Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a CPI(M) local leader, allegedly murdered by members of rival political organisation (NDF) – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC and allied offences – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 48].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW1 and PW2 projected as injured eye-witnesses – Serious doubt regarding their presence at scene of crime – Wound certificates prepared more than one month after incident and produced in court after inordinate delay – Hospital controlled by same political party as deceased – Nature of injuries trivial and possibly self-inflicted – Conduct of witnesses unnatural – Held: Unsafe to rely on testimony of PW1 and PW2 [Paras 14–21].

Medical Evidence – Delay and Suspicion – Wound Certificates – Delay in preparation, issuance and production of Exts.P27 and P28 – Absence of treating doctor as witness – Lack of description of injuries – Medical evidence found unreliable and incapable of corroborating ocular testimony [Paras 17–21, 47].

Witness Testimony – Conduct Inconsistent with Normal Human Behaviour – PW1 and PW2 allegedly fled scene without attempting to rescue grievously injured deceased – Did not seek help from PW3 or others – Conduct held unnatural – Reliance placed on Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) [Para 31].

Interested and Partisan Witnesses – Political Affiliation – All material witnesses belonged to CPI(M), the party of the deceased – In politically charged cases, evidence of partisan witnesses requires strict scrutiny – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution case [Paras 45–46].

Contradictions and Improvements – Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – PW1 and PW2 made several material improvements before Court regarding overt acts, weapons, and roles of accused – Omissions proved through Investigating Officers – Held: Improvements go to root of prosecution case when presence itself is doubtful [Paras 37–39].

FIR – Naming of Accused – Suspicion of Prior Consultation – FIR contained names and parentage of all 16 accused – PW1 admitted some names were supplied by others in hospital – Possibility of deliberation and false implication due to political rivalry cannot be ruled out [Paras 34–35].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Alleged escape of assailants in a jeep – Owner and related witnesses not examined – Registration particulars not collected – Delay in recovery of weapons – Recovery witnesses politically affiliated – Held: Investigation lacked fairness and credibility [Paras 40–44].

Recovery Evidence – Doubtful – Delay of Several Months – Weapons allegedly recovered on disclosure after long delay – Attestors were partisan and residing far from place of recovery – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 43–44].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – While defective investigation alone not a ground for acquittal, where evidence itself is weak and unreliable, lapses assume significance – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–49].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences in S.C. No. 3 of 2012 set aside – Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14 acquitted – Direction to release appellants forthwith

Partition Suit – Execution of Final Decree – Stamp Duty on Instrument of Partition – Objection by Judgment Debtor that final decree was insufficiently stamped as stamp duty was paid only in respect of one share – Contention that decree could not be executed unless stamp duty for entire property was paid – Executing Court held that stamp duty paid by decree-holder was sufficient as all parties had equal shares and one equal share could be treated as separated share under Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act – Challenge thereto in revision [Paras 7–11].

Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Issuance of Writ of Delivery of Possession – Filing of application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Rejection of recall and stay applications under Section 151 CPC – Revisional challenge confined to executability of decree on ground of stamp duty [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Stamp Duty – Instrument of Partition – Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal) – Meaning of “largest share remaining” – Where all co-sharers have equal shares, stamp duty equivalent to one such equal share may be treated as separated share – However, final decree in partition must ultimately be duly stamped to be fully executable [Paras 10, 16].

Final Decree – Nature and Executability – Reliance on Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande – Held, until a final decree is drawn up and engrossed on proper stamp papers, there is no executable decree – Mere direction to draw up final decree or partial stamping does not render decree executable in full [Paras 18–19].

Partition Proceedings – Preliminary and Final Decrees – Reference to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan – Duty of courts to ensure drawing up of final decree after preliminary decree – Decree in partition suit may be partly preliminary and partly final – Suit concludes only upon drawing of final decree [Paras 14–15].

Equitable Relief – Undertaking by Decree Holder – Decree holder undertook before High Court to pay total stamp duty in respect of entire suit property with liberty to recover proportionate shares from other co-sharers – Held, such course would cure defect of executability – Revisional application disposed of granting such liberty [Paras 12–13, 17, 19].

