Criminal Law – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Sections 307/324/34 IPC – Appeal Dismissed – Respondents accused of assaulting PW-1 Prabhu Shyam and PW-5 Ghanshyam with knife and danda during intervening night of 17/18 October 2009 at C-10, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, arising from refusal to provide a cigarette – FIR No. 210/2009 registered at P.S. Khyala – Charges framed under Sections 307/324/34 IPC – Trial Court acquitted both accused finding prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – State preferred appeal under Section 378 CrPC – Respondent No. 2 died during appeal – Held: Prosecution case riddled with material contradictions on place of occurrence, weapons used, and improvements in testimony; Trial Court rightly granted benefit of doubt; acquittal upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 58–60].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Interference – Settled position that appellate court may re-appreciate evidence but interference with acquittal warranted only when findings are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly contrary to evidence – Where two reasonable views are possible, view favourable to accused to be adopted – Double presumption of innocence operates in favour of accused on acquittal – Held: Principles governing appeals against acquittal reaffirmed; court not sitting as first court of appreciation [Paras 37–38] — Relied upon: Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.

Contradictions – Place of Occurrence – Material Inconsistency – PW-1 Prabhu Shyam stated stabbing occurred inside his house; PW-5 Ghanshyam stated entire incident occurred outside the house in front of the gate; complaint dated 20.11.2009 (Ex. PW1/DA) filed by PW-7 Suresh to DCP stated incident occurred near C-Block, Valmiki Mandir, near P.S. Khyala — a materially different location from all other versions — Investigating Officer PW-12 SI Gurdeep Singh confirmed no witness had informed him of any incident inside the house nor was he taken inside premises – Held: Contradictions on place of occurrence, being a foundational fact in criminal prosecution, go to the root of the case and render prosecution version uncertain [Paras 43–45].

Contradictions – Weapons Used – Material Improvement – Original prosecution version in rukka and chargesheet: accused Rinku @ Shiv Kumar armed with danda, accused Harish alone armed with knife – Version introduced at trial by PW-1 and PW-5: Harish brought two knives and handed one to Rinku, both accused thereafter inflicting knife injuries – Improvement contradicted by Investigating Officer who stated no witness had informed him of two knives or of Rinku carrying a knife – Also contradicted by PW-7 Suresh and PW-8 Balram, both prosecution witnesses, who consistently stated only Harish carried knife while Rinku carried danda – Knife never recovered despite disclosure statement of accused Harish – Held: Improvement going to heart of alleged criminal act substantially impairs reliability of testimony [Paras 46–50] — Relied upon: Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.

Section 307 IPC – Intention to Cause Death – Sudden Quarrel – Absence of Prior Enmity – Incident arising from trivial demand for cigarette during Diwali night; no pre-existing enmity between parties; no evidence of premeditation – Use of knife alone insufficient to establish intention required under Section 307 IPC; surrounding circumstances, nature of injuries, parts of body targeted and overall conduct of accused also to be considered – Held: Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had intention to cause death; charge under Section 307 IPC not made out on facts [Paras 39–53] — Relied upon: Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366; Sudam Prabhakar Achat v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 602.

Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Several persons allegedly present at or near scene of occurrence — Baljeet, Ranjeet, Kundan, Firoz and others — repeatedly mentioned in prosecution testimonies but none examined during trial – Non-examination of independent witnesses assumes particular importance where testimonies of examined witnesses themselves suffer from contradictions – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses further weakens prosecution case [Paras 55–57].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 20.07.2015 of the Additional Sessions Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi acquitting respondents of offences under Sections 307/324/34 IPC upheld – Pending applications stand disposed of.

Sabarimala Master Plan – High Power Committee – Appointment of New Chairman – Following demise of former Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Siri Jagan on 24.01.2026, the High Power Committee was unable to effectively discharge its functions – For ensuring continued and uninterrupted functioning of the Committee, appointment of a new Chairman held urgently necessary – Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun V.G., former Judge of the Kerala High Court, appointed as Chairman of the High Power Committee for implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan [Para 13].

Sabarimala Master Plan – Role and Responsibilities of Chairman – High Power Committee – The Chairman presides over all meetings of the Committee and exercises overall supervision and control over its functioning – Vested with powers of the earlier Apex Level Steering Committee and Working Level Committee constituted by the State Government – Responsible for time-bound implementation of the Master Plan in accordance with Court directions – Empowered to co-opt representatives from the Pollution Control Board, PWD and other departments as required – Required to submit periodical status reports to the Court once every two months through the Advocate General – Duties include monitoring day-to-day progress, conducting site inspections, reviewing functioning of Technical Committee, prioritising projects based on availability of funds, resolving inter-departmental issues and ensuring financial discipline and transparency – Chairman also acts as vital link between the Court, State Government and Travancore Devaswom Board – Obligated to safeguard flora and fauna of the region and ensure no project compromises the ecological balance of the Periyar Tiger Reserve and the Western Ghats [Para 14].

Sabarimala Master Plan – Implementation – Status and Deficiencies – Master Plan prepared by M/s. IL&FS Eco Smart Limited approved by the Government of Kerala on 03.05.2007 – Government has allocated Rs. 390.2 Crores in total through annual budgetary provisions up to 2025–26 – Substantial infrastructure developed including 5 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant, Annadanam Mandapam, Darshanam Complex, parking areas, toilet complexes and water tanks – However, certain components of pilgrim management plan and queue complexes along trek route remain only partially completed – Disaster management component envisaged under the Master Plan not yet implemented – Certain ongoing projects not aligned with original framework of Master Plan – Audit findings noted that in absence of structured action plans and Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), developmental activities may deviate from originally envisaged projects – Time-bound action plan based on prioritisation of DPRs held imperative [Paras 8–9, 12].

Sabarimala Pilgrimage – Crowd Management – Institutional Framework – Suo motu proceedings W.P.(C) 8529 of 2026 initiated pursuant to order dated 06.02.2026 in SSCR No. 37 of 2025 in light of challenges faced during Mandala-Makaravilakku Season 2025–26 – Directions issued for institutional framework ensuring coordinated and advance planning among all stakeholders – Thirteen aspects identified for detailed examination including institutional governance, crowd management, virtual queue systems, technology integration, traffic management, safety, sanitation, medical services, environmental compliance and personnel training – High Power Committee directed to consider these aspects and ensure no duplication or overlap of functions [Paras 10–11, 15].

Decision: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun V.G., former Judge of the High Court of Kerala, appointed as Chairman of the High Power Committee for implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan – High Power Committee requested to consider aspects highlighted in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No. 8529 of 2026 and ensure implementation remains aligned with objectives and structural framework of the Master Plan – Committee at liberty to move the Court by appropriate application or report at any stage if intervention is considered necessary – HPCR(S) No. 1 of 2026 closed [Paras 13–15].

Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC – Suppression of Material Facts – Standard of Proof – Ad interim injunction granted ex parte in favour of plaintiff vacated by Trial Judge primarily on ground of suppression of material facts — Division Bench finding that plaintiff had categorically disclosed in paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 of the plaint the recording of defendants' names in the Records of Rights while simultaneously disputing their title and authenticity of such entries — Photocopies of all relied-upon documents filed along with the plaint as per firisty at the time of obtaining ex parte order — Held: Suppression of material facts contemplated under Order XXXIX Rule 4 must be palpable and ex facie — Where detailed appreciation of evidence and further materials is necessary to determine the importance or relevance of the alleged suppressed material, such exercise transgresses into merits of the suit and cannot be undertaken at the Order XXXIX Rule 4 stage [Paras 11, 12, 17, 24].

Order XXXIX Rule 4 – Scope and Limitations – Distinction Between Vacation of Ad Interim Order and Final Adjudication of Injunction Application – Trial Judge, consequent upon allowing the Order XXXIX Rule 4 application, simultaneously disposed of the main temporary injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 without giving both parties opportunity to address it on merits and before written objection was even filed — Held: Scope of Order XXXIX Rule 4 is restricted to parameters governing the ex parte ad interim order — Final adjudication of the temporary injunction application is an independent proceeding to be heard and decided after both parties bring their pleadings and materials on record — Such approach of the Trial Judge is completely erroneous and contrary to law [Paras 23, 25, 26].

Records of Rights – Disputed Entries – Pleadings – Plaintiff disputed title of defendants whose names appeared in the Records of Rights and specifically pleaded that RS Record entry of one Asiran as 50% owner was made illegally, bore no date, case number, or signature of Revenue Officer, and was therefore of doubtful authenticity — Prayer for declaration that such recording does not extinguish plaintiff's title specifically made in the suit — Held: No suppression — Stand in plaint, injunction application and reliefs sought were consistent throughout [Paras 13, 14, 15].

Correction of Deed Number – Not Suppression – Only the number of a deed was erroneously stated in the plaint while the date was correctly mentioned — Subsequent application for correction does not amount to suppression of a material fact within the meaning of Order XXXIX Rule 4 [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned Order No. 5 dated 15.05.2024 set aside — Ad interim injunction granted on 20.03.2024 restored and to remain in operation till disposal of the temporary injunction application — Contesting respondents granted six weeks to file written objection to temporary injunction application — Trial Judge directed to dispose of the temporary injunction application expeditiously and independently without being influenced by observations in this judgment — No order as to costs.

Land Acquisition – Section 4 Notification vs. Section 6 Declaration – Omission of Plot – CS Plot No. 2246 mentioned in Section 4 Notification dated August 1961 for construction of a link project for the Railways — However, the Declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act dated 26.10.1961 omitted CS Plot No. 2246 altogether — Awards under Section 11 of the LA Act in respect of the concerned Mouza also did not mention Plot No. 2246 — Held: Plot No. 2246 was never acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the Railway Authorities have no title thereover on this basis [Paras 15, 16, 17].

Defence of India Rules – Rule 75-A – Extent and Purpose of Acquisition – Subject-plot requisitioned under Rule 75-A(1) of the Defence of India Rules — However, acquisition under Rule 75-A(2) was restricted to only 0.02 acres (2 decimals) out of 11 decimals of CS Plot No. 2246 — Purpose of requisition and acquisition was widening of roads and excavation of borrow pits for improvement of roads for military purposes, specifically for strengthening Howrah-Mourigram Road — Held: No nexus established between the Railway Authorities and the purpose of such requisition/acquisition — Railway Authorities' claim over the remaining 9 decimals not sustainable [Paras 18, 19].

Burden of Proof – Reversal – Perversity – Order of Divisional Engineer (East), South Eastern Railway dated 02.06.2025 proceeded purely on submissions of Railway officials without citing any specific Gazette Notification or document to substantiate claim of acquisition — Burden of proving negative fact of non-acquisition wrongly cast upon the appellant — Held: It is the initial burden and onus of the party asserting acquisition to establish the same — Order vitiated by perversity and based on conjecture [Paras 21, 22, 27].

Writ Court – Jurisdiction – Direction Beyond Scope of Petition – Single Judge directed removal of encroachment over subject-plot even though no such prayer was made either by the appellant or the respondents — Held: Such direction was beyond the charter of the writ court and beyond the scope of the writ petition itself [Para 26].

Impugned Judgment – Cryptic Reasoning – Single Judge's finding that subject-plot was acquired for Railway Authorities under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules held to be perverse — Single Judge did not take note that Section 6 Declaration omitted the subject-plot, that acquisition under Defence of India Rules covered only 2 decimals, and that the purpose of acquisition was road development for defence with no reference to Railways — Reasoning did not advert to the specific materials on which conclusions were drawn [Paras 23, 24, 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment dated 11.09.2025 in WPA No. 12843 of 2025 set aside — Order dated 02.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 5 quashed — All consequential actions pursuant to said judgment and order reversed — Declared that Railway Authorities have no right, title or interest in CS and RS Dag No. 2246 corresponding to LR Dag No. 2278, Mouza–Dulia, PS–Sankrail, District–Howrah — Revenue records to be rectified and appellant's name recorded upon approach to appropriate authorities — No order as to costs.

Railway Accident Compensation – Bona Fide Passenger – Burden of Proof – Section 124-A, Railways Act, 1989 – Appellant claimed compensation for amputation of both legs allegedly sustained when he fell from a passenger train near Red Fort on 20.06.2015 – Occurrence of untoward incident and nature of injuries established from contemporaneous MLC, DD entry No. 20A dated 20.06.2015 at Old Delhi and hospital record – Principal issue whether appellant was a bona fide passenger – Appellant relied on Monthly Season Ticket (MST) No. 11ZQB9P194 issued in the name of "Raju" – However, two other MSTs on record reflected the name "Raj Kumar" – Age recorded in MST (35 years) inconsistent with age in MLC, Aadhaar card, Election Commission identity card (age 38 years/25 years as on 01.01.2012), permanent disability certificate (28 years) and claim application (27 years) – Certificate of local MLA relied upon to establish same identity did not reconcile age discrepancy – Held: Inconsistency in name coupled with mismatch in age and absence of reliable explanation renders linkage between appellant and MST unreliable – Initial burden of establishing bona fide travel not discharged – Claim not sustainable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–10].

Railway Claims – Discrepancy in Documents – Evidentiary Value of Government Records – Government records prepared at first point of contact in the ordinary course carry significant evidentiary value – Where name recorded in MST differed across documents and age reflected therein was inconsistent with multiple official records, plea of incorrect recording at the time of MST issuance without any corroborative material or prior complaint of error cannot be accepted – Explanation of mistaken recording does not inspire confidence in absence of any request for correction to the issuing authority [Para 8].

Condonation of Delay – 922 Days – Beneficial Legislation – Railway Claims Tribunal Act – Liberal Approach – Delay of 922 days condoned taking into account appellant's economically weaker status, financial constraints preventing timely engagement of counsel, and prolonged medical treatment and rehabilitation on account of permanent disability – Railways Act, 1989 and Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 arise out of beneficial and social welfare legislation – Liberal and justice-oriented approach required while considering condonation applications to prevent genuine claims from being defeated on technical grounds [Paras 1–7, CM Appl. 51620/2019].

Decision: Delay of 922 days condoned – Appeal on merits dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 17.02.2017 of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi in OA II(u) No. 195/2015 upheld [Paras 7–10, FAO].

Passport Law – Refusal of Passport – Pendency of Criminal Proceedings at FIR Stage – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – Writ Petitions allowed – Petitioners challenged rejection or indefinite pendency of their passport applications by Passport Authorities on the ground of pending criminal cases – Held: Section 6(2)(f) operates only when a court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and the matter is pending before the criminal court – Where the matter is still under investigation and no charge sheet has been filed, the said provision has no application – Passport Authorities directed to issue, re-issue, or renew passports forthwith [Paras 4, 9, 12].

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 of the Constitution – Fundamental Right – Proportionality – The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right which nourishes the independent and self-determining character of the individual – Liberty in the constitutional scheme is not a gift of the State but its first obligation – Any restraint on freedom of travel must be narrowly confined to what is necessary, proportionate to the object sought, and clearly anchored in law – Procedural safeguards cannot be converted into rigid barriers or allow temporary disabilities to harden into indefinite exclusions – Section 6(2)(f) is a qualified restriction designed to secure presence of an accused, and cannot be treated as an absolute bar to holding a valid passport [Paras 11(3), 11(4), 11(5)].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act – GSR 570(E) – Exemption Mechanism – The Central Government notification GSR No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 stipulates that issue of passport to a person falling within Section 6(2)(f) need not be stalled, provided the person obtains court orders specifying further period of validity or period of travel abroad – Section 22 and GSR 570(E) provide a statutory exemption mechanism which must be given full effect and cannot be ignored by the Passport Authorities [Paras 10, 11(5)].

Conditional Direction – Post-Charge Sheet Compliance – Upon filing of charge sheet in the criminal cases, petitioners are required to obtain necessary orders from the concerned courts regarding the further period of validity of the passport and conditions, if any, relating to travel abroad – In the event petitioners fail to obtain such orders, the Passport Authorities are at liberty to revoke the passports after due notice [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Passport Authorities directed to issue, re-issue, or renew passports of the petitioners – Miscellaneous petitions stand closed – No order as to costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Encroachment Removal – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ petitions filed challenging inaction of CDA authorities in removing unauthorized constructions over Plot Nos. 602 and 606 despite orders under ODA Act, appellate confirmation, and fresh joint measurement on 10.07.2024 finding encroachment – Private opposite parties disputed the character of the land, claiming Plot No. 602 to be a private passage co-owned by them per ROR and Plot No. 606 to be private homestead land – Held: Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing demolition would require determination of disputed questions of fact, which is not permissible in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction [Paras 10, 13].

Civil Court – Pending Suits – Status Quo Order – Civil suits instituted between the parties pending adjudication in C.S. No. 1015 of 2024 and C.S. No. 995 of 2024 before Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Cuttack – Civil Court by order dated 06.01.2025 directed parties to maintain status quo and restrained CDA from acting upon measurement report dated 19.07.2024 – Said restraint order subsisted at the time of disposal – Held: Civil Court having taken cognizance and granted interim protection, the writ court must refrain from issuing conflicting directions [Paras 11, 12].

Measurement Reports – Correctness Disputed – Earlier direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 22558 of 2017 required joint measurement taking into account both existing and non-existing maps – Correctness of measurement reports and compliance with said direction disputed in C.S. No. 995 of 2024 – Such dispute cannot be resolved without appreciation of revenue records, maps and documentary evidence, which lies beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction [Para 12].

Writ of Mandamus – Refusal – Parties Before Civil Court – Well-settled that where disputed questions of fact are involved and parties are already before the Civil Court, the writ court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction – Petitioners at liberty to approach the Civil Court in pending suits seeking appropriate relief – Civil Court to consider the prayer on the basis of materials and evidence placed before it [Para 13].

Decision: Both writ petitions disposed of – No direction issued for removal of alleged encroachment – Petitioners left to seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court in the pending suits.

Criminal Law – Remand – Grounds of Arrest – Section 47 BNSS – Remand Order Quashed – Petitioner had earlier been set at liberty by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P. No. 16200/2025 on the ground that grounds of arrest were not furnished to him – Co-ordinate bench had expressly directed that the prosecution may seek fresh remand only after furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner – Despite non-compliance with this direction, the Sessions Court passed a fresh remand order directing the petitioner to be taken back into custody – Held: The impugned remand order runs contrary to the express order of the co-ordinate bench and is liable to be quashed – Petitioner set at liberty forthwith [Paras 4, 5, 6].

Compliance with Court Orders – Binding Nature of Co-ordinate Bench Directions – The prosecution had admittedly not served the grounds of arrest as directed – The Sessions Court acted in undue haste in remanding the petitioner back to custody without insisting upon compliance with the co-ordinate bench order – Such conduct on the part of the concerned Court amounts to negating a judicial direction and cannot be sustained – Liberty of an accused cannot be curtailed in derogation of a binding High Court order [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned remand order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, quashed – Petitioner directed to be released forthwith subject to compliance with the co-ordinate bench order – Prosecution at liberty to seek fresh remand after furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner – Registry directed to communicate order to the Superintendent

Land Acquisition – Arbitration – Compensation – Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Appeals Dismissed – Lands of respondents at village Deolai acquired for widening of NH-211 – CALA passed first award on 15.07.2017 granting compensation at basic rate of Rs.7,966/- per sq. mtr. with slab deductions for larger extents – Second award dated 28.07.2017 for the same lands set aside by High Court as without jurisdiction – NHAI challenged first award before Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5); Arbitrator dismissed application by award dated 19.01.2024; District Court dismissed Section 34 application on 15.11.2025 – NHAI preferred present appeals contending unfair hearing, non-consideration of documents and arbitral bias – Held: No patent illegality established; awards confirmed; appeals dismissed [Paras 1–6, 32].

Arbitration – Failure to Lead Evidence – Self-Induced Prejudice – NHAI filed arbitration application on 24.01.2022 but failed to file supporting documents along with affidavit in evidence despite multiple last-chance opportunities granted between June and July 2023 – Documents eventually submitted by e-mail on 22.01.2024, two days after award was pronounced on 19.01.2024 – Arbitrator had written to Project Officer noting repeated failures – Held: Failure to place documents on record for two years is attributable to NHAI itself; contention of denial of fair hearing does not appeal to the Court; ground of procedural unfairness rejected [Paras 11–13, 19, 22, 28].

Arbitration – Section 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Scope of Interference – Court entertaining Section 34 application not to act as appellate court or reappreciate evidence – Interference limited to grounds under Section 34, viz. violation of fundamental policy of Indian law, conflict with most basic notions of morality or justice, or patent illegality going to the root of the matter – Erroneous application of law or mere reappreciation of evidence not a ground for interference – Held: No patent illegality on face of award; District Court's order under Section 34 affirmed [Para 30] — Relied upon: PSA Sical Terminals Private Limited v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambaranar Port Trust Tuticorn and Anr., (2023) 15 SCC 781.

Arbitration – Inconsistent Conduct of Party – Estoppel – NHAI alleged fraud and corruption in CALA's determination of compensation for adjacent village Satara where rates of Rs.13,656/-, Rs.16,721/- and Rs.21,397/- per sq. mtr. were awarded, yet NHAI did not challenge those awards and in fact accepted and settled them before the District Court, with claimants waiving only one year's interest – Held: NHAI cannot allege corruption in Satara awards while simultaneously accepting and compromising them; NHAI is blowing hot and cold at the same time; allegation of tainted selection of comparable sale deeds not sustainable [Paras 23–26].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Adequacy of Compensation – Arbitrator found on evidence led by claimants that average of sale deeds showed market value exceeding Rs.12,191/- per sq. mtr., indicating CALA rate of Rs.7,966/- to be less than actual market value – Arbitrator however declined to enhance as claimants had not filed independent counter-claim under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Compensation for adjacent village Satara ranged from Rs.13,656/- to Rs.21,397/- per sq. mtr. – Held: Compensation of Rs.7,966/- per sq. mtr. for village Deolai appears reasonable, if not undervalued, in comparative context; no ground for interference under Section 37 [Paras 20–21, 25–26, 32].

Decision: All 18 Arbitration Appeals dismissed – Arbitral award dated 19.01.2024 and order dated 15.11.2025 of the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confirmed – All pending Civil Applications disposed of.