Criminal Law – Section 34 IPC – Common Intention – Requirement of pre-arranged plan or meeting of minds – Mere simultaneous or similar intention insufficient – Common intention may develop on the spot but must be proved from conduct and circumstances – Held: No evidence of common intention to commit attempt to murder [Paras 31–36, 42–43]

Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – Firing by co-accused – Other accused only threw bricks and stones – No knowledge or prior meeting of minds regarding use of firearm – Act of firing held to be individual act – Held: Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC unsustainable [Paras 42–45]

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Consistent testimony of police witnesses and independent witness supported by medical evidence – Injuries simple in nature caused by hard and blunt objects – Held: Offence under Section 323 IPC proved [Paras 26–27, 44]

Constructive Liability – Limits – Section 34 IPC does not create substantive offence but fixes joint liability – Requires participation and shared intention – Absence of common intention disentitles vicarious liability [Paras 32–35]

Benefit of Partial Acquittal – Appellate Court – Where graver offence not proved but minor offence established – Conviction can be altered accordingly – Held: Appellant liable only under Section 323 IPC [Paras 43–46]

Sentencing – Mitigating Circumstances – Long lapse of time (over four decades), advanced age of appellant, and partial incarceration – Reduction of sentence to period already undergone justified [Para 46]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 323 IPC maintained – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellant not required to surrender – Directions issued under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS.

Partition Suit – Second Partition Suit – Omitted Property – Maintainability – Whether property not included in earlier partition suit can be subject matter of subsequent suit – Held, second partition suit not maintainable for property (CS Khatian No. 21) not included in earlier suit in absence of pleading and proof that omission was intentional or mistaken – Plaintiffs failed to establish circumstances permitting second suit [Paras 33–35, 40]

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Omission by Predecessor – Effect on Descendants – Properties which ought to have been included in earlier suit deemed to have been in issue – Descendants bound by conduct of predecessor – Held, claim over CS Khatian No. 21 barred as same was not included in earlier partition proceedings [Paras 41–42]

Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – No Presumption of Joint Property – Plaintiff must prove existence of joint family nucleus – In absence of proof of joint family fund, no presumption arises – Trial Court erred in shifting burden on defendants to prove self-acquisition [Paras 28–31]

Evidence – Failure to Prove Joint Character – Property recorded in name of individual – No evidence of joint family nucleus or linkage to acquisition – Held, CS Khatian No. 21 not proved to be joint family property [Paras 31–32]

Partition – Earlier Compromise Decree – Effect – Properties in CS Khatian No. 23 already subject matter of earlier suit – Second suit maintainable only to extent of unpartitioned portions and implementation of earlier decree – Held, limited maintainability for Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn and unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 [Paras 39, 46–48]

Partition Law – Exceptions for Second Suit – Applicability of Sasi Mohan Saha principle – Three situations analysed – Present case does not fall within first or second exception; partially covered under third for execution/working out of earlier decree [Paras 34–39]

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Absence of Necessary Averments – No explanation in plaint for omission of property in earlier suit – No evidence led to show intentional exclusion – Held, fatal to maintainability of claim [Paras 7, 40]

Appellate Interference – Erroneous Preliminary Decree – Inclusion of property without proof of joint ownership – Held, preliminary decree liable to be set aside to that extent [Para 45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned preliminary decree set aside insofar as it includes CS Khatian No. 21 – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determination of shares limited to unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 (Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn) – Parties permitted to adduce further evidence – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Want of Consideration – Void ab initio – Sale Deeds Null and Dead Letters – Two registered sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant for total consideration of Rs. 1,02,30,000/-, stated to have been paid through eight cheques all dated the respective dates of execution – Cheques were returned to the defendant at his insistence on the ground that mutation was denied by the authorities – Defendant failed to prove subsequent payment of consideration through alternate mode to the plaintiffs/creditors/relatives – Held: Where a sale deed recites that the entire sale consideration has been paid through cheques on the date of execution and the cheques are admittedly returned without encashment, the consideration does not pass in terms of the sale deed; the sale deed is null and void, a nullity and dead letter in the eyes of law – No declaration or cancellation of such void deeds is required to be sought as the same is non-est – Appeal allowed [Paras 69, 70, 80, 86, 89].

Sale – Passing of Title – Condition Precedent – Intention of Parties – Ta Khubzul Badlain – The true test for passing of title is the intention of the parties, to be gathered primarily from the recitals of the sale deed; mere registration is prima facie but not conclusive proof of intention to transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent – Where sale deed recites entire consideration paid on the date of execution through cheques but the cheques are returned and defendant fails to prove subsequent payment, neither title nor possession passes to the purchaser, notwithstanding recitals to the contrary – The practice of "Ta Khubzul Badlain" (title passing only on exchange of equivalents) applicable in undivided State of Bihar continues to apply to the State of Jharkhand created out of Bihar by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Paras 72–77, 81, 84].

Maintainability – Suit for Return of Void Sale Deeds – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – A suit for return of original sale deeds, asserting the deeds to be void for want of consideration, does not amount to a suit for declaration of title and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because no prayer for recovery of possession is made – When a document is void ab initio, no decree setting aside the same is required as it is a nullity; accordingly, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation or declaration and the suit for return of the void documents is maintainable [Paras 57, 60, 63, 64, 65].

Court Fees – Suit for Return of Void Documents – Where neither a declaration that the sale deeds are void nor recovery of possession is prayed for and the only relief is return of original sale deeds, ad valorem court fees is not payable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 250/- is sufficient [Para 63].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Jamshedpur in O.S. No. 212 of 2016 set aside – Sale deeds bearing No. 705/508 dated 07.02.2014 and No. 2736/2125 dated 17.05.2014 held to be void, null and dead letters for want of consideration – Defendant directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through court process [Paras 88–91].

Money Laundering – Challenge Show Cause Notice – Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Rule 13(2) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Petitioners challenged show cause notice dated 25.11.2025 issued under Section 8(1) of PMLA and prayed for supply of all Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) in a bound paper book – Despite repeated requests, petitioners contended that complete RUDs were not served; only RUD-1, RUD-2A, RUD-2B and RUD-3 were received through email – Petitioners filed para-wise comments before the Adjudicating Authority without prejudice to their rights – Held: It is for the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether documents already supplied are the complete RUDs or not; writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17, 24, 28–30].

Service of Notice – Electronic Mode – Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Service of show cause notice through email is valid service under Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) read with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Petitioners' contention that documents were required to be supplied in a bound paper book does not affect the validity of the service of the notice itself – Held: No illegality found in service of notice through electronic mode [Para 20].

Reason to Believe – Adjudicating Authority – Section 8(1), PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority recorded prima facie reasons to believe that petitioners were involved in money laundering in connection with seizure of cash of Rs. 3,00,12,000/- and a mobile phone from their premises – The belief must be based on reasonable grounds and not on mere suspicion – Held: No illegality found in recording of reasons to believe by the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 26, 25].

Adjudicating Authority – Powers – Section 11, PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority has the same powers as a Civil Court including inspection of documents, compelling production of records, examining witnesses on oath and issuing commissions – Petitioners at liberty to avail these remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and, if aggrieved, prefer appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA [Paras 22–23, 30(c)].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Adjudicating Authority directed to first decide whether the documents requested by petitioners are relied upon documents and, if found to be so and not served, to direct the ED to supply the same within two weeks – Petitioners to be given opportunity to file supplementary reply within two weeks of supply – Parties at liberty to avail remedy under Section 26 of PMLA if aggrieved by any order on supply of RUDs – Interim order vacated.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated that interference is permissible only when findings are perverse, contrary to law, or based on no evidence – First Appellate Court being final court of facts, its findings cannot be substituted merely on reappreciation – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14, 21] .

Adoption – Proof and Binding Effect of Prior Judgment – Adoption of A.G. Krishna Murthy upheld based on earlier decree in O.S. No.72 of 1950 which attained finality – Parties claiming through testatrix who never disputed adoption are estopped from challenging it – Even otherwise, both adopted son and widow held to have equal rights [Paras 16–18] .

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Extent of Vendor’s Title – Vendor having only undivided half share cannot convey absolute title – Sale deeds executed by A.G. Krishna Murthy confer only his half share – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration of full ownership – Relief rightly modified to partition of half share [Paras 19, 21] .

Will – Testamentary Disposition – Limitation of Bequeathable Interest – Testatrix Lakshmamma held to possess only half share in property – Will dated 30.09.1978 valid only to extent of her share – Legatees cannot claim entire property [Para 19] .

Limitation – Suit for Partition – Accrual of Cause of Action – Rights of legatees arise only upon death of testatrix in 1984 – No prior denial of plaintiff’s title established within limitation period – Suit filed in 1995 held within limitation [Para 20] .

Appellate Practice – Modification of Decree – First Appellate Court – Trial Court granted declaration of full title – First Appellate Court modified decree granting only half share – Modification held proper based on evidence and legal position – No perversity found [Paras 10, 11, 21] .

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court granting half share confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs.

Income Tax – Assessment in Name of Non-Existent Entity – Amalgamation – Final assessment order for AY 2016-17 was passed in the name and PAN of Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. after its amalgamation with Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. had already been intimated to the Revenue – TPO order and DRP directions had in fact been issued in the name of the amalgamated entity – Held: assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and suffers from a substantive illegality, not a mere procedural defect – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 28-30, 33-41].

Section 292B – Curable Defect – Scope – Revenue contended that the final assessment order bore the old name because of an ITBA portal glitch and that the defect was curable – Held: Section 292B cannot cure a jurisdictional defect arising from framing an assessment against a non-existent entity – such defect is akin to assessment against a dead person and is not saved as a technical mistake or clerical omission [Paras 30-32, 34-35].

Amalgamation – Duty of Revenue After Intimation – Assessee informed the Assessing Officer about the amalgamation by letter dated 10.04.2018 and again during assessment proceedings – Despite such disclosure, the Revenue failed to carry necessary corrections into the assessment proceedings and ultimately issued the final assessment order only in the name of the erstwhile entity – Held: once amalgamation was brought to the notice of the AO, it was incumbent upon the Revenue to proceed against the amalgamated entity in accordance with law [Paras 28, 33, 35, 38].

Precedential Consistency in Tax Litigation – Maruti Suzuki and Sony Mobile Applied – Revenue sought to distinguish the rulings on the ground that the original jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) had been issued before amalgamation and that substantial compliance existed through later proceedings – Held: the controversy stands covered by the principles in Maruti Suzuki, Sony Mobile, Spice Entertainment and Vedanta Limited – certainty and consistency in tax litigation require adherence to settled law [Paras 30-31, 36-40].

Mahagun Realtors and Sky Light Hospitality – Distinction – Revenue relied on Mahagun Realtors and Sky Light Hospitality to argue that the mistake was curable and that assessment could still survive – Held: both decisions turned on their peculiar facts – unlike those cases, the assessee here had clearly disclosed the amalgamation well before the final assessment order and had not suppressed the fact of corporate reorganisation [Paras 23-30].

Technical Glitch in Departmental Portal – No Defence – Revenue argued that the ITBA portal automatically carried forward the old PAN and name – Held: malfunction or limitation of the Revenue’s own portal cannot prejudice the assessee or validate an otherwise void assessment order – Revenue must ensure that its systems conform to statutory requirements [Paras 34-35, 39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Order of the ITAT quashing the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 upheld [Paras 41-42].

Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.

Criminal Trial – Murder Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Reliability and Suspicion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside where prosecution case collapsed due to hostile witnesses and suspicious dying declaration – Held, dying declaration must be free from suspicion and inspire confidence; in absence of corroboration and presence of serious procedural irregularities, conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 42–49, 59]

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Failure to Record Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Material lapse in investigation – All key witnesses including family and neighbours turned hostile and denied prosecution case – IO failed to secure statements before Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC – Held, such omission creates serious doubt about prosecution version and suggests possible coercion in recording Section 161 statements [Paras 33–38]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Procedural Defects – Declaration recorded by doctor without informing police, not in question-answer form, not read over to victim – Victim survived for 10 days after declaration – No attempt made to record declaration before Magistrate – Held, circumstances render dying declaration highly suspicious and unsafe for sole reliance [Paras 45–48, 52–53, 57]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Requirement of Corroboration – Where declaration suffers from inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances – Held, as per settled law, suspicious dying declaration requires corroboration; absence thereof fatal to prosecution [Para 43]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Contradictory Prosecution Case – Simultaneous suggestions of homicide and suicide – Prosecution witnesses deposed accidental burn during cooking while earlier statements alleged homicidal act – Held, such contradictions weaken prosecution case fundamentally [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to explain material circumstances – No explanation how locked room opened; seizure witnesses unreliable; medical evidence inconclusive as to homicidal or suicidal burns – Held, cumulative lapses render prosecution case doubtful [Paras 39–40, 32]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Burn injuries – Doctor unable to opine whether injuries homicidal or suicidal – Held, absence of conclusive medical opinion adds to reasonable doubt [Para 32]

Criminal Appeal – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 59–61]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released subject to conditions under Section 437 CrPC – Connected applications disposed of.

Money Laundering – Attachment of Property – Pre-PMLA Acquisition – Continuation Post-Enactment – Core issue whether property purchased from proceeds of crime prior to 01.07.2005 can be attached under Section 5(1) PMLA – Held: Yes, if such property continues to be possessed or used after enforcement of PMLA – Attachment valid as offence continues post-enactment [Paras 1, 62, 74(viii)]

Proceeds of Crime – Scope and Expansion – Section 2(1)(u) – Includes not only original tainted money but also property derived or obtained directly or indirectly – Subject property purchased from tainted funds itself becomes “proceeds of crime” – Error of Single Judge in limiting proceeds to money alone corrected [Paras 29, 51–52, 74(i)]

Money Laundering – Continuing Offence – Section 3 read with Explanation (ii) – Offence does not conclude upon acquisition or “integration” – Continues so long as person enjoys proceeds of crime by possession, use, concealment or acquisition – Possession/use on date of enforcement sufficient to attract PMLA [Paras 55–57, 60–62, 81]

Interpretation of Section 3 – Inclusive Definition – Use of “includes” – Expands ambit beyond core activity – Concealment, possession, acquisition or use are independent limbs – Any one activity sufficient to constitute offence – Projection as untainted property not mandatory ingredient [Paras 39–41, 47, 59]

Possession vs Coming into Possession – Legal Distinction – Section 3 penalizes “possession” and not merely initial acquisition – Offence persists as long as possession continues – Single Judge erred in treating offence as completed upon initial acquisition [Paras 30, 57]

Retrospectivity – Article 20(1) – No Violation – PMLA does not punish predicate offence but independent offence of money laundering – Where possession/use continues after Act, application is prospective – Date of scheduled offence immaterial [Paras 69–72]

Scheduled Offence – Role – Substratal but not determinative of timing – Commission of scheduled offence necessary to identify proceeds of crime – However, timing of such offence irrelevant for applicability of PMLA if laundering activity continues [Paras 49–50, 72]

Integration Theory – Rejected – Concept that offence ends upon integration into economy held erroneous – Statutory language and amendments (2013) widen scope to ongoing possession/use – Legislative intent to cover post-integration stages affirmed [Paras 74(iv), (vii)]

Section 5(1) – Preconditions – “Reason to Believe” – Subjective satisfaction of competent authority – Based on material linking property to proceeds of crime and likelihood of frustration of confiscation – Judicial review limited in certiorari jurisdiction [Paras 74(x), (xii)]

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope – Challenge to Provisional Attachment – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of authority – Interference only if jurisdictional error or perversity – Findings of Single Judge exceeded permissible limits [Paras 33–34]

Scheme of PMLA – Integrated Reading – Sections 3, 5 and 8 – Attachment under Section 5 is step-in-aid of adjudication and confiscation under Section 8 – If offence of money laundering exists prima facie, attachment justified [Paras 27, 74(xi)]

Supreme Court Precedents – Binding Interpretation – Vijay Madanlal Choudhary – Clarifies independent and continuing nature of offence – Possession/use sufficient – Date of scheduled offence irrelevant – Applied to overturn impugned judgment [Paras 76–81]

Continuing Enjoyment of Proceeds – Liability – Even indirect holding or transformed property (after layering/integration) remains proceeds of crime – Continued enjoyment attracts liability under PMLA [Paras 60, 65–67]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Provisional Attachment Order dated 24.01.2014 upheld – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs.