Mental Healthcare – Suo Motu PIL – Systemic deficiencies – Court  intervention – Proceedings initiated on inspection report of BSLSA highlighting shortcomings in mental health infrastructure, functioning of BIMHAS and lack of compliance with statutory obligations under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Court issued directions seeking detailed responses from multiple authorities including Health Department, Police, Prisons, SMHA and Union of India – Matter kept under continuous judicial monitoring [Paras 1–2, 19–20]

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Implementation and compliance – State submitted constitution of State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards in all divisions – Steps taken for free food, medicines, infrastructure, Tele-MANAS services and expansion of District Mental Health Programme – However, Court found gaps in effective implementation, monitoring and rehabilitation mechanisms – Held: Mere constitution of statutory bodies insufficient without functional compliance and outcome-based implementation [Paras 3, 10]

Mental Healthcare – Rehabilitation and reintegration – Lack of structured rehabilitation policy – Patients discharged or shifted to half-way homes without clarity on vocational training, employment and financial independence – Only two half-way homes operational in State – Held: State directed to submit detailed report on nature of vocational training, employment linkage and expansion of half-way homes to ensure social reintegration and self-sufficiency [Para 10]

Mental Healthcare – Police duties – Section 100, Mental Healthcare Act – Sensitization of police regarding handling of persons with mental illness – Court directed DGP to ensure continuous monitoring of compliance by SSPs/SPs – Direction issued for establishment of 24×7 toll-free helpline and public awareness mechanism to identify and assist wandering mentally ill persons – Held: Proactive police engagement essential for protection, treatment and rehabilitation [Paras 5–7]

Mental Healthcare – Prisoners with mental illness – Section 103, Mental Healthcare Act – I.G. Prisons directed to file detailed affidavit regarding steps taken for treatment and care of prisoners with mental illness – Compliance with statutory standards and Rules 10 and 11 of 2018 Rules emphasized [Paras 8, 15–16]

Mental Healthcare – Institutional functioning – BIMHAS – State and Director placed on record facilities including free food, medicines, therapeutic environment, departments, rehabilitation unit and legal aid clinic – However, Court noted deficiencies in infrastructure, capacity, rehabilitation planning and implementation gaps – Held: Functional efficiency must align with statutory mandate of dignified, rights-based care [Paras 9–10]

Mental Healthcare – Legal aid – NALSA Scheme, 2024 – Requirement of specialized “Mano Nyay Legal Services Clinic” – Court directed Member Secretary, BSLSA to submit detailed report on legal aid services and compliance with scheme, including data of beneficiaries – Emphasis on legal empowerment of persons with mental illness [Para 13]

Mental Healthcare – Role of Amicus Curiae – Detailed inspection report highlighting statutory violations, infrastructural deficiencies and systemic gaps including non-functioning MHRBs, inadequate SMHA compliance, lack of community-based care, absence of ICU, staff shortage, environmental hazards, and lack of vocational training – Court directed State to respond to concerns and consider implementation of recommendations [Paras 11–12]

Mental Healthcare – Statutory compliance – Non-functional Mental Health Review Boards – Failure to hold periodic meetings and exercise statutory oversight – Lack of independent regulatory functioning of SMHA – Held: Violates patient rights including review of involuntary admissions and grievance redressal [Para 12]

Mental Healthcare – Right to dignity and humane treatment – Article 21 – Conditions such as environmental hazards, lack of infrastructure, absence of ICU, inadequate staff, and lack of rehabilitation undermine statutory and constitutional guarantees – Court emphasized need for holistic, rights-based mental healthcare system [Paras 10–12]

Mental Healthcare – Community-based approach – Failure of State to develop integrated inter-departmental rehabilitation framework – Lack of supported accommodation, employment linkage and community reintegration – Held: State must move beyond institutionalization towards community-based recovery model [Para 12]

Mental Healthcare – Public awareness and accessibility – Need for awareness campaigns, tele-mental health services, and integration of services at district level – Court emphasized decentralization of mental healthcare and strengthening of grassroots systems [Paras 3, 6, 12]

Mental Healthcare – Judicial monitoring – Court directed filing of affidavits by all authorities including Union of India – Personal presence of key officials ordered – Continuous supervision to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and implementation of recommendations [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Matter listed for further monitoring – Authorities directed to file detailed affidavits on compliance, rehabilitation measures, legal aid, police and prison obligations, and implementation of recommendations – Personal presence of key officials directed on next date.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, contrary to law, or based on no evidence – First Appellate Court being final court of facts, its findings cannot be substituted merely on reappreciation – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14, 21] .

Adoption – Proof and Binding Effect of Prior Judgment – Adoption of A.G. Krishna Murthy upheld based on earlier decree in O.S. No.72 of 1950 which attained finality – Parties claiming through testatrix who never disputed adoption are estopped from challenging it – Even otherwise, both adopted son and widow held to have equal rights [Paras 16–18] .

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Extent of Vendor’s Title – Vendor having only undivided half share cannot convey absolute title – Sale deeds executed by A.G. Krishna Murthy confer only his half share – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of full ownership – Relief rightly modified to partition of half share [Paras 19, 21] .

Will – Testamentary Disposition – Limitation of Bequeathable Interest – Testatrix Lakshmamma held to possess only half share in property – Will dated 30.09.1978 valid only to extent of her share – Legatees cannot claim entire property [Para 19] .

Limitation – Suit for Partition – Accrual of Cause of Action – Rights of legatees arise only upon death of testatrix in 1984 – No prior denial of plaintiff’s title established within limitation period – Suit filed in 1995 held within limitation [Para 20] .

Appellate Practice – Modification of Decree – First Appellate Court – Trial Court granted declaration of full title – First Appellate Court modified decree granting only half share – Modification held proper based on evidence and legal position – No perversity found [Paras 10, 11, 21] .

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting half share confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – Section 412 IPC – Receiving property stolen in dacoity – Essential ingredients – Prosecution must prove recovery of looted property, knowledge or reason to believe it was stolen in dacoity, and nexus with dacoits – Failure to establish identity of recovered property and knowledge of accused – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 22–23, 39, 43]

Evidence – Recovery – Non-production of Rawangi G.D. – Departure of police party not proved – Absence of General Diary entry creates serious doubt regarding presence of police at place of recovery – Held: Recovery proceedings doubtful [Paras 29–31]

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Fard Baramdagi – Carbon copy without signatures, date or proof of preparation – Not admissible as secondary evidence – Failure to examine scribe – Held: Recovery memo unreliable and inadmissible [Para 33]

Evidence – Identification of Property – Gun with erased serial number – No independent evidence to connect recovered gun with looted property – Informant’s identification based on number unreliable when number erased – Held: Identity of property not established [Paras 34–35, 40–42]

Confession – Police Custody – Sections 25, 26 & 27 Evidence Act – Confessional statement made to police inadmissible except to extent of discovery – Statement regarding source of gun and its history not leading to discovery cannot be relied upon – Held: No evidentiary value [Paras 35–38, 39]

Presumption – Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery must be soon after theft – Recovery after about three months and doubtful identity of property disentitles presumption – Held: Presumption not attracted [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to examine alleged seller (co-accused) and to link accused with dacoity – Creates serious doubt in prosecution case – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 39, 42–43]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court conviction based on conjectures and improper appreciation – Interference warranted – Held: Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 412 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled with direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Substantial Question of Law – Appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession over a vacant site of 435 Sq.yds – Plaintiffs relied on registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 (Ex.A-1) as proof of title – Defendants claimed the property as ancestral, supported only by self-serving statements and no documentary title – Held: No substantial question of law arises; second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission [Paras 13–15, 29–30].

Presumption as to Ancient Documents – Section 90, Indian Evidence Act – Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 is more than 35 years old – When a document over 30 years old is produced from proper custody, the court may presume due execution and attestation without examining the attesting witnesses – Contention of the appellants that Ex.A-1 was not proved for want of examination of attestors held unsustainable [Paras 20–21].

Ancestral Property Claim – Absence of Documentary Evidence – Defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box – Defendant No.2 admitted in cross-examination that no registered document exists in their favour for the suit site and he did not even remember its survey number – The gift deed dated 16.10.2006 relied upon by defendants was executed only five months prior to the suit and its original was not filed – Sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 executed just eight days before the suit – Held: Defendants failed to establish any title or ancestral character of the suit property [Paras 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Non-Entry into Witness Box – Defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not enter the witness box to prove their defence – Held: A presumption arises that the case set up by a party who does not offer himself for cross-examination is not correct [Para 25].

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Registration Does Not Confer Title – Mere execution and registration of a document does not create new title – Transfer of immovable property governed by the principle that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself possesses – Gift deed and sale deed created by defendants over a property in which they had no title cannot bind the plaintiffs [Para 23].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Daughters of Plaintiff No.1 Not Made Parties – Held: Suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 against third-party trespassers for declaration of title and possession; defendants are not co-sharers – Objection regarding non-joinder of daughters is unsustainable in the circumstances [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission – Concurrent findings of both courts below confirmed – Defendants granted three months' time to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property – No costs.

Trademark Law – Interim Injunction – Suppression of Material Facts – Plaintiff failed to disclose joint business activities with defendant and proceedings before Trade Marks Registry – Misleading plea of prior use despite declaring mark as “proposed to be used” – Held: Suppression disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief and injunction can be refused on this ground alone [Paras 16, 17(1), 19]

Trademark Law – Composite Mark – Anti-Dissection Rule – Section 17 – Plaintiff held registration of device mark – Attempt to claim exclusivity over word “Kshetrapal” rejected – Held: Rights exist only in mark as a whole and not in individual non-distinctive components unless separately registered or shown to have acquired distinctiveness [Paras 15, 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Distinctiveness – Religious/Generic Expression – Word “Kshetrapal” held to be name of deity and publici juris – Lacks inherent distinctiveness – No secondary meaning established – No monopoly permissible over such expression [Paras 16(iv), 17(2), 17(3)]

Trademark Law – Prior User vs Registered Proprietor – Sections 28 and 34 – Plaintiff’s mark registered as “proposed to be used” – Defendant prima facie established prior use since 2014 – Held: Prior user rights prevail over subsequent registration – Plaintiff failed to prove prior use in relevant trade [Paras 16(i), 17(2)]

Trademark Law – Presumption of Validity – Section 31 – Registration is only prima facie evidence – Cannot be used to claim exclusivity over part of composite mark – Presumption applies to mark as a whole, not its components [Para 17(4)]

Trademark Law – Likelihood of Confusion – Real Estate Transactions – Application of average consumer test – Purchase of immovable property involves due diligence – Held: Possibility of confusion remote and not sufficient to grant injunction [Para 17(5)]

Equitable Relief – Clean Hands Doctrine – Plaintiff approached Court with suppression and inconsistent stands before Registrar and Court – Held: Litigant suppressing material facts not entitled to interim or final relief [Paras 17(1), 19]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretion – Appeal against refusal of injunction – Held: Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously – No interference warranted under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC [Paras 18, 19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000 – Order refusing interim injunction upheld – Civil Application dismissed.

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Revision – Dismissed – Petitioner (husband) challenged maintenance of ₹8,300/- per month awarded to wife and daughter, later enhanced to ₹10,000/- each, with 10% increase every two years – Petitioner contended that respondents concealed rental income and that his income was over-assessed after voluntary retirement from CRPF – Held: Impugned order does not warrant interference – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-2, 25-27].

Maintenance – Object and Purpose – Prevention of Vagrancy – Section 125 CrPC is a social justice measure designed to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those unable to support themselves – The test is whether the wife can maintain herself in the manner she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home – Mere survival does not constitute ability to maintain herself – Followed: Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 [Para 9].

Maintenance – Disentitlement – Willful Separation – Petitioner contended that Respondent No.1 willfully refused to reside with him and hence was not entitled to maintenance – Held: Respondent No.1 remained consistent in allegations of cruelty and harassment – Mere possession of matrimonial house does not establish that petitioner did not neglect to maintain respondents – Allegations of cruelty sufficient to satisfy balance of probabilities [Paras 10-13].

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Voluntary Retirement – Husband's Obligation to Earn – Petitioner took voluntary retirement from CRPF in July 2022 at age 47 and claimed meagre agricultural income – Held: Petitioner's income from employment could not be ignored for the period prior to retirement – Voluntary retirement from a stable, well-paying job without securing alternate income is implausible – Husband, being a B.Com graduate and able-bodied man, is obligated to earn and maintain his family even by physical labour if necessary – Assessed income of ₹50,000/- per month held reasonable – Followed: Anju Garg v. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314; Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 [Paras 14-20].

Maintenance – Wife's Income – Rental Income – No Disentitlement – Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 was receiving ₹30,000/- monthly in rent and residing at her paternal home while letting out the matrimonial property – Held: No material adduced to substantiate the claim – Respondent No.1 admitted only to receiving ₹2,500/- to ₹3,000/- per month in rent – Property since sold and proceeds used to purchase residence – Rental income insufficient to disentitle respondents from maintenance [Paras 22-23].

Maintenance – Dependent Relatives – Mother's Share – Trial Court erroneously granted a full share to petitioner's partly dependent mother – Mother receiving family pension, holds agricultural land, and has another son sharing responsibility – Held: Only ₹15,000/- per year ought to have been considered for the mother's maintenance – However, even with this correction, the overall maintenance awarded to respondents does not warrant reduction [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order of the Family Court awarding maintenance upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Trial – Murder Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Reliability and Suspicion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside where prosecution case collapsed due to hostile witnesses and suspicious dying declaration – Held, dying declaration must be free from suspicion and inspire confidence; in absence of corroboration and presence of serious procedural irregularities, conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 42–49, 59]

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Failure to Record Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Material lapse in investigation – All key witnesses including family and neighbours turned hostile and denied prosecution case – IO failed to secure statements before Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC – Held, such omission creates serious doubt about prosecution version and suggests possible coercion in recording Section 161 statements [Paras 33–38]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Procedural Defects – Declaration recorded by doctor without informing police, not in question-answer form, not read over to victim – Victim survived for 10 days after declaration – No attempt made to record declaration before Magistrate – Held, circumstances render dying declaration highly suspicious and unsafe for sole reliance [Paras 45–48, 52–53, 57]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Requirement of Corroboration – Where declaration suffers from inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances – Held, as per settled law, suspicious dying declaration requires corroboration; absence thereof fatal to prosecution [Para 43]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Contradictory Prosecution Case – Simultaneous suggestions of homicide and suicide – Prosecution witnesses deposed accidental burn during cooking while earlier statements alleged homicidal act – Held, such contradictions weaken prosecution case fundamentally [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to explain material circumstances – No explanation how locked room opened; seizure witnesses unreliable; medical evidence inconclusive as to homicidal or suicidal burns – Held, cumulative lapses render prosecution case doubtful [Paras 39–40, 32]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Burn injuries – Doctor unable to opine whether injuries homicidal or suicidal – Held, absence of conclusive medical opinion adds to reasonable doubt [Para 32]

Criminal Appeal – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 59–61]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released subject to conditions under Section 437 CrPC – Connected applications disposed of.

Bail – UAPA Offences – Prima Facie True Test – Section 43D(5) – Allegations of association with Babbar Khalsa International and conspiracy for targeted killings – Mobile data and disclosure statements showing connectivity with co-accused and handlers – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists – Bail rightly declined [Paras 7, 8]

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Terror Funding and Target Killings – Allegations of receiving arms, financial assistance and reconnaissance of targets – Involvement in planned killings of specific community leaders – Gravity of offence disentitles accused from bail – Stringent approach warranted [Paras 3, 8]

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Multiple prior FIRs against appellant – Antecedents reinforce prosecution case and risk assessment – Factor against grant of bail [Para 2, 8]

Bail – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Custody of about 3 years – In view of statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) and seriousness of allegations, long custody alone not sufficient to grant bail [Para 8]

Appellate Interference – Rejection of Bail – No Illegality – Order of Sessions Court found justified – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed with direction to expedite trial [Paras 10, 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail upheld – Trial directed to be expedited – Observations not to influence merits of trial.

Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.