Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Appellant convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl – Conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act by the trial court – High Court partially upholds and partially overturns the conviction – Insufficient evidence for Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 1-34].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Victim’s Statement – Victim declared hostile, denied sexual assault – Medical evidence and recovery of items questioned due to procedural lapses and lack of corroboration – High Court notes the importance of consistency in witness testimony and procedural correctness [Paras 19-24].

Forensic Evidence – DNA and Medical Examination – Issues with sample collection and preservation – Prosecution failed to prove chain of custody for forensic samples – High Court rules that forensic evidence was unreliable due to procedural gaps [Paras 25-29].

Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Despite victim’s hostile testimony, sufficient evidence to convict under Section 363 IPC – Appellant’s actions constituted kidnapping from lawful guardianship [Para 33].

Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – Convictions Overturned – Lack of evidence to prove intent to marry or sexual intercourse – High Court sets aside these convictions [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 363 IPC upheld, sentences under Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant to be released as period of sentence already undergone [Paras 34-36].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience: Temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs on the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial court found that the plaintiffs, having purchased the property and the petrol pump through a registered sale deed, were in possession of the same and the injunction was necessary to prevent interference by the defendant-appellant [Paras 1-10].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Urgent Interim Relief Exception: Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, mandating pre-institution mediation, is not applicable when urgent interim relief is sought. The court held that the urgency of preventing interference in the operation of the petrol pump justified bypassing mediation [Paras 10-12].

Remedy Against Ex-Parte Injunction – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC: The court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the defendant-appellant against an ex-parte injunction is to file an application under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC to vacate or vary the injunction. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a statutory remedy was available and had not been exhausted [Paras 11-13].

Decision: First appeal from order dismissed. Defendant-appellant directed to seek relief by applying to the trial court under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC [Para 13].

Land Acquisition – Review of Orders – Possession and Compensation – Review applicants, Union of India and Defence Estate Officer, sought review of orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, directing compensation to Terai Tea Company under the Act of 2013 – Review sought on grounds of not being parties to the original proceedings and adverse effect on their rights due to State Government’s concession – Held, Terai Tea had no right, title, or interest in the subject land as possession was taken by the Defence Estate in 1972 – Renewal of lease by State Government in 1976 was invalid as Terai Tea was not in possession – Orders under review recalled [Paras 1-50]. 

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Non-party Review Applicants – Supreme Court precedents allow review by non-parties if adversely affected – Error in the original orders recognized, as State Government’s concession was beyond its delegation authority – Principles of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC applied, allowing review due to mistake of fact and law [Paras 35-51]. 

Decision: Review allowed – Orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, recalled – State Government’s direction to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 set aside – Review application and connected applications disposed of without costs [Paras 50-51]. 

Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, terminated without enquiry due to ACB case pendency – Court held termination illegal post-acquittal in criminal case, emphasizing principle of “innocent until proven guilty” – Mere pendency of criminal proceedings insufficient for termination without due enquiry [Paras 1-18]. 

Disciplinary Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry violated natural justice – Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and service benefits – Highlighted need for fair disciplinary proceedings [Paras 13-18]. 

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned termination proceedings set aside – Petitioner to be reinstated with 50% back wages and all service benefits to be computed and paid within four weeks [Paras 17-18]. 

Compassionate Appointment – Criteria and Application – Petitioners challenged the denial of compassionate appointment to Pradip Kumar Pandit despite multiple directives for reconsideration from the learned Tribunal. The respondents repeatedly rejected the application based on the inapplicability of educational qualifications and procedural grounds. The court affirmed that the compassionate appointment is discretionary and must be justified by the unique circumstances of each case, including the need of the family, financial status, and timing of the application.

Service Jurisprudence – Equality and Non-Discrimination – Petitioners argued for similar treatment as other non-matric candidates who received appointments subject to acquiring qualifications later. The court held that such relaxation depends on individual merits and specific case circumstances, denying automatic entitlement based on other cases.

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – The court emphasized the narrow scope of judicial review in administrative decisions on compassionate appointments, focusing on errors of law or significant injustice. It found no patent errors or substantial failure of justice in the respondents’ decision.

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – The court upheld the respondents’ decision to deny Pradip Kumar Pandit’s application for compassionate appointment, finding no merit in the claims of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment. The Tribunal’s and respondents’ orders were found consistent with the legal framework and discretionary powers.
 

Land Acquisition – Review of Orders – Possession and Compensation – Review applicants, Union of India and Defence Estate Officer, sought review of orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, directing compensation to Terai Tea Company under the Act of 2013 – Review sought on grounds of not being parties to the original proceedings and adverse effect on their rights due to State Government’s concession – Held, Terai Tea had no right, title, or interest in the subject land as possession was taken by the Defence Estate in 1972 – Renewal of lease by State Government in 1976 was invalid as Terai Tea was not in possession – Orders under review recalled [Paras 1-50].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Non-party Review Applicants – Supreme Court precedents allow review by non-parties if adversely affected – Error in the original orders recognized, as State Government’s concession was beyond its delegation authority – Principles of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC applied, allowing review due to mistake of fact and law [Paras 35-51].

Decision: Review allowed – Orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, recalled – State Government’s direction to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 set aside – Review application and connected applications disposed of without costs [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Petition for quashing FIR for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner accused of harassing and blackmailing the deceased, leading to his suicide. Suicide note recovered implicating the petitioner. Held, mere demand for repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment, but combined with harassment, blackmail, and threats, it can compel a person to commit suicide [Paras 1-28].

Legal Principles – Quashing FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized the parameters for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. Held, FIR and accompanying material must disclose a cognizable offence. Truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence not to be assessed at this stage [Paras 10-29].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court. Observations made confined to the disposal of the petition without bearing on the merits of the case [Paras 30-32].

Lok Adalat Awards – Legitimacy of Settlements – The RSRTC challenged the National Lok Adalat awards on the grounds that the counsel who signed the settlements was unauthorized. The court held that the awards, passed under the RSRTC's policy allowing reinstatement without back wages, were valid and binding. It emphasized that Lok Adalat awards have the same finality as a civil court decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. RSRTC's plea to invalidate the awards on technical grounds was rejected [Paras 1-25].

Estoppel Against RSRTC – The court noted that RSRTC's actions, including not challenging the panel counsel who signed the settlement and continuing to entrust him with further briefs, amounted to estoppel. RSRTC cannot disown the consent given before the Lok Adalat and must adhere to the settlement [Paras 12-15].

Finality and Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – The awards passed by the Lok Adalat are final and binding as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court reinforced that such awards should not be overturned on technicalities unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are evident [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The writ petitions filed by RSRTC against the National Lok Adalat awards were dismissed. The petitions by workmen for the implementation of the awards were allowed, with the court directing RSRTC to implement the awards within three months, failing which the workmen would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 each [Paras 23-26].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].