Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife by setting her on fire – Trial court’s judgment affirmed – Appeal dismissed based on consistent dying declarations by the deceased to police and magistrates – Court finds no grounds for mitigating the charge under Section 302 IPC despite claims of intoxication [Paras 1-25].

Dying Declarations – Reliability and Consistency – Multiple dying declarations recorded by different authorities – All declarations consistently pointed to the appellant pouring kerosene and setting his wife on fire – Court emphasizes that dying declarations can form the sole basis of conviction if found trustworthy and consistent [Paras 10-17].

Intoxication and Culpability – Appellant’s state of intoxication not a mitigating factor – Section 86 of the Indian Evidence Act applied – Voluntary intoxication does not exonerate the appellant from culpability – Court affirms that the appellant had the intent to cause death [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence as per trial court’s judgment [Paras 24-26].

Seniority – Counting of Service Period – Contractual to Regular Appointment:
Private respondents initially appointed as Junior Engineers (Electrical) on a contractual basis but through the regular recruitment process – Services regularized without interruption – Entitlement to seniority from the date of initial contract appointment – Contractual appointments made following due process under R&P Rules – Distinction between regular and ad-hoc appointments highlighted [Paras 1-29].

Contractual appointment policy seen as exploitative – Appointments followed due process as per R&P Rules, hence regularization must consider initial appointment date – Appellants’ argument that regular employees should not equate with contract-based ones refuted – Judgments in Rashi Mani Mishra and Amit Singh inapplicable due to different contexts [Paras 10-17].
Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment by learned Single Judge upheld – Seniority of private respondents to be counted from initial contract appointment date – Regularization affirmed without interruption [Para 29].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Reversal – Evidence Analysis: Appeal against conviction for assault causing death under Section 304 Part II IPC – Trial court convicted appellant based on testimonies and medical evidence – High Court finds inconsistencies in prosecution evidence and lack of explanation for gaps in medical treatment – Judgment and sentence set aside [Paras 1-22].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Contradictions: Prosecution witnesses presented conflicting testimonies regarding the circumstances of the assault and the sequence of events – Inconsistencies between medical reports and witness statements – High Court emphasizes the need for credible and consistent evidence to uphold a conviction [Paras 9-13, 15-18].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies and Gaps: Discrepancies noted between initial injury reports and autopsy findings – Lack of explanation for the victim’s whereabouts and treatment between hospital admissions – Court finds these gaps critical in raising reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case [Paras 10-11, 16].

Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt: Two possible views on evidence – One pointing to guilt and the other to innocence – High Court applies principle favoring the accused in case of doubt – Appellant given benefit of doubt, resulting in acquittal [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and released from custody if not wanted in any other case [Paras 21-24].

Promissory Note – Execution and Validity – Plaintiff claimed recovery based on a promissory note executed by the defendant – Defendant denied execution and alleged forgery – Trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff – High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the plaintiff’s successful discharge of the burden of proof regarding the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Defendant failed to substantiate the defense of forgery with sufficient evidence [Paras 1-21].

Burden of Proof – Shifting and Rebuttal – Court examined the application of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes the consideration for a promissory note unless disproved – Defendant’s failure to rebut the presumption adequately resulted in the confirmation of the trial court’s findings – Court highlighted the adequacy of plaintiff’s evidