Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Specific Overt Acts - Petitioners 2 and 4, involved in a case of grievous assault using metal rods, were denied bail due to the severity of their actions, which resulted in significant injuries to the victims. The court emphasized that the evidence, including medical records, supported the prosecution's case against these petitioners. In contrast, petitioners 3 and 5 were granted bail as there were no specific overt acts attributed to them, and their involvement was less direct. The decision underscores the principle that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, aligning with recent Supreme Court observations. [Paras 6-9].

Bail Principles - "Bail is the Rule, Jail is an Exception" - Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, the court reiterated that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and should be granted when a case is made out, respecting the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court balanced this principle with the specific facts of the case, denying bail to those with stronger evidence against them. [Paras 7-9].

Decision: The bail application for petitioners 2 and 4 was dismissed due to the severity of their alleged actions, while the bail application for petitioners 3 and 5 was allowed with conditions. [Paras 9].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appeal filed by the State against the trial court's judgment acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 307, 452, and 506 IPC – Prosecution’s case centered on the respondent’s alleged knife attack on the injured with intent to cause death – Trial court acquitted the accused, noting discrepancies in witness statements, lack of evidence regarding motive, and failure to explain injuries sustained by the accused – Appeal dismissed as trial court’s view was found to be a plausible conclusion based on the evidence [Paras 1-75].

Attempt to Murder – Evidentiary Gaps – Prosecution failed to explain multiple injuries sustained by the accused, leading to doubts regarding the sequence of events – Presence of blood-stained weapons without any blood found on the accused’s knives also raised suspicion – Material contradictions in witness testimonies, particularly about the presence of key witnesses at the crime scene, further weakened the prosecution's case [Paras 40-60].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Established legal principles reiterated that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused if prosecution evidence is weak and contradictory – Trial court’s assessment that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt upheld by the High Court [Paras 65-75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal upheld.

Civil Procedure – Review Petition – Partition of Properties – Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – The applicants sought a review of the judgment passed in O.S.A. No. 261 of 1995, arguing that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay furnished flat should not have been considered joint family properties in the partition suit, as they were self-acquired by the applicant – Held: The court found that the inclusion of the properties in paragraph 269 of the original judgment was incorrect and set aside the finding, holding that the Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were not part of the joint family properties and should not be included in the partition – The review was allowed, and the properties were excluded from partition [Paras 30-36].

Grounds for Review – Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record – The court accepted the applicants' contention that paragraph 269 of the common judgment contained errors regarding the ownership of the disputed properties – Held: As the properties were not listed in the schedule of the partition suit and were established as self-acquired by the applicants, the judgment was reviewed to correct the mistake, and the relevant findings were set aside [Paras 12-22].

Decision:

The review application was allowed – Paragraph 269 of the common judgment dated 07.10.1994 in C.S. Nos. 188 of 1972, 366 of 1976, and 442 of 1983 was set aside – The Bishop Garden house and the Bombay flat were excluded from partition proceedings.

Criminal Law – Rape Allegation – Prima Facie Evidence for Charge Framing – The State argued that the Trial Court erred by discharging the accused, despite statements from the victim suggesting lack of consent – High Court held that at the charge-framing stage, courts need only ascertain prima facie evidence rather than engage in credibility assessments – Held: Victim's statements supported grave suspicion of non-consensual sexual act; discharge order set aside, charges to be framed [Paras 5-9, 16-20].

Evidence Assessment – Consent and Immediate Reporting by Victim – Respondent’s argument cited consensual room booking and hotel entry; however, victim’s immediate complaint and crying behavior post-incident supported allegations – High Court emphasized that prior consensual actions do not imply consent for sexual intercourse – Held: Prima facie evidence indicated coercion, warranting trial [Paras 14-18].

Legal Standard at Charge Stage – Role of Forensic Evidence – Subsequent forensic report confirmed semen presence on victim’s clothing, corroborating her statement – High Court reiterated that full penetration is unnecessary to substantiate rape charges, and forensic evidence strengthened case for framing charges [Para 23].

Decision:

The revision application is allowed. The discharge order is quashed, and the Trial Court is directed to frame charges against the respondent under Sections 376 and 506(ii) IPC.

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Remand – Appeal challenging the remand order in a partition suit where the trial court's judgment was set aside by the District Judge due to non-impleadment of necessary parties and failure to afford them the opportunity to file written statements – High Court upheld the remand order, noting that the impleaded legal representatives were entitled to submit additional written statements appropriate to their status as legal representatives – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-35].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI, Rule 17 CPC – Application for amendment of the written statement was rejected by the trial court for being belated, but the High Court observed that proposed amendments were of a clarificatory nature and legally valid – Amendment should have been allowed to determine the real controversy [Paras 20-25].

Right to File Written Statement by Legal Representatives – Legal representatives of deceased parties should be allowed to file written statements to defend themselves, but without raising inconsistent pleas – Trial court's refusal to permit this was erroneous, leading to the remand order being justified [Paras 30-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Remand order upheld – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings within four months.
 

Discharge Petition – Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – The petitioner, who was charged under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 472, 420 read with 34 of the IPC, sought discharge from the charges, arguing that the investigation was improperly conducted and that key documents were not subjected to forensic examination – Held: The court found that for the charge of conspiracy, direct evidence may not always be available and can be inferred from the totality of the case during trial – The trial court had found a prima facie case against the petitioner based on the materials submitted, and the rejection of the discharge application was upheld [Paras 13-14].

Role of Forensic Examination – Forgery Allegations – The petitioner contended that the documents allegedly forged were not forwarded for forensic examination, which is necessary in cases of forgery – Held: It is not a rule that in all cases of forgery, the documents must be sent for forensic examination – The court can compare and study the signatures and writings under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, and in this case, the trial court found sufficient material to proceed without the forensic report [Para 14].

Counter Affidavit – Legitimacy and Procedure – The petitioner argued that the counter affidavit was filed by the Holding Inspector and not signed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, thereby lacking legal authority – Held: The court rejected this contention, noting that the Assistant Public Prosecutor acknowledged the counter affidavit and submitted it before the Presiding Officer – The trial court had considered the petitioner’s grounds for discharge along with the charge sheet and materials, rendering the counter affidavit issue irrelevant [Paras 12, 14].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petitions – The criminal revision petitions were dismissed, confirming the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge applications – The court held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the trial court’s decision, as a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner based on the statements and materials available in the charge sheet [Paras 14-16].

CPC – Application for amendment of the reply to the eviction petition filed ten years after the original reply was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence or any new discovery of facts that justified the amendment at such a late stage – The objections sought to be added were already covered in the original reply, making the amendment unnecessary – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 4-5].
Liberal Approach to Amendment – Not Applicable – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents advocating a liberal approach to amendments was misplaced – The proposed amendment did not meet the requirement of due diligence, and the issues were already framed based on the existing reply – Rent Controller's refusal to allow the amendment upheld [Paras 4(d)-5].
Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Parties directed to appear before the Rent Controller.
 

Employment Law – Appointment and Termination of College Lecturer – Termination Quashed – Appeal allowed - Post of College Lecturer (Philosophy) – The petitioner, Gauri Shankar Jinger, applied for the post in response to an advertisement issued on 12.01.2015 but was initially not selected due to not meeting the ‘good academic record’ criteria – Later, a notification dated 13.07.2021 changed the criteria, offering relaxation for SC/ST and PH candidates, leading to Gauri Shankar’s recommendation for appointment – The petitioner Jhanwar Ram, who was already appointed as the last candidate on the merit list, received a Show Cause Notice for termination, leading him to file a writ petition to continue his employment – The Court considered the availability of vacant posts and the absence of any misrepresentation or misconduct by Jhanwar Ram【Paras 1-6】.

Application of Relaxation Criteria – Notification Impact – The State Government's notification dated 13.07.2021 relaxed the criteria for ‘good academic record’ in line with UGC Regulation 2010, allowing for a 5% relaxation for SC/ST and PH category candidates – This adjustment led to the reconsideration of Gauri Shankar Jinger's candidature, placing him in the merit list and entitling him to the appointment【Para 4】.

Equitable Relief – Balancing Interests – The Court noted the need to balance equities, emphasizing the importance of granting relief in line with justice, equity, and good conscience – Considering the availability of vacant posts and the absence of any misconduct by Jhanwar Ram, the Court allowed him to continue in his post – The Court also directed the respondents to appoint Gauri Shankar Jinger to the post within four weeks, granting him notional benefits from the date Jhanwar Ram was appointed【Paras 16-17】.

Decision – Appointment and Continuation of Service – The Court quashed the Show Cause Notice issued to Jhanwar Ram and allowed him to continue as College Lecturer – Directed the appointment of Gauri Shankar Jinger to the same post, providing him with notional benefits from the date of Jhanwar Ram's appointment – Both writ petitions were allowed【Paras 18-20】.

NDPS – Acquittal - Non-Compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act – Right to Search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – The appellant was charged with possession of 535 grams of Methamphetamine – He argued that his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated as he was not properly informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer – Held: The court found that the search and seizure process did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act – The appellant was not given a written notice nor was any gazetted officer part of the team – Mere oral intimation was deemed insufficient, rendering the recovery of the illicit article suspect – The conviction based on this search was vitiated [Paras 6-9].

Violation of Section 52-A NDPS Act – Drawing of Samples – The appellant contended that the procedures under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act for drawing samples were not followed, and the samples were not taken in the presence of a Magistrate – Held: The court found a clear violation of Section 52-A of the Act and referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Union of India v. Mohanlal – The samples were taken in the hotel room without the supervision of a Magistrate, violating the mandatory process, and weakening the prosecution's case [Paras 12-14].

Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act – Admissibility – The appellant argued that his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was obtained while in custody and was not voluntary – Held: Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court noted that such statements are in the nature of a confession and are inadmissible if they lead to no recovery – In this case, the statement had no evidentiary value as the recovery had already occurred before the statement was recorded [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Acquittal Due to Non-Compliance – The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-compliance with mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the NDPS Act – The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside – The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and the fine amount was ordered to be refunded – The appellant was directed to be released forthwith unless required in connection with any other case [Paras 16-17].