Murder and Grievous Assault – Conviction Based on Child Witnesses – Sections 302 and 326 IPC – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his mother-in-law and causing injuries to his wife – The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of child witnesses, the sons of the appellant – Held: The testimonies of the child witnesses were found reliable and were corroborated by other evidence – The court held that child witness testimonies could be acted upon if found trustworthy after due scrutiny – The appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence [Paras 17-21, 24].

Dying Declaration – Lack of Signature – Effect on Evidentiary Value – The appellant challenged the dying declaration of the injured, arguing that it was suspicious due to the lack of the injured's signature – Held: The court observed that the dying declaration was recorded without the victim's signature on the final narration of the incident, which casts doubt on its reliability – Therefore, the dying declaration was not solely relied upon to prove the charge against the accused [Paras 14-16].

Corroboration and Independent Evidence – Child Witness Testimonies – The court noted that child witness evidence does not require rejection per se but should be scrutinized for reliability – The evidence provided by the child witnesses was corroborated by other witnesses and forensic reports – The blood found on the appellant’s lungi matched with the deceased's clothing, strengthening the prosecution's case [Paras 19-22].

Standard of Proof – Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The court reiterated that "beyond reasonable doubt" does not mean beyond all doubt – An unmerited acquittal based on insignificant circumstances does not serve justice – The prosecution’s case was found convincing, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld [Paras 26-27].

Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and a ten-year sentence under Section 326 IPC. The court found that the prosecution had proven the charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence, including the testimonies of child witnesses and forensic reports, was sufficient to uphold the conviction【Paras 27-29】.

Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction for Murder – Sections 302 and 364 IPC – Reversal of Trial Court’s Conviction by High Court – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Evidence – Appeal against the judgment of conviction by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Coimbatore under Sections 302 and 364 of IPC – Accused was convicted for the murder of the deceased based on circumstantial evidence and alleged motive – High Court set aside the conviction due to lack of corroboration in witness testimonies and inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the prosecution, including discrepancies in the "last seen" theory and recovery of evidence. [Paras 1-25]

Evidence Evaluation – Last Seen Theory and Motive Rejected – Contradictory Witness Testimonies Undermine Prosecution’s Case – High Court found significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses, including PW1 and PW2 – The "last seen together" theory was doubted as the timeline of events was inconsistent – The alleged recovery of evidence, including the blood-stained shirt and the motive based on blackmail, was found unreliable due to witness contradictions and lack of concrete evidence. [Paras 16-22]

Recovery of Evidence – Blood-Stained Shirt and Voter ID Card – The recovery of the accused's voter ID card at the scene and the blood-stained shirt were presented as crucial evidence – High Court rejected the admissibility of this evidence, citing the contradictions in the testimony of the recovery witnesses and failure to prove the chain of custody. [Paras 23-24]

Decision – Acquittal of Accused – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused – Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable circumstantial evidence and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. [Para 25]

Service Law – Alteration of Date of Birth – Petitioner sought correction of the date of birth from 06.04.1964 to 12.12.1966 based on a civil court decree – Held that such decrees are not binding on government authorities if the matter pertains to service records – Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 governs such alterations, and the application must be made within the statutory limits – Decree declared null and void as per binding precedents from the Division Bench.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar on Service Matters – Court emphasized that service matters, especially concerning date of birth corrections, are governed by statutory provisions, and civil courts lack jurisdiction in such cases – Civil decrees altering dates of birth in service registers are considered null and void [Paras 1-17].

Government Guidelines – Referred to prior judgments and government guidelines that mandate specific conditions, including the minimum age requirement for appearing in SSLC exams, before allowing date of birth corrections in service records [Paras 7-12].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – Civil Court decree null and void – Petitioner not entitled to date of birth correction in service records.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 22(c) – Bail under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged incarceration considered for granting bail – Petitioner apprehended with 295 grams of heroin under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Prosecution failed to present significant progress in the trial despite the charges being framed on 30.11.2023 and only one witness being examined out of 16 listed witnesses – Custody certificate showed petitioner behind bars for more than one year and two months – Supreme Court's rulings in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. State of Gujarat cited to argue that prolonged incarceration justifies bail even in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act – Bail granted on the condition of compliance with standard legal requirements and certain additional conditions – [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Conditional Liberty under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged detention beyond reasonable time violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – The court emphasized that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the prolonged custody of the petitioner and minimal progress in the trial – [Paras 5-12].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Rulings – Relevance of Custodial Period – Court followed precedents established by the Supreme Court, including cases like Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Nitish Adhikary v. State of West Bengal, where prolonged custody and slow progress in trials were key factors for granting bail under the NDPS Act – Court concluded that continued incarceration of the petitioner in this case would be unjustified – [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition for bail allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail conditions and additional restrictions like surrendering the passport, maintaining good behavior, and ensuring timely appearance in court – [Paras 13-17].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Vague Allegations – Petition Dismissed – The appellant failed to establish specific instances of cruelty to support his divorce petition. The allegations were vague, lacking in detail about the time, place, or nature of the acts. The court concluded that no concrete evidence of cruelty was presented, and the appellant failed to discharge the required burden of proof. Thus, the petition was dismissed – [Paras 10-30].

