order adjudicates a valuable right of the complainant as well as the accused and, upon issuance of directions, the Magistrate becomes functus officio — Where directions for registration of FIR are issued, the fundamental right of liberty of the person named is directly affected — Revision petition against such an order is, therefore, maintainable [Paras 11–15] — Relied upon: Amarnath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 215.

Lalita Kumari — Mandatory FIR Registration — Exception for Abnormal Delay — While Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 mandates registration of FIR where disclosed information reveals a cognizable offence, it expressly carves out an exception for cases involving abnormal delay or laches in criminal prosecution without satisfactory explanation — In the present case, the complaint was filed nine months after the alleged incident and seven days after the complainant's release in an extortion case registered against her — Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider these material circumstances — Application of Lalita Kumari was, therefore, erroneous [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Petition allowed — Order of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 09.07.2021 and all subsequent proceedings set aside — Order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat dated 10.12.2020 treating the matter as a private complaint restored — JMIC directed to proceed in accordance with law — Nothing observed shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Digital Penetration – Rape – Sections 354, 376 and 448 IPC – Appeal against conviction – Appellant, a car cleaner known to the victim, convicted by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) for criminal trespass, outraging modesty and rape by digital penetration – Sentenced to 1 year, 5 years and 10 years rigorous imprisonment respectively, all concurrent – On appeal, High Court finds the testimony of PW1 (victim) cogent, consistent and fully corroborated by medical evidence – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-2, 40-41].

Definition of Rape – Digital Penetration – Section 375(b) IPC – Post-2013 Amendment – Scope of Offence – Appellant contended that insertion of fingers into the private part of the victim amounts only to an attempt to commit rape and not rape proper – Held: Post the 2013 amendment to Section 375 IPC, the definition of rape expressly includes insertion, to any extent, of any object or part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina of a woman – Digital penetration falls squarely within the ambit of Section 375(b) IPC – No degree of penetration is required to complete the offence – Even the slightest or partial penetration is sufficient to attract the charge of rape [Paras 27-28, 33].

Victim Testimony – Sole Testimony – Reliability – Corroboration by Medical Evidence – PW1 (victim) deposed in vivid and clear terms describing the entire sequence of the assault – Her oral deposition was corroborated by the Medico Legal Examination Report prepared by PW3 (Senior Resident Doctor, Department of OBG, Goa Medical College), which recorded finger penetration into the vagina and noted injuries including bruises on the upper arms and swelling of the left knee – Held: Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable and consistent – The victim's evidence inspired confidence and withstood cross-examination [Paras 5, 29, 33].

Medical Evidence – PW2 versus PW3 – No Variance – Alleged Discrepancy – Hurt Certificate vs. Medico Legal Report – Appellant sought to create a contradiction between the evidence of PW2 (Medical Officer, PHC) who found no external injuries suggestive of forceful penetration, and the opinion of PW3 who found evidence of vaginal penetration – Held: PW2 examined the victim only for external injuries at a Primary Health Centre and did not conduct a gynecological examination for sexual assault – PW3, a Senior Resident qualified in Obstetrics and Gynecology, conducted the comprehensive medico legal examination – Their opinions operate in different spheres and are not in variance – Opinion of PW3 is more relevant for medical corroboration of rape [Paras 31-32, 35].

House Trespass – Section 448 IPC – Proof – Entry through Balcony – Appellant contended that the topography of the premises made it impossible for him to have entered the victim's locked bedroom from outside and that house trespass was not proved – Held: Suggestions put by the Appellant during cross-examination of the victim admit and acknowledge his presence in the flat – The Appellant was apprehended on the spot in the corner of the balcony of the victim's bedroom without pants – No alternative explanation offered – Offence of house trespass proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 38-39].

Investigation – DNA Profiling – Non-Collection – Not Fatal – Section 53(A) CrPC – Facilitative, Not Mandatory – Appellant argued that failure to collect DNA evidence and swab/slides from the Appellant's fingers was fatal to the prosecution case – Held: Section 53(A) CrPC is facilitative in nature and not mandatory – Failure to conduct DNA profiling cannot by itself be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, particularly where reliable and cogent evidence otherwise establishes guilt – Investigative shortcomings cannot be a ground for acquittal in the face of trustworthy evidence [Para 36].

Plea of Insanity – Section 84 IPC – Burden of Proof – Not Discharged – Appellant attempted to raise a doubt regarding his mental capacity based on the Investigating Officer's inquiry into his IQ level during investigation – Held: The Investigating Officer found no documentation suggesting mental illness or low IQ – The Appellant failed to raise any plea of unsoundness of mind even in his statement under Section 313 CrPC – Burden of proving insanity under Section 84 IPC rests on the accused and was not discharged [Paras 24, 36].

Sentencing – Proportionality – Section 376 IPC – Minimum Sentence – Appellant had no prior convictions – The Trial Court imposed the minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 IPC – Held: Sentence is proportionate to the gravity and heinousness of the offence – No interference warranted [Para 39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 448, 354 and 376 IPC confirmed – Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment (concurrent) upheld as proportionate.

