Criminal Law - Murder  – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Reversal – Trial Court convicted appellants for double murder based on testimony of a single eyewitness (PW-1 Nanmoon) – High Court held testimony unreliable due to contradictions on weapons, manner of assault, FIR lodging, and recovery – Implausibility of sparing sole eyewitness while killing two others noted – Conviction set aside [Paras 45-52, 64-65, 77].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistency with Prosecution Case – Postmortems revealed bone-cutting injuries consistent with heavy sharp weapons (Pharsa/Gandasa/Kanta) – Prosecution alleged use of small knives – Court held mismatch between medical and ocular evidence fatal to prosecution [Paras 36, 70].

Investigation Lapses – Defective and Incomplete – IOs failed to pursue suspects named in FIR, did not coordinate with Nepal authorities, no timely forensic testing (sent after 5 months), recovery witnesses not examined – Court observed reliance solely on official witnesses under pressure to solve case – Creates reasonable doubt [Paras 37, 54-55, 57-59, 79-82].

FIR and Witness Conduct – Ante-timing Alleged – Doubts on contemporaneity of FIR and whether informant present at police station at 6:10 AM – Eyewitness conduct of being spared found unnatural – Prosecution story improbable [Paras 37-39, 47-49].

Law on Sole Witness – Conviction possible if wholly reliable – Here, sole witness not trustworthy – Reference made to Vadivelu Thevar (AIR 1957 SC 614) and Jagdish Prasad (AIR 1994 SC 1251) – Suspicion cannot replace proof – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 46, 84].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 07.08.2014 set aside – Appellants Surya Lal @ Shiv Lal and Chankau acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith on bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 BNSS) [Paras 85-86].

Maintainability of Civil Suit for Compensation – Section 357 CrPC – Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Held Maintainable – Defendants argued that the civil suit was barred as criminal proceedings were already initiated for the same incident – Held: Section 357 CrPC permits both civil and criminal proceedings; courts must only avoid double recovery – Since no compensation was granted in criminal proceedings, civil suit maintainable [Paras 27-39].

Infliction of Injuries – Evidence and Criminal Conviction – Plaintiff’s Case Accepted – Medical evidence, eyewitness testimony and criminal conviction of 1st defendant under Section 326 IPC proved that injuries were inflicted by defendants – Plea of private defence rejected – Held: Plaintiff sustained grievous injuries due to defendants’ attack [Paras 40-60].

Assessment of Disability – Medical Board Certificate – Error by Trial Court – Trial Court scaled down disability to 40% based on photographs – Medical Board assessed 70% permanent disability – High Court held functional disability at 50% – Plaintiff entitled to compensation on that basis [Paras 62-67].

Income Assessment – Lack of Cogent Proof – Trial Court’s Finding Upheld – Plaintiff failed to substantiate higher income from agriculture, rice mill or sericulture – Annual income fixed at Rs.60,000/- confirmed [Paras 68-69].

Compensation – Multiplier Method – Enhancement Granted – Trial Court awarded Rs.4,04,000/- – On reassessment under multiplier method with functional disability at 50%, and granting amounts under medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges and marital prospects, compensation enhanced to Rs.8,55,000/- – Interest at 9% per annum from date of suit till realization and 6% future interest awarded [Paras 70-79].

Decision – A.S. No.1025 of 2016 (plaintiff’s appeal) partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs.8,55,000/- with interest – A.S. No.233 of 2016 (defendants’ appeal) dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 80].

Service Law – ACR/APAR – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Writ Court not Appellate Over Tribunal – Where the Competent Authority gives reasoned orders on each adverse entry after examining records and partially expunges where warranted, Tribunal’s refusal to re-appraise is not perverse – High Court affirms that grading and personality-assessment are matters of subjective satisfaction, ordinarily immune from interference absent perversity or procedural illegality [Paras 18-21].

CCS (Conduct) Rules – Rule 3(2)(ii) “Best Judgment” – Officer’s Duty to Act Judiciously vis-à-vis Superiors’ Directions – “Best judgment” does not license an officer to sit in judgment over or defy lawful directions – Tribunal’s construction upheld as a plausible view in writ jurisdiction – Mere disagreement with policy/implementation cannot sanitize adverse entries when targets remain unachieved and record shows non-cooperation [Paras 15-16, 19-20].

Adverse Remarks – Communication and Representation – AIS (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970 r.8 & r.10 – DoPT OMs (20/05/1972; 14/05/2009; 23/07/2009) – Procedural Compliance – Representations considered through detailed, reasoned orders; some pejorative phrases expunged while core remarks retained – Such calibrated consideration satisfies r.10 and administrative instructions; no ground to quash surviving entries [Paras 17-19].

Post-Retirement Challenge – Consequential Relief – Petitions filed after superannuation without specific consequential claims – Government’s contention that dispute is academic noted – Court decides on merits but finds no case for interference – Reliefs held inconsequential in the absence of demonstrated legal infirmity in the process or perversity on the face of the record [Paras 11, 20-22].

Connected Matters – Mixed Outcomes Before CAT – In OA 436/2014 the Tribunal directed consideration for deletion of the observation “prone to commit financial irregularities”; others dismissed – High Court, addressing the common challenge by the Petitioner for fuller expunction, declines to expand relief and maintains the Tribunal’s calibrated orders [Paras 5, 20-22].

Decision – Original Petitions Dismissed – CAT’s view sustained; no perversity or procedural violation shown – Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae [Paras 21-23].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Stay Pending Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Article 227 – Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Executing Court’s refusal upheld – Court reiterated that ex-parte decree remains valid and enforceable until set aside – Application for stay must be made before the Court where proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 are pending – Executing Court correctly declined stay [Paras 3-5].

Scope of Order 21 Rule 26 CPC – Limited Jurisdiction – Executing Court may stay execution for reasonable time to enable judgment-debtor to approach Court passing decree or appellate Court – Where JD instead filed stay before Executing Court itself, rejection proper – No irregular exercise of jurisdiction [Para 5].

Relief in Interest of Justice – Protective Interim Order – Though dismissal upheld, High Court granted protective stay of one week to enable petitioner to move application for stay in pending Order 9 Rule 13 proceedings – Directed expeditious disposal of such application within 15 days – Execution stayed till decision of such application [Para 5].

Decision – Civil Revision dismissed with observations – Executing Court’s order sustained – Interim protection granted to petitioner for one week, extendable till decision on stay application in main proceedings [Paras 5-6].

Taxation Law - GST – Omission of Rules – Rules 89(4B) & 96(10), CGST Rules – Proceedings Lapse – Petitioners challenged show cause notices and orders based solely on impugned Rules – Rules omitted vide Notification 08.10.2024 without savings clause – Held: By common law, omission/repeal without savings obliterates the provision as if never enacted – All pending proceedings/orders not “past and closed” lapse [Paras 58–67, 122–124].

Constitutional Challenge – Not Examined – Though Rules challenged as ultra vires and unconstitutional, Court held it unnecessary to decide constitutional validity since relief granted on effect of omission without savings – Constitutional question left open [Paras 43–47].

Kerala High Court Decision – Sance Laboratories – Effect Throughout India – Petitioners argued Kerala HC had already struck down Rule 96(10) – Bombay HC noted persuasive value but declined to rule on constitutional validity in present case, granting relief on omission ground [Paras 49–55].

General Clauses Act – Section 6 – Inapplicable – Section 6 applies to repeal by Central Act/Regulation, not to omission by subordinate legislation – Constitution Bench rulings in Rayala Corporation and Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works applied – Pending proceedings not saved [Paras 69–79].

Arguments Based on Sections 164, 166, 174 of CGST Act – Rejected – Rules framed under Section 164 cannot be elevated to status of “Central Act” – Section 166 (laying before Parliament) is directory, not savings – Section 174(3) applies only to repeals of Acts mentioned in Section 174(1), not to omission of Rules – No saving of pending proceedings [Paras 83–95, 102–109].

Transactions Past and Closed – Only finalised proceedings immune – Pending SCNs, orders under challenge, or orders passed after omission are not past and closed – Therefore, quashed [Paras 66–68].

Relief – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned SCNs and orders quashed – Refund applications wrongly rejected restored for reconsideration – To be disposed of within four months – No costs – Prayer for stay rejected [Paras 122–126].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Partly Allowed – Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 302, 149, 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Appellant Kamakhya Singh’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC upheld based on direct evidence and credible eyewitness testimony – Conviction of Binod Singh under Section 302/149 IPC set aside due to lack of proof of unlawful assembly or shared common object – However, Binod Singh convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing gunshot injury – Sentences modified accordingly – Trial Court’s reliance on related witnesses upheld – Appeal disposed of with directions for surrender [Paras 1, 78-85].

