Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Admission of Signatures and Receipt of Consideration – Defendant admitted encashment of ₹16 lakh via cheques forming part of earnest money – Agreement bore his signatures on all pages including reverse of stamp papers – Held: Once execution and consideration admitted, burden shifted to defendant to prove fraud or incapacity – No cogent evidence led to discharge burden – Defence of intoxication and fraud rightly rejected by both courts below [Paras 2–4, 8]

Contract Law – Fraud and Incapacity – Mere Plea Without Evidence – Defendant claimed agreement obtained under intoxication and fraud – No medical or documentary proof filed – Testimony of wife (DW2) and own cross-examination failed to support plea – Held: Defence was a mere afterthought and lacked credibility – Concurrent findings based on record require no interference [Paras 4, 8]

Procedural Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both trial and appellate courts held that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part and that defendant defaulted without justification – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal lies only where there is perversity or misapplication of law, not mere reappreciation of facts [Paras 7, 12–13]

Equity – Hardship and Discretion – Defendant claimed hardship and offered to refund double earnest money – Held: No hardship proved – Defendant had history of selling land, was financially sound, and had no equitable claim – Offer to refund does not override valid contractual obligation – Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance based on established readiness and willingness [Paras 10–11]

Evidence – Non-Examination of Scribe – One Attesting Witness Related to Plaintiff – Held: Mere relationship or non-examination of scribe does not vitiate execution once document is proved by party admission and testimony of other attesting witnesses – No inconsistency or contradiction shown – Place of execution and rate variation irrelevant [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Judgments and decrees of both lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Dowry Death – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC – Reduction of Life Imprisonment – Husband Convicted – Sentencing Principles Applied – Appellant-husband convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court – Appellate Court held that life imprisonment is not mandatory under Section 304-B IPC and sentence must be proportionate to culpability – Appellant was 20 years old at the time of incident, with no criminal antecedents – Already undergone more than 14 years in incarceration – No conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while upholding conviction [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 37].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Legal Presumption – Evidentiary Threshold under Section 304-B IPC – Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC often rests on legal presumptions unlike Section 302 IPC – Hence, quantum of sentence must account for lack of direct evidence and nature of presumption-based liability – Sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of extreme aggravating circumstances [Paras 30, 31].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Omnibus Allegation Against Mother-in-law – No Specific Role Attributed – Accused mother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Court found that FIR and testimonies only contained general allegations without any specific overt act against her – Two other co-accused similarly situated (jeth and jethani) exonerated during investigation – Applying parity and settled law, conviction of mother-in-law unsustainable – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 28, 32, 33, 35].

Sentencing – Principles of Proportionality and Judicial Discretion – Need to Consider Reformative Theory – Appellate Court reiterated settled law that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and degree of offence – Courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors – Age, background, possibility of reform and factual matrix relevant – Life imprisonment to be reserved for exceptional cases – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Nadeem decisions – Held: Undue harshness in sentencing without justification liable to correction [Paras 29-32].

Family Members in Dowry Cases – Caution Against Roping in Relatives Without Specific Allegations – Court emphasized that general tendency to implicate in-laws, especially female relatives, in dowry cases must be curbed unless supported by specific, credible evidence – Parity with similarly exonerated co-accused a relevant factor – Held: Conviction of mother-in-law in absence of specific role violates settled jurisprudence [Paras 28, 32, 33].

Decision:

Appeal of Chandra Pal @ Rachit partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal of Smt. Atarkali allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Anticipatory Bail – Political Motivation – Petition under Section 482 read with Section 528 BNSS seeking blanket protection from arrest due to political hostility arising from petitioner’s mother contesting assembly bye-election – No FIR registered at time of filing – Apprehension of arrest held speculative – Held: Pre-emptive blanket bail not maintainable in absence of specific case or charges [Paras 1–5, 9]

Anticipatory Bail – Blanket Orders – Legal Bar – Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia reiterated – Blanket bail covering unspecified future offences not permissible – Courts must ensure anticipatory bail is offence-specific and time-bound – Held: Relief sought would amount to unwarranted interference in lawful police investigation [Paras 6, 8]

Prior Notice Before Arrest – Impermissibility – Petitioner prayed for direction to give 7-day advance notice before any arrest – Held: Granting such direction would amount to judicial overreach and obstruction of investigative powers – Supreme Court in Padam Narain Aggarwal decisively ruled against such blanket safeguards – Court declined to interfere [Para 7, 9]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in plea for blanket anticipatory bail or advance notice before arrest – Court upheld legal position barring such relief in absence of concrete allegations or FIR.

