Criminal Law – Forgery – Recruitment Fraud – Dual Identity – Conviction Upheld – Petitioner filled two online applications under different names (Balwinder Singh and Baljinder Singh) to appear twice in physical recruitment test for post of constable – First attempt on 27.07.2016 resulted in failure – Second attempt under false identity detected on 17.08.2016 – Trial Court convicted petitioner under Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC – Held: Identity proved by same photographs, signatures and certificates on both forms – Explanation that error was clerical or caused by cyber café assistant rejected – Forgery and use of forged documents clearly established – No case made out to interfere with concurrent findings of conviction [Paras 1–13, 18–21].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – New Defence Not Permissible – Petitioner attempted to raise new line of defence at revisional stage by claiming he did not appear in second test – Court held such defence never taken at trial or in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Belated claim rejected – Revisional jurisdiction not meant for re-appreciation of facts or introduction of fresh defences [Paras 12–14].

Sentencing – Principles – Leniency on Ground of Reformation and Social Hardship – Sentence Reduced – Though conviction upheld, Court reduced sentence to period already undergone (approx. 3 months) – Petitioner had no prior record, faced prosecution for 9 years, was married with two dependent children, and showed no tendency to reoffend – Court observed offence arose from misplaced desperation for public employment, not inherent criminal intent – Held: Reformative purpose of punishment satisfied, custodial sentence no longer necessary [Paras 17–25].

Judicial Precedents – Sentencing Jurisprudence – Court relied on State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008) 7 SCC 550 and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC 359 to balance deterrent and reformative aims of sentencing – Emphasized need for judicial discretion based on offender’s socio-economic context, conduct, and likelihood of rehabilitation [Para 21–22].

Decision: Criminal revision petition partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Petitioner released forthwith if not required in any other case – Pending applications disposed [Paras 25–26].

Municipal Employment – Daily Wage Workers – Regularization – Employer-Employee Relationship – Perennial Duties – Labour Contract Society Plea Unsupported – 28 Years of Continuous Service – Application of SC Judgment in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad – Award Granting SSR Wages and Regularization Upheld – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Employment Law – Employer-Employee Relationship – Claim of engagement through Labour Contract Society rejected – Absence of any documentary proof of contractor engagement such as tenders, agreements, muster rolls or invoices – Wages paid directly by Municipality and work supervised by municipal officials – Held: Direct relationship established; appellant’s plea unsustainable [Paras 7(ii), 8–17, applied].

Labour Law – Perennial and Permanent Nature of Work – Workers engaged in water-supply operations continuously for 28 years – Work held to be essential, perennial and integral to municipal functioning – Daily-wage label cannot defeat legitimate claims of long-serving workers – Adverse inference permissible when employer withholds records [Paras 7(ii), 9, 8 (SC paras 11–15 referred)].

Regularization – Uma Devi Doctrine – Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments – Where engagement is long-term, work is perennial, and no valid contractor arrangement exists, regularization justified – Uma Devi cannot be used to perpetuate exploitation of daily wagers performing permanent duties – Followed: Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad [Paras 8 (SC paras 14–17), 9].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Workers performing same duties as regular staff but paid less – Constitutes unfair labour practice – SSR wages rightly ordered by Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s award upheld by Single Judge and affirmed in appeal [Paras 8 (SC para 13), 9].

Industrial Disputes – Award of Industrial Tribunal – Tribunal’s finding that workmen entitled to SSR rates and regularization based on undisputed long service upheld – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declines interference under writ appellate jurisdiction [Paras 7(i), 7(ii), 10].

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference – Well-reasoned order of Single Judge affirming Tribunal’s award – No error of law or fact warranting interference – Writ Appeal dismissed with no costs [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Distinction in Role of Co-Accused – Appellants Vishunath and Arjun Pasi convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to Kallu – Injured deposed that Arjun Pasi fired at him with a country-made pistol causing a firearm wound in lower abdomen/pelvis, a vital part – Vishunath allegedly hit with a danda on the hand, a non-vital part – Held: Though both were convicted under Section 307 IPC, the nature of assault and intention attributable to each is different – Injury caused by danda not sufficient to cause death – Sentence of Vishunath modified accordingly [Paras 3–5, 7–9, 15–18]

Criminal Law – Credibility of Witness – Hostile Witnesses – While complainant and other eye-witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-7) turned hostile, injured (PW-1) gave a consistent and detailed account of the attack – Held: Injured is the best witness in assault cases – Trial court correctly relied on his testimony to establish individual roles – Minor contradictions do not vitiate core evidence [Paras 8–11, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Sentence Modification – Court distinguishes between active firearm assault and minor physical injury – Role of Vishunath not involving deadly weapon or vital injury – While upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC, sentence reduced to 8 months RI with fine – Sentence of Arjun Pasi for 3 years RI upheld in full [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Criminal appeal partly allowed – Conviction of both appellants under Section 307 IPC upheld – Sentence of appellant No.1 (Vishunath) modified to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000 – Default sentence reduced to 1 month simple imprisonment – Sentence of appellant No.2 (Arjun Pasi) of 3 years RI with fine of ₹2,000 confirmed – Trial court to ensure compliance [Paras 18–20]

Property Law – Communal Land – Order I Rule 8 CPC – Adverse Possession by State – Identity of Land – State estopped from claiming adverse possession – Suit partly maintainable – Declaration granted for Hal Plot No.1575; claim rejected for “Smasana” land [Paras 15–29].

Communal Land – “Smasana” – Necessity of Representative Suit – Non-Joinder – Suit Not Maintainable – Hal Plot No.1563 recorded as “Smasana” is communal land in which entire village has common interest – Plaintiffs failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC before seeking declaration of title – Villagers of Mouza Attopur-Badapokharital being necessary parties, suit in respect of A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 rightly dismissed by courts below – Held: No error in concurrent findings dismissing claim regarding “Smasana” land [Paras 15–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea by State – Impermissible – Implied Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Identity of Property – State pleaded long possession and prescriptive title over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Such plea amounts to implicit admission of plaintiffs’ title and identity of the suit land – As per settled law, the State cannot perfect title by adverse possession against its own citizens – Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s findings denying identity and ownership unsustainable – Held: State precluded from claiming adverse possession; plaintiffs’ title stands established [Paras 19–25].

Title and Identity – Establishment through Defendant’s Admissions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Once State claimed adverse possession, identity of A.0.09 decimals in Plot No.1575 stands admitted – Concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to identify suit land contradicted legal effect of State’s plea – High Court interferes with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC as findings were perverse and contrary to settled principles [Paras 22–26].

Relief – Partial Decree – Declaration of Title and Direction for RoR Correction – Suit dismissed for A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 (“Smasana”) – Suit decreed for A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Plaintiffs declared owners; State declared to have no right, title or interest – Possession confirmed in favour of plaintiffs – State directed to correct RoR accordingly – Appeal allowed in part [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder – Extra-judicial confessions unreliable – CDR/tower-location unproved – No last-seen – Motive absent – Investigation defective – Chain incomplete – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish circumstances forming a complete chain consistent only with guilt; conviction unsustainable; benefit of doubt granted [Paras 8–45].

Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Panchsheel Principles – Court reiterates the five rules in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Hanumant; prosecution failed to prove each circumstance fully and conclusively; chain not unbroken [Paras 9–13].

Last Seen Theory – Not Established – No witness saw accused and deceased together close to the time of death; they left separately on morning of incident; time gap wide; possibility of third-party involvement not ruled out [Paras 14–17].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Unreliable – CDR Contradictions – Delay – Improper Conduct of Witnesses – PW1’s claim disproved by call logs; PW1 withheld information despite continuous phone contact with accused; PW4’s confession disclosure after 10 days held unnatural; tower data falsifies his version; confessions rejected [Paras 18–22, 36–38].

Electronic Evidence – CDR and Tower Data – Not Scientifically Proved – IO sought no tower coordinates, distances, or technical certification; interpretations based on assumptions; CDRs do not establish movement or presence of accused near scene; unreliable [Paras 22, 31–34].

Recovery of Dead Body – Not Valid Section 27 Discovery – Alleged information by accused to PW1 not proved; even if assumed, recovery alone not incriminating without corroborating links such as last-seen or forensic support [Paras 23, 38].

Motive – Not Proved – Alleged suspicion of wife’s fidelity unsupported by proximate conduct; no quarrel or abnormal behaviour on previous night; absence of motive weighs in favour of accused in a circumstantial case [Paras 25–26].

Abscondence – Weak Circumstance – Supreme Court holds abscondence alone cannot justify adverse inference; relevant only when supported by strong incriminating circumstances, which are absent here [Paras 27–29].

Forensic Evidence – No Biological Link to Accused – No DNA, fingerprints, footprints or biological material of accused found on ligature, body or scene; medical evidence establishes homicide but not identity of assailant [Paras 31–32].

Investigation – Slipshod – Major Omissions – Phones registered in names of third parties; their statements not recorded; no subscriber forms verified; tower-distance information not collected; CDR evidence rendered ineffective; investigation lacked scientific method [Paras 34–35].