Decision – Civil Revision disposed of – Liberty granted to decree holders to deposit total stamp duty for entire property – On such payment, executing court directed to proceed with execution and ensure full satisfaction of decree within one month – Interim orders vacated [Paras 19–24].

GST Law – Assessment Order – Document Identification Number (DIN) / Reference Number (RFN) – Petitioner challenged assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 contending absence of DIN – Court held that Reference Number (RFN) auto-generated by GST portal upon digital signing is sufficient compliance – DIN/RFN generated electronically cannot be treated as absent merely because DIN is not separately mentioned – Contention rejected [Paras 9–11].

GST Proceedings – Electronic Issuance – Digital Signature – Challenge to pre-show cause notice (DRC-01A) and show cause notice (DRC-01) on ground of absence of physical or digital signature – Held: Notices and orders issued through GST portal are mandatorily digitally signed – Generation of RFN itself evidences affixture of digital signature – Absence of physical signature inconsequential [Paras 9–11].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Assessment order passed on 12.06.2024 and appeal rejected on 16.07.2025 – Petitioner failed to explain delay either in approaching appellate authority or High Court – Writ petition filed only after initiation of recovery proceedings – Held: Petition liable to be dismissed on ground of laches [Para 8, 12].

GST Recovery – Attachment Proceedings under Section 79 – Attachment notice issued after assessment and rejection of appeal – When assessment order is valid and writ petition suffers from delay, recovery proceedings cannot be interdicted [Paras 3, 12].

Precedents – Consistency in GST Adjudication – Court relied upon its earlier decisions dated 26.09.2025 and 31.01.2026 holding that RFN/DIN generated by portal satisfies statutory requirement and digital signature is implicit in electronic issuance – Principle of consistency applied [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Assessment order and attachment notice upheld – No costs – Pending applications closed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Section 482 CrPC – Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Accused bus driver alleged to have overtaken and collided with the official vehicle of a judicial officer – Held: None of the charges are even prima facie sustainable as the essential ingredients of Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 are absent – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 10, 19, 20].

Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force Against Public Servant – Ingredients – For an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be actual assault or use of criminal force against a public servant on duty with the intention to prevent or deter discharge of duty – Mere obstruction is insufficient; there must be intentional physical force directed against the person – In the instant case, the incident was a brushing of the bus against the car during overtaking and the FIR discloses no criminal intent or mens rea to obstruct or deter any public servant – Section 353 IPC not attracted [Paras 11, 14, 15].

Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Means – Ingredients – An offence under Section 324 IPC requires that hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon or dangerous means – Injury caused by shattering of car window glass as a consequence of a road incident does not constitute intentional use of a dangerous weapon or dangerous means by the accused – Section 324 IPC legally unsustainable [Para 16].

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(2)(e) – "Public Property" – Scope – The category of public property covered by Section 3(2)(e) is a closed and specifically enumerated list – The provision cannot be extended by interpretative exercise to cover all forms of public property in a general sense – An official car of a judicial officer, though public property, is not a "means of public transportation or telecommunications" as contemplated under Section 3(2)(e) – The Act was not intended to govern isolated motor accidents lacking an element of assault and criminal force – Section 3(2)(e) not attracted [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed – Final Report in Crime No. 847/2018 and all further proceedings in CC No. 367/2018 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha quashed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumption of Legally Enforceable Debt – Execution of cheque and receipt of statutory legal notice admitted by accused – Cheque dishonoured with remark “Account Closed” – Statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 attracted – Burden shifted on accused to rebut presumption by raising probable defence – Held: Mere denial or bald assertions insufficient to rebut statutory presumption [Paras 13–15].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Failure to Lead Evidence – Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence – Defence rested solely on statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleging cheque was stolen and absence of liability – No cogent material produced to probabilise defence – Held: Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted [Paras 15, 23].

Privity of Contract – Cheque Issued on Behalf of Third Party – Contention that MoU was between complainant and accused’s brother and not accused – Evidence showed accused issued cheque voluntarily towards discharge of liability arising from joint transaction – Cheque admittedly handed over by accused – Held: Issuance of cheque by accused on behalf of brother towards legally enforceable liability sufficient to attract Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–17].