Family Law – Divorce – Lack of Independent Evidence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant did not produce key witnesses, such as his mother, sister, or daughter, to substantiate his claims of cruelty. Meanwhile, the respondent’s independent witnesses refuted these allegations. The Family Court's decision to dismiss the petition was upheld due to the appellant's inability to provide corroborative evidence – [Paras 20-35].

Judicial Review – Sufficiency of Evidence – No Perversity Found – The Family Court's decision was based on a sound evaluation of the evidence. The appellant's vague and unsupported allegations, coupled with the credible counter-evidence provided by the respondent, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court found no error or illegality in the lower court's judgment – [Paras 40-45].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the appellant failed to prove the alleged acts of cruelty. The High Court held that the appellant’s claims were unsupported and lacked merit – [Paras 46-50].

Civil Procedure – Section 100 of CPC, 1908 – Second Appeal – Title dispute over land – Reversal of lower appellate court’s judgment by the High Court – Lower appellate court held that a mere suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title, where the title was disputed – High Court held that the title of the plaintiff was sufficiently clear and not clouded by the defendant's claims, thus allowing the suit for injunction simpliciter and demarcation – Judgment of the trial court restored. [Paras 1-12]

Revenue Law – Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules – Tahasildar’s jurisdiction – High Court held that the Tahasildar could not correct the Record of Rights (ROR) after its publication based on facts that existed prior to the publication – The defendant’s challenge to the ROR correction was rejected as the proceedings were initiated long after the ROR’s publication, without involvement of necessary parties – Findings of the trial court on the invalidity of the mutation proceedings upheld. [Paras 10-14]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the first appellate court set aside – High Court restored the trial court’s judgment, allowing the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction and demarcation – Held that there was no cloud over the plaintiff's title to necessitate a declaration of title. [Para 15-16]
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Acquittal - Section 52A compliance – Whether the procedure for sampling under Section 52A was followed. Held, the samples were drawn on the spot without the presence of a Magistrate, which contravenes the NDPS Act. As per the Supreme Court's decisions in Mohanlal and Yusuf, samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory must be certified by the Magistrate. Failure to comply invalidates the primary evidence – [Paras 15-17, 26].

Criminal Procedure – FIR Mention on Search Memos – Whether FIR number on documents before registration renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Held, the inclusion of FIR number in memos prepared prior to FIR registration casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. This violates procedural fairness as established in Manjit Singh v. State – [Paras 20-26].

Constitutional Law – Presumption of Innocence – The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when procedural lapses affect the integrity of the prosecution’s case – [Paras 34-38].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment and conviction order dated 05 July 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Solan, was set aside. The appellant, Sachin Sharma, was acquitted of charges under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A of CrPC to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – [Paras 44-47].

Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Negligence – Dismissal of Claim – Appellant claimed injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of an HRTC bus, resulting in permanent disability (15% of the right limb) – Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove negligence by the driver or conductor of the bus – Appeal dismissed by the High Court, reaffirming that negligence on the part of the driver is a sine qua non for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – No cogent evidence provided by the appellant to establish negligence [Paras 1-40].

Evidentiary Issues – Failure to Produce Material Evidence – Appellant did not produce any medical records from CHC Kumarsain or MGMSC Khaneri, nor did he examine any passengers of the bus – The petitioner’s evidence, including the police record (DD Entry No. 12A), did not support claims of negligence by the bus driver or conductor – Tribunal and High Court found no error in dismissing the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence [Paras 25-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error found in the Tribunal’s decision – Negligence not proven by the appellant, and thus no compensation awarded