Conduct of PW1 – Suppression of Material Facts – PW1 remained in phone contact with absconding accused but concealed this; his account of call at 6:30 p.m. contradicted by CDR; credibility doubtful [Para 36].

Other Witnesses – Contradictions – Falsified by Tower Data – PW2 contradicted himself; PW7 and PW8’s motorcycle-dropping stories inconsistent with tower-location pattern; PW4’s delayed disclosure held suspect; testimonies insufficient to establish involvement [Paras 22, 37].

Chain of Circumstances – Missing Links – Alternative Hypotheses Possible – Absence of last-seen, motive, forensic connection, reliable electronic evidence, and trustworthy confessions results in incomplete chain; suspicion cannot replace proof; benefit of doubt must follow [Paras 39–44].

Decision – Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed; accused acquitted; bail bond cancelled; sureties discharged; fine refunded within eight weeks [Para 45].

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Trial court convicted appellants based on suicide note and testimonies alleging monetary harassment related to cricket betting – Suicide note recovered a day after incident under suspicious circumstances – Recovery witnesses admitted signatures were obtained at police station and not on-site – No proper sealing or guarding of suicide premises – Recovery not corroborated by independent evidence – Held: Recovery doubtful and not trustworthy [Paras 14–24].

Suicide Note – Authenticity – FSL confirmed signature of deceased only on last page – Handwriting on middle page not verified due to failure to submit comparison documents – Page 2 lacked continuity and showed different handwriting style from pages 1 and 3 – Witnesses claiming handwriting familiarity had been estranged for 15–20 years and lacked credibility – Held: Entire suicide note not proved to be written by deceased – Inference of interpolation justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 24–29].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Admissibility – Statements of wife (PW-2), relatives (PW-3), and friends (PW-5, PW-8) inconsistent and lacking in material specifics – No proximate instigation or continued course of conduct proven – Witnesses admitted deceased never informed police or filed complaint – Held: Statements insufficient to prove intentional abetment under Sections 107/306 IPC [Paras 31–35].

Criminal Law – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC – Demand for money by itself does not constitute abetment to suicide – No evidence of direct or indirect incitement or mental pressure sufficient to drive deceased to suicide – Cited judgments reiterate proximity, intent, and direct action as necessary to constitute abetment – Held: Even if suicide note taken at face value, offence under Section 306 IPC not made out – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 36–53].

Criminal Trial – Investigative Lapses – No rojnamcha entry showing revisit to site – No seizure of lock or mention of who opened premises where suicide note was recovered – Recovery process unverified and unsubstantiated – Trial Court failed to evaluate these gaps – Held: Conviction based on flawed evidence and improper appreciation of law [Paras 14–23].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC quashed – Accused acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – No need to surrender [Para 55].

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.

NDPS Act – Bail – Section 27A – Illicit Traffic – Misuse of Provision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners, one seeking anticipatory bail and the other regular bail, were arraigned under Section 27A NDPS Act based solely on recovery of heroin (5g and 21g) and INR 1000 in cash – Court found that the investigating agencies invoked Section 27A without prima facie evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders – Held: Mere possession of small amount of cash, even if seized alongside contraband, does not meet threshold under Section 27A – Drug money must be directly linked to financing of organised illicit traffic – Mechanical invocation of Section 27A to trigger rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act deprecated – Interim bail orders made absolute [Paras 2, 3, 7, 12–15, 21–22, 35, 39–41, 44–45, 50–53]

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Non-Applicability Without Evidence Under Section 27A – Court reaffirmed that before applying the twin conditions of Section 37, prosecution must first establish a prima facie case under Section 27A – Held: Absence of foundational evidence linking the recovered cash to financing illicit trafficking disentitles the prosecution from relying on Section 37 to oppose bail [Paras 11, 37–39, 52]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Legal Tender – Presumption of Lawful Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Recovered cash of INR 1000 treated as lawful possession – Held: Currency is legal tender and presumed lawful unless prosecution proves illicit derivation or nexus with drug crime – Strong suspicion cannot substitute evidence – Bail cannot be denied merely because currency was recovered along with narcotics [Paras 20, 26–30, 44–46]

Investigative Abuse – Capricious Use of Section 27A – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Court cautioned against capricious use of Section 27A by police to trigger bail embargo under Section 37 – Held: Courts must lift the veil and demand concrete evidence before endorsing such allegations – Penal provisions must be interpreted strictly and proportionately [Paras 14, 39, 51]

Decision: Bail petitions allowed – Interim orders made absolute – Invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act found unwarranted – Rigours of Section 37 held inapplicable – Pending applications disposed of.