Electrocution Death – Strict Liability – Electricity Distribution Company – The deceased, an agriculturist aged 58 years, died on 24.12.2011 at about 4:00 a.m. while walking towards a temple well, upon coming into contact with a snapped live electric wire from Pole No. SSS C1/S 527791 maintained by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 – Post Mortem Certificate confirmed cause of death as "Respiratory arrest due to electric shock" – Official Respondents failed to file Counter-Affidavit despite multiple opportunities – Payment of ex gratia of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Respondents amounted to admission of liability – Held: The Respondent electricity company is strictly liable for the death irrespective of negligence; principle of strict liability squarely applicable to electrocution cases [Paras 10–15].

Strict Liability – Distinguished from Negligence – Ex Gratia No Bar to Compensation – The defence that payment of ex gratia disentitles the petitioners from claiming further compensation was rejected — compensatory jurisprudence has advanced to the point where strict liability operates independently of fault or negligence, and the Defendant is liable irrespective of whether precautions could have prevented the harm – Facts distinguished from Hanuman Das's case where contributory negligence of the victim was present [Paras 10–11, 21–22].

Quantum of Compensation – Agriculturist – Multiplier Method – Notional Income – In the absence of documentary proof of income, notional monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 72,000/- per annum) adopted for an agricultural labourer/agriculturist, following the Supreme Court's formula in Ranjeet's case – Future prospects added at 10% (deceased being 58 years of age) – Deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses – Multiplier of 9 applied – Loss of consortium awarded to the widow and four daughters – Total compensation computed at Rs. 8,37,900/- – After adjusting ex gratia of Rs. 1,00,000/-, net compensation of Rs. 7,37,900/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from date of filing of writ petition i.e., 26.12.2012 [Paras 23–27].

Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount – Court's Power – Just Compensation – Although petitioners restricted their prayer to Rs. 5,00,000/-, the Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 8,37,900/- in exercise of its power to award just compensation — there is no restriction that a Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, as the duty of the Court is to award just compensation on the basis of evidence on record [Paras 27–29].

Non-Arrayed Legal Heir – Respondents directed to identify and pay the share of the daughter of the deceased who did not approach the Court, particularly the amount under the head "loss of consortium" [Para 30].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 directed to transfer the due compensation amounts to the respective bank accounts of the petitioners within 12 weeks — Respondents also directed to identify and pay the non-petitioning daughter's entitlement — No order as to costs — Interlocutory applications closed.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Acquittal – Appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for firing a gunshot at informant Rajendra Singh on 04.12.1980, which caused gun shot injuries to Shiv Kumar Singh who was standing nearby – Role of exhortation attributed to deceased co-accused Brijbasi Lal – Sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine imposed – On appeal, High Court finds the testimonies of the three witnesses of fact (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) to be mutually inconsistent and in material conflict with each other and with the site plan – Prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 3, 27-31].

Chance Witnesses – PW-2 (Shiv Kumar Singh, Injured) and PW-3 (Sughar Singh) – Reliability – Inconsistent and Conflicting Statements – Both witnesses were residents of villages other than the place of occurrence and were chance witnesses whose presence at the scene was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution – Testimony of PW-2 found entirely in contrast with PW-1 on material aspects including the time of the incident, the person levelling the disputed foundation, the role of exhortation, and whether one or two shots were fired – PW-2 exaggerated his role as the primary target of the assault, which was inconsistent with the FIR and PW-1's deposition – Testimony of PW-3 also at variance with PW-1 on the target of exhortation – Held: Evidence of a chance witness requires very cautious and close scrutiny; if presence at the place of occurrence remains doubtful, the testimony must be discarded [Paras 17-20].

Site Plan – Inconsistency with Oral Evidence – The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW-7) showed the disputed foundation to the east of the informant's house with no wall between the two houses, whereas PW-1 stated that firing took place behind a wall – The site plan showed Mulaim Singh at a distance of 40 paces from the informant and injured, whereas witnesses stated he was sitting adjacent to them – Two separate firing positions were shown in the site plan, inconsistent with witnesses' accounts – These contradictions between ocular evidence and the site plan undermined the prosecution's version [Paras 20-21].

Faulty Investigation – Non-Recovery of Weapon, Blood-Stained Material and Ballistic Report – The licensed gun allegedly used by the appellant was not seized and no FSL or ballistic report was obtained – Blood-stained earth, clothes and mattress used to transport the injured were not recovered – Injury report of Mulaim Singh was not placed on record and he was not produced as a witness despite allegedly suffering gunshot injuries – Statement of PW-2 was not recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation – Held: While faulty investigation does not by itself entitle an accused to acquittal, the cumulative effect of multiple investigative lapses, coupled with inconsistent and unreliable eye-witness testimony, creates reasonable doubt that must benefit the accused [Paras 24-26].

Appellate Court – Power to Interfere with Conviction – Benefit of Doubt – Held: An appellate court should be slow to interfere with conviction recorded by the trial court, but where evidence on record indicates that prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and a plausible different view can be taken, the appellate court should not shy away from giving benefit of doubt to the accused [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.06.1987 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 165 of 1986 under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant Keshav Singh @ Kallu acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal against appellant no. 1 Brijbasi Lal abated on account of his death during pendency of appeal.