Limitation – Relevant Date under Section 138 NI Act – Argument that underlying MoU dated 2009 rendered claim time-barred rejected – Limitation for Section 138 complaint to be computed from date of issuance and dishonour of cheque, not from date of underlying transaction – Held: Complaint within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Proprietorship of Complainant Firm – Proof Not Mandatory – Cheque issued in favour of proprietary concern – Once cheque drawn in name of firm, complainant not required to separately prove proprietorship in absence of specific dispute affecting issuance – Held: Objection does not go to root of maintainability [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court well reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No ground for interference under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act and sentence upheld – No perversity or illegality found in concurrent judgments – No order as to costs.

Conviction can be sustained only when circumstances are fully established, consistent solely with guilt, conclusive in nature, exclude every hypothesis of innocence and form a complete chain – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 16-17].

Last Seen Theory – Hostile Witness – PW-15 Ramzan Khan turned hostile and denied seeing accused with deceased – No corroborative evidence – Held: Theory of last seen not proved [Paras 6, 17].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Memorandum – Authenticity – Memorandums (Ex. P/16 and P/17) allegedly recorded at Police Station at 8:30 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. – Scientific Officer’s report showed Investigating Officer present at scene of crime at same time – Star witness admitted signatures obtained on blank papers – Held: Memorandums fictitious and inadmissible – Recovery of skeleton not proved at instance of accused [Paras 9-11, 14].

Prosecution Fairness – Withholding Evidence – Scene of crime report not exhibited by prosecution though prepared at its instance – Accused entitled to rely upon such document – Prosecutor must act fairly and place all material before Court [Paras 7-8].

Motive – Illicit Relationship – Allegation not substantiated – No witness proved existence of illicit relationship – No evidence that deceased was aware of such relationship – Motive not established [Paras 4, 11-12].

Motive – Employment Application – Prosecution theory that accused lured deceased on pretext of job clearance – No official from Women and Child Development Department examined – Foundation of prosecution case not proved [Para 12].

Administration of Poison – Failure to Prove Nature of Substance – Alleged pesticide not scientifically established as odorless or capable of clandestine administration – No forensic linkage with cause of death – Theory incomplete [Para 13].

Electronic Evidence – Call Detail Records – Non-compliance with Section 65B Evidence Act – Certificate not issued by service provider – No tower location linking accused to scene – Held: CDR evidence unreliable and inadmissible [Para 15].

Faulty and Malicious Investigation – Fabrication of Documents – Court deprecated creation of fictitious memorandums – Liberty granted to Director General of Police to consider departmental enquiry against Investigating Officer – Conviction cannot rest on tainted investigation [Paras 14, 17, 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Copy of judgment directed to be circulated to police authorities for appropriate action [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Alleged Derogatory Remarks on Assamese Women – Statement in YouTube interview alleging existence of a village in Assam where girls practice black magic and convert men into animals – FIR registered under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(2) BNS read with Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 of Assam Witch Hunting Act – Investigation culminated in charge-sheet – Held: Taking the statement at face value, essential ingredients of the alleged offences not made out – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 18, 28-30].

Promoting Enmity – Requirement of Two Groups – Section 196 BNS – Mere controversial or objectionable remarks not sufficient – Prosecution must show promotion of enmity between two or more religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups – Statement did not refer to two distinct communities nor promote disharmony between them – Mens rea absent – No offence under Section 196 BNS made out [Paras 20-22].

Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration – Section 197 BNS – No allegation that any class of persons cannot bear allegiance to Constitution or be denied citizenship rights – No assertion affecting sovereignty, unity or integrity of India – Ingredients of Section 197 BNS not attracted [Paras 19-20].

Statements Conducing to Public Mischief – Section 353(2) BNS – Requirement of false information with intent to promote enmity or hatred between groups – Impugned statement, though controversial, did not satisfy statutory threshold – No material showing likelihood of promoting hatred between communities [Paras 20-22, 28].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Publishing obscene material in electronic form – Mere reference to alleged tantric practices and sexual conduct, in context of narration, does not ipso facto amount to obscenity – Ingredients of Section 67 not satisfied [Para 23].

Assam Witch Hunting Act – Identification or Stigmatization as Witch – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) – Offence requires identifying or defaming a person as “witch” implying power to harm society – Statement did not label any individual as witch nor attribute power to harm society at large – Essential element missing – Provision not attracted [Paras 24-27].

Inherent Powers – Scope After Filing of Charge-sheet – High Court empowered to examine FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying materials even after filing of charge-sheet – If allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence, proceedings liable to be quashed – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal principles and subsequent precedents [Paras 15-17, 28-29].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025 and Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 08.09.2025 (corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025) quashed – Proceedings set aside.

Juvenile Justice Act – Bail under Section 12 – Plea of Juvenility Raised During Pendency of Appeal – Convict sentenced to 25 years imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Age determination inquiry pending before Trial Court pursuant to High Court’s direction – Whether bail mandatory pending such determination – Held: Though bail to a child in conflict with law is the rule under Section 12 JJ Act irrespective of gravity of offence, it can be denied where release would defeat the ends of justice – Application rejected [Paras 13-16, 21].

Juvenility Claim – Can be Raised at Any Stage – Reformative and Child-Centric Approach – Applicant relied on Hari Ram, Rishipal Singh Solanki, Abuzar Hossain and other precedents – Court reiterates settled position that claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage and must be inquired into – No violation of this principle found as age determination already referred to Trial Court – However, pendency of inquiry does not automatically entitle accused to bail [Paras 15-16].

Section 12 JJ Act – Exception Clause – “Defeat the Ends of Justice” – Scope and Interpretation – Court relied on Raju @ Ashish v. State of U.P. – Nature and gravity of offence, past conduct, and likelihood of repetition relevant factors – Conduct of convict while previously on bail allegedly involved commission of similar offence against same survivor – Such conduct prima facie indicates criminal proclivity and undermines confidence for release – Held: Release at this stage would defeat the ends of justice [Paras 18-20].

Bail – Pending Age Determination – Whether Accused to be Treated as Juvenile Before Determination – Prosecution contended accused cannot be prematurely treated as juvenile – Court observed that until age is determined, and considering conviction for aggravated sexual assault, benefit of automatic bail cannot be extended – Gravity of offence coupled with past conduct justifies denial [Paras 11, 19-21].

Decision: Bail application rejected – Court not inclined to release convict pending age determination inquiry – Application disposed of – No costs [Paras 21-22].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction for Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.106/6 – In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own title and not on weakness of defendants’ case – Failure to establish valid title to entire extent claimed fatal to suit [Paras 15–17].

Title to Immovable Property – Gift Deed – Excess Extent – Application of Nemo Dat Principle – Gift deed executed for Ac.0.73 cents though donor had title only to Ac.0.68 cents – Donor cannot convey better title than what she possessed – Registration of document does not cure defect of title – Gift valid only to extent of donor’s ownership [Paras 18–22, 27–28].

Partition – Documentary Evidence – Pre-existing Rights – Registered partition deed of 1963 established that Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.106/6 fell to branch of defendants – Revenue records and Tahsildar’s evidence corroborated defendants’ title – Plaintiff’s claim beyond Ac.0.68 cents untenable [Paras 18–24].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Pattadar passbooks and revenue entries do not confer title by themselves – Title must be traced to valid source – Revenue documents cannot override registered partition deed and title documents [Paras 24–25].

Adverse Possession – Pleadings Mandatory – First Appellate Court held plaintiff perfected title over Ac.0.05 cents by adverse possession – No pleading or issue on adverse possession – Adverse possession cannot be inferred without specific pleadings and proof of animus possidendi – Finding held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 26, 29].

Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court can interfere where findings of First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to settled law – Erroneous application of adverse possession and misreading of evidence justified interference [Paras 14, 26, 29–30].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit restored – Plaintiff held entitled to title only for Ac.0.68 cents and not Ac.0.73 cents – No costs [Paras 30–31].