Criminal Trial – Murder – Credibility of Related Witnesses – Conviction Upheld in Part – Prosecution’s witnesses were close relatives and three were injured in the incident – Court held that relatedness alone does not undermine credibility when testimony is consistent, corroborated by medical evidence, and withstands cross-examination – Presence at crime scene proved – Kamakhya Singh’s conviction sustained on this basis [Paras 32-36, 64-70].

Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 149 IPC – Set Aside – Trial Court’s finding that accused acted in furtherance of common object not supported by evidence – No proof of assembly of five or more with shared common object – Omnibus allegations against unidentified persons insufficient – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside – Also Section 148 IPC not attracted [Paras 37-52].

Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Affirmed – Eyewitnesses Baleshwar, Umesh, and Dharmendra were also victims of gunshot injuries – Court emphasized high value of testimony of injured witnesses – Medical evidence supported injuries – Their version remained unshaken under cross-examination [Paras 33-36, 64-70].

Identification of Accused – Source of Light – Objection Overruled – Although lanterns were not seized by the Investigating Officer, witnesses consistently stated they identified accused in lantern light – Court accepted explanation, noting accused were known residents of the village – Held: Identification reliable – No prejudice caused by minor investigative lapses [Paras 76-77].

Defective Investigation – Impact – No Benefit to Accused – Though the investigation was perfunctory and lacked sketch map, independent witnesses, or seizure of lighting source, court held that lapses did not affect prosecution case where eyewitness testimony was consistent, credible, and corroborated – Conviction based on substantive evidence upheld [Paras 60-61].

Vicarious Liability – Constructive Liability Under Section 149 IPC – Not Established – Court reiterated legal standards for invoking Section 149 IPC – Mere presence in a group with arms not enough without clear proof of common object – Prosecution failed to prove that those standing outside shared intent – Hence, constructive liability under Section 149 IPC not attracted [Paras 38-52].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Testimony – Strengthened Prosecution Case – Post-mortem and injury reports confirmed firearm injuries sustained by deceased and injured victims – Though one Medical Officer was not examined, his report was accepted without dispute – Court found consistency between medical records and witness statements [Paras 70-75].

Decision: Modification of Conviction and Sentence – Kamakhya Singh’s life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC upheld – Binod Singh’s conviction under Section 302/149 IPC reversed – He was convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to 7 years RI with fine – Court directed set-off for time already served and ordered surrender [Paras 78-85].

Tenancy Law - Civil Revision – Eviction Orders under East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sham Sale Transaction – Revisions Allowed – The petitioners-tenants challenged concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on grounds of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and Section 24(3) of the Punjab Rent Act, 1995 – Authorities below accepted the landlord’s title on basis of registered sale deed – High Court held that the transfer of property in favour of the landlady was a sham transaction devised to procure eviction, evidenced by intra-family conveyance, contradictory testimony, and inconsistent consideration – Findings of bona fide requirement and ceased occupation based on misreading and ignoring crucial evidence – Held: Eviction orders unsustainable – Revisions allowed and appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – Interference when findings are perverse/misread – Applied – The Court reiterated that while revisional power does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in appeal, interference is warranted where findings are perverse, based on misreading, or lead to miscarriage of justice – Relying on Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, the Court examined whether the authorities below misread crucial evidence and concluded that they did, justifying interference [Paras 11–12].

Landlord–Tenant Relationship – Attornment on Transfer – Title enquiry in rent proceedings – Exception for apparent fraud/sham – Though a registered sale deed generally suffices to establish landlordship and attornment follows transfer, the Court held that, on the peculiar facts (intra-family transfers, earlier NRI proceedings, immediate re-transfer, and inconsistent testimony), the sale in favour of the landlady was a sham devised to procure eviction – Authorities below erred in treating the sale as unimpeachable without engaging with the broader context and record [Paras 12.2, 14–16].

NRI Eviction Proceedings – Earlier petitions withdrawn – Res judicata – Not a bar to fresh cause – Contextual relevance – The earlier NRI petitions withdrawn after leave to defend did not operate as res judicata; however, their sequence (transfer to NRI relative to invoke special provisions, withdrawal upon challenge, followed by reconveyance and fresh eviction plea) was material context evidencing a contrived scheme, which the authorities below failed to weigh [Paras 13, 14.1–14.3].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Inconsistencies – Sale consideration timing (cheque dated 06.12.2016) vis-à-vis sale deed (12.12.2017) – Non-negotiation of price – Ignorance of market rate/ownership change – Cash vs cheque contradictions – Cumulative effect – The landlady’s evidence revealed material inconsistencies suggesting lack of genuine consideration and awareness—indicative of a colourable device; authorities’ omission to grapple with these contradictions amounted to misreading of evidence [Paras 15.1–16.2].

Eviction Grounds – Bona fide Requirement & Ceased Occupation – Concurrent findings set aside – Since the foundational premise (genuineness of landlord’s title and bona fides) was vitiated by misreading and perversity, the resultant eviction orders on bona fide requirement and ceased occupation could not stand – Revisions allowed; impugned appellate orders set aside [Paras 8, 16.3–17].

Property Law – Competing Sale Deeds – Section 48, TPA & Section 47, Registration Act – Plaintiffs’ son purchased Plot No.454 in 2003 under registered sale deed from Vasudha Real Estate through its Managing Partner – Defendants relied on later sale deeds of 2004 & 2010 – Court held earlier sale deed prevails – Subsequent deeds invalid due to want of joint execution and material alteration – Title declared in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 20-25].

Burden of Proof – Declaration of Title – Plaintiffs must succeed on strength of own title – Evidence of PW1 with registered documents Exs.A1 & A8 sufficient – Supported by admissions of defendants 3 & 4 in cross-examination – Non-examination of vendor (2nd defendant) not fatal as he remained ex parte and did not dispute execution – Plaintiffs discharged burden [Paras 18-21, 31].

Material Alteration – Registered Sale Deed – Section 20, Registration Act – Ex.B1 contained visible interlineation altering plot number without attestation, despite certification of “nil corrections” – Held to be material alteration rendering deed invalid – Reliance on Ram Khilona v. Sardar and Halsbury’s Laws of England principles – No valid title conveyed [Paras 24-26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Jurisdiction confined to substantial questions of law – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence absent perversity, misapplication of law, or ignoring evidence – Concurrent findings of title in plaintiffs upheld – No substantial question of law arose [Paras 15-16, 32-34].

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent judgments of trial and first appellate courts affirmed – Plaintiffs’ title and possession rights confirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Para 34].

Waterlogging of Educational Institution – Suo Motu PIL – Breach of Agricultural Bund – District Collector’s Duty – Pursuant to the letter of students and teachers, Court initiated suo motu PIL – District Collector convened joint meetings of authorities and initiated dewatering, sanitation, and safety measures – Ad hoc committee formed to continue under Collector’s supervision – Reliefs for students ensured [Paras 3-6, 10-11, 22-24].

Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 – Sections 31-33 – Padasekharam Regulation – Act recognises traditional joint farming system and empowers Collector/Punja Special Officer to enforce bund repair and dewatering – Padasekhara Samithi responsible for annual plan preparation – Absence of annual plans noted as statutory breach – Collector empowered to inquire and act against defaulting Samithies [Paras 12-16, 18-19, 25-26].

Padasekhara Samithi – Responsibility and Financial Constraints – Respondent Samithi admitted absence of annual action plan and shortage of funds – Court directs Collector to verify compliance with annual plan obligations and ensure statutory functioning – Remedies of appeal and revision under Act preserved for aggrieved Samithi [Paras 19, 25-26].

Long-term Measures – Expert Study – Court recognised frequent bund failures as aggravated by human and natural causes – Chief Engineer, Kuttanad Package and Inland Navigation directed to conduct study on long-term solutions including durable bund construction, bio-protection, and water regulation – State Government to consider feasibility and act on report [Paras 20-21, 27-28].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed – Directions issued for ad hoc committee to continue under District Collector, statutory compliance by Padasekhara Samithies, inquiry into bund collapse, and expert study for long-term solutions – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae and Kerala State Legal Services Authority [Paras 22-30].