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].

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].

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].

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].

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].

Criminal Law – Quashing Of Summoning Order -  Cognizance on Protest Petition – Sections 190, 202 CrPC – FIR alleged kidnapping and murder by petitioner for property grab – Police investigation (U.D. Case No.1/2013, GR Case 165/2014) concluded death was natural, filing Final Report as “mistake of fact” – Complainant filed protest petition implicating petitioner and family – Magistrate took cognizance mechanically under IPC Ss. 302, 364 etc. – Held: Magistrate must apply judicial mind; cognizance based solely on oral allegations without prima facie material is unsustainable – Impugned order quashed [Paras 7-13, 16].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Mistake of Fact – Principle – Closure report based on medical evidence (post-mortem: cardiac arrest) and independent witness statements – No material indicating homicide – Law settled that liability cannot rest on suspicion; “mistake of fact” recognized defence; Magistrate erred in ignoring investigation findings [Paras 8, 13].

Scope of Magistrate’s Role – Protest Petition – While Magistrate not bound by police Final Report, he must evaluate evidence fairly; mechanical reliance on complainant’s version risks miscarriage of justice – Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749 emphasized application of mind while summoning accused; reiterated in Bichitrananda Paramanik v. State of Odisha (CRLMC 1739/2015) – Not followed here [Paras 11-14].

Right to Fair Trial – Article 21 – Investigation must be fair and just; its purpose to prosecute actual offenders and protect innocents – Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 reiterated Article 21 safeguards at investigation stage – Applied: summoning petitioners without prima facie material violates Article 21 [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Impugned order of cognizance in I.C.C. Case No. 15/2016 set aside – Matter remitted to Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law – CRLMC disposed [Paras 17-18].

Theft – Conviction under Section 379 IPC – Sentence Modified – Petitioner, a woman and first-time offender, convicted of theft of a gold chain using a blade in a public hospital – Trial Court sentenced her to six months’ simple imprisonment – Conviction upheld by appellate court – In revision, High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 considering absence of prior record, partial custody period, age, and lapse of 17 years – Directed release on probation with bond and undertaking [Paras 1-30].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability and Mandatory Consideration – Failure to Apply Sections 3 and 4 – Held: Both trial court and appellate court failed to discharge mandatory duty to consider benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act – High Court observed that the court is bound to consider applicability and record reasons if benefits are denied – Non-consideration vitiates sentencing process [Paras 22-28].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Legal Error in Sentencing – While revisional court does not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, it may intervene in sentencing where statutory provisions like Probation of Offenders Act are overlooked – Conviction affirmed but imprisonment substituted with probation due to legal infirmity in sentencing approach [Paras 10-14].

Sentencing Principles – Proportionality – Age, Custodial Duration, Delay Considered – Court noted that incarceration after 17 years from date of offence would serve no penal purpose – Held: Sentence must reflect proportionality and rehabilitative potential, especially for economically dependent first-time offenders [Paras 17-21, 28-30].

Final Order – Conviction Maintained – Imprisonment Set Aside – Accused Released on Probation – Petitioner directed to furnish bond of ₹10,000 and undertake to maintain peace and good behaviour for one year – Failure to comply to invite further action – Copy forwarded to District Probation Officer for guidance [Para 30].

Service Law - Recruitment – Fresh Written Test – WBMSC Notices dated 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 – Validity – Original 2011 exam covered 26,445 candidates; later, 73,978 found wrongly excluded due to answer key error – WBMSC held fresh written test in 2024 – Appellants (2011 candidates) argued second test barred by earlier Division Bench orders; Respondents contended correction necessary – Held: Commission empowered to rectify error; subsequent writ petitions cannot bar equitable relief to wrongly excluded candidates – Fresh written test upheld [Paras 90-100, 118-119].

Res Judicata vs. Precedent – Application – Earlier Division Bench orders (2020, 2023, 2024) dealt only with extension of time to complete process; no categorical prohibition on fresh test – Observations therein were not ratio decidendi but obiter; cannot operate as res judicata against Commission – Appellants’ plea rejected [Paras 37-40, 63-67].

Natural Justice – Inclusion of Left-Out Candidates – Screening error wrongly excluded 73,978 otherwise eligible candidates – Denial of opportunity after 14 years would cause grave prejudice – Allowing them a fresh written test ensured level playing field – Commission acted fairly; no mala fides established [Paras 71-79].

Recruitment Rules, 2010 – Compliance – Written exam and personality test structure under Rules 16-19 maintained; Commission excluded 24,577 already successful candidates from re-test to avoid prejudice – Process not arbitrary or discriminatory – Findings of Single Judge affirmed [Paras 43-44, 70].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – WBMSC notices of 05.08.2024 & 09.08.2024 and subsequent recruitment process including fresh written exam and merit list upheld – No interference warranted – Pending applications disposed [Paras 100-103, 119].

Civil Writ - Municipal Permissions – Building Permission – GVMC Authority – Jurisdiction – Petitioners claimed ownership of 1743 sq. yards and challenged permission to Respondent No.6 based on Development Agreement with Respondent No.5 – Petitioners relied on earlier orders holding Respondent No.5 had no valid title – Court held GVMC cannot decide title; permission granted on prima facie satisfaction of documents – Held: Impugned order dated 29.05.2024 is a speaking order pursuant to prior writ directions; no jurisdictional error – Writ dismissed [Paras 20–27, 29–31].

Property Law – Title Dispute – Competence of Municipal Authorities – Authorities cannot adjudicate civil title disputes – Disputes regarding validity of Respondent No.5’s title and Development Agreement with Respondent No.6 to be decided by competent Civil Court – Civil suit (O.S. No.121 of 2025) already pending – Hence, writ remedy not available to adjudicate title [Paras 22–23, 25, 29].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Interim Order – Interim direction dated 26.11.2024 restrained interference with petitioners’ possession – Respondent No.6 had already undertaken construction pursuant to building permission dated 14.07.2020 – Court held no wilful disobedience; contempt petition dismissed as consequence of dismissal of writ [Paras 2, 28, 31].

Decision – Court found no grounds to interfere with GVMC’s order – Writ petition dismissed without costs – Contempt case dismissed – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 31].