Arbitration – Applicability of 1996 Act – Arbitral proceedings initiated by Government of India on 4 April 1996 after the commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Arbitral tribunal wrongly proceeded under the 1940 Act – Held: 1996 Act clearly applies as per Section 21 and Section 85(2)(a) – Liberty Order allowing filing under Section 34 attained finality – District Court’s refusal to entertain Section 34 application on limitation grounds unsustainable [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Section 34 Challenge – Liberty Order permitted refiling of challenge under 1996 Act within 30 days – Petition was filed within time – Trial court erroneously ignored binding Liberty Order and proceeded on incorrect premise that 1940 Act applied – Appellate court held that the challenge under Section 34 was maintainable and not barred by limitation [Paras 13–17].

Arbitration – Violation of Natural Justice – Arbitral tribunal denied claimant (Iqbal) access to crucial documents such as supply records, market price data, and procurement vouchers – Tribunal summarily awarded entire claim amount to Government without analysis or reasoning – Breach of audi alteram partem and denial of opportunity to present case – Held: Award vitiated under Section 34(2)(a)(iii) and contrary to public policy [Paras 22–28].

Arbitration – Reasoned Award – Clause 21(g) of contract required reasoned award where amount exceeded Rs. 30,000 – Arbitrator awarded entire damages claimed by Government without discussing market conditions, mitigation, or quantum – Award failed to comply with contractual requirement of a reasoned decision – Held: Award liable to be set aside for failure to adopt judicial approach and provide reasons [Paras 24–30].

Public Policy – Arbitral Award made in summary fashion without examining key evidence or providing adequate reasons – Denial of inspection and discovery rendered award contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law – Held: Arbitral Award is in conflict with public policy and liable to be set aside [Paras 31–34].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned Order dated 21 October 2011 and Arbitral Award dated 16 January 1998 set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 35–36].

Family Law – Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband Part of Wealthy Family Business – Suppression of Means – Wife Entitled to Maintenance Reflective of Marital Lifestyle – Husband’s claim of earning only Rs. 6 lakhs annually held prima facie false – Business-family finances inextricably interlinked – Court must consider de facto financial capacity and actual lifestyle, not merely taxable income – Wife after 16 years of marriage cannot be relegated to survival-level maintenance – Held: Maintenance of Rs. 3,50,000 per month awarded as interim measure [Paras 16-20, 22-29, 39-47, 62-66, 69-72].

Maintenance Proceedings – Conduct of Husband – Unclean Hands – Material Suppression – Contrived Ownership Transfers – Prima Facie Manipulation of Shareholdings to Depict Penury – False Pleas of Poverty While Living Lavish Lifestyle – Non-disclosure of properties and bank accounts – Adverse inference drawn – Husband’s claim for cancellation of maintenance rejected [Paras 21-24, 30-38].

Marital Standard of Living – Business Family Dynamics – Income Tax Returns Not Sole Measure – Court must consider entire family business structure; partnership assets not separate from partners – Spouse of family-business member entitled to lifestyle commensurate with integrated business wealth – Narrow focus on taxable income inappropriate [Paras 17-20, 45-47].

Child’s Right to Maintenance – Expenses for Daughter’s Education and Development – Father cannot avoid responsibility merely because mother works multiple jobs – Criticism of daughter’s reasonable expenses (fitness, violin, baking, education) unjustified – Standard of living of child must match the father’s means and prior matrimonial lifestyle [Paras 42-43, 51-54].

Wife’s Income – Not Ground to Deny Maintenance – Wife earning through tutoring and minimal horticulture activity does not negate her right to maintenance – No material showing substantial independent earnings – Husband cannot exploit wife’s struggle to deny statutory support [Paras 48-51].

Maintenance Law – HAMA vs. HMA – Technical Plea Rejected – Application for maintenance under HAMA can be treated as one under HMA in matrimonial proceedings – Welfare legislation to be construed purposively – Incorrect invocation of statute not fatal [Paras 67-68].

Interim Order – Prima Facie Findings – No Set-Off – Claim of set-off based on alleged loan to wife’s uncle rejected as misconceived and patriarchal – Maintenance is not a commercial transaction [Paras 7, 23, 60-61].

Decision – Husband directed to pay Rs. 3,50,000 per month as interim maintenance (Rs. 3 lakhs enhancement + Rs. 50,000 existing) – Husband to deposit Rs. 42,00,000 towards 12 months’ maintenance within four weeks – Both IAs disposed of [Paras 69-72].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act for alleged brutal killing of a woman – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court found serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence – FIR silent on gunshot injuries – Medical report shows death by gunshot, but no bullet was recovered and ballistic report was not sought – Contradictions between statements under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and deposition in court by PW2 and PW3 (minor children of deceased) – Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate lack of corroboration and major procedural lapses – Held: Conviction unsustainable, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].

Evidence – Child Witness – Reliability – PW2 and PW3, son and daughter of the deceased, were key eye-witnesses – Their deposition before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the trial court materially contradictory – PW2 claimed shooting as cause of death under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later stated sharp cutting weapons used – PW3 did not state gunshot injury in initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C – Medical evidence showed only gunshot wound, no sharp weapon injuries – Evidence of child witnesses not found wholly reliable – No corroboration from other local witnesses – Held: In absence of corroboration, contradictory statements from child witnesses weaken prosecution case [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 32].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay – FIR lodged by deceased’s sister only after verifying facts and visiting hospital – Delay in lodging FIR held explained – However, three-day delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate remained unexplained – Held: Delay in forwarding FIR to court assumes significance in view of discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and possibility of embellishment – FIR appears to be post-deliberation document [Paras 3, 31, 32].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Lapses – Arms recovered not connected to incident – Recovered in another case and improperly tagged with the present case – No forensic examination to link bullet injury with seized arms – No ballistic expert report obtained – Held: Failure to obtain ballistic opinion and improper arms recovery fatally affect prosecution’s credibility – No clear evidence on who fired fatal shot – Trial court failed to evaluate lapses [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33].

Medical Jurisprudence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Medical report confirmed death by gunshot, but no exit wound or bullet recovered – FIR did not mention gunshot injury – Eye-witnesses’ version included sharp cutting weapons, which was medically ruled out – Contradictions between medical and ocular evidence not resolved – Held: Medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses’ version, further undermining prosecution case [Paras 6, 7, 9, 32, 33].

Judicial Precedents – Application – High Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court rulings – Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Siba Nial v. State of Odisha, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., among others – Held: Where child witnesses are unreliable, ballistic reports are missing, and ocular evidence inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court misapplied principles and ignored crucial discrepancies [Paras 10–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act set aside – All nine appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37].

Railway Accident Claims – Untoward Incident – Unauthorized Crossing of Railway Tracks – Liability under Section 124-A – Tribunal’s dismissal set aside – Victims (two adults and one 3-year-old child) run over by Train No. 19051 at Maihar Station – Railway contended that victims were not bonafide passengers and were illegally crossing tracks – Held: Even if victims were crossing tracks unauthorizedly, compensation under Section 124-A is maintainable unless case falls within explicit statutory exceptions such as suicide, self-inflicted injury, intoxication, etc. – Railway failed to demonstrate that adequate preventive measures (fencing, barricades, warnings, announcements) were provided – Ease of access to tracks, especially for a child, indicates systemic failure – Deaths held to be result of “untoward incident” – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim [Paras 8-11].

Railway Safety – Duty to Prevent Track Crossing – Failure of Railway Administration – Loco Pilot’s testimony showed that child suddenly came on track and women rushed to save him – No evidence of deliberate or criminal act – Railway failed to prove implementation of preventive systems to stop unauthorized crossing – Absence of such measures constitutes breach of statutory duty – Liability for compensation arises [Paras 9-10].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Claimants established circumstances of accident – Railway’s reliance on DRM report insufficient to rebut evidence – Finding that Train No. 51672 did not pass through Maihar does not absolve Railway when deaths occurred due to another train (19051) at same location – Tribunal erred in rejecting claims based solely on train-number discrepancy [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Intervention – High Court’s Power – Tribunal’s refusal to award compensation based on incorrect appreciation of statutory scheme – High Court sets aside Tribunal’s order and directs award of compensation in accordance with applicable rules and rates [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Tribunal’s judgment dated 23.12.2016 set aside – Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal directed to award statutory compensation to claimants as per prevailing rules – All appeals disposed of [Paras 11-13].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Gift Deed – Plaintiff challenged registered gift deed executed in 2010 on ground that it was a sham transaction done only to aid sister’s visa application – Suit filed in 2021 seeking cancellation and declaration – Trial Court and Appellate Court found suit barred under Article 59 of Limitation Act as limitation is 3 years from execution – Held: Execution and registration of gift deed not disputed; absence of fraud plea; cause of action stale – Plaint rightly rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC [Paras 6–9].

Mohammedan Law – Gift of Immovable Property – Plaintiff claimed gift deed lacked essential ingredient of delivery of possession – Court held: Registered deed contained covenant confirming delivery of possession – Gift complete in law under Section 123 of TP Act – Plaintiff continued in possession does not invalidate gift [Paras 3.4, 4.3, 6, 7].

Limitation – Article 59 – Cause of Action – Plaintiff relied on 2021 legal notice from defendant to claim discovery of cause of action – Court found such assertion artificial – Held: Knowledge of gift existed since 2010; no facts pleaded showing discovery of fraud or reason for delay – Delay of 11 years fatal to claim [Paras 3.5, 6–7].

Second Appeal – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Courts below held claim time-barred based on uncontroverted record – No substantial question of law arose – Held: Second appeal cannot be “third trial on facts” or a gamble – Dismissed at admission stage [Paras 11–16].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arose – Civil Application also disposed of.

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Sections 227 and 228 CrPC – Trial court discharged public officials and contractors accused of conspiracy, corruption, and loss to exchequer in road projects executed during 2007–2009 – High Court upheld discharge, holding that the record failed to establish prima facie misuse of official position, fraudulent conspiracy, or wrongful loss to the state – Investigation lacked credible evidence, delayed FIR, and suffered from natural deterioration of work sites due to lapse of time – No interference warranted [Paras 6–14].

Corruption – Loss to Exchequer – Enquiry reports indicated minor or no loss in most of the 19 components – Work components 8 and 19 initially shown as loss-making were justified by subsequent departmental enquiry reports, which found the rates reasonable and execution within sanctioned powers – Allegations of inflated rates or unauthorized approvals unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B RPC – No material establishing agreement between officers and contractors to commit illegal acts – Mere administrative lapses or procedural deviations insufficient to attract criminal conspiracy without evidence of shared criminal intent – FIR and charge sheet lacked necessary foundational facts to support conspiracy charge [Para 9].

Evidence – Standard at Framing of Charge – Court reiterated principles from M.E. Shivalingamurthy and Kewal Krishan – At the stage of framing charge, court must assess if prosecution case discloses grave suspicion; mere suspicion or improbability does not suffice – Trial court’s order reasoned, based on applicable legal standards, and not perverse [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – High Court held revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, not to be exercised for reappreciation of evidence or to substitute trial court’s plausible conclusions – Interference justified only if trial court’s order is manifestly perverse or unsupported by record – No such case made out [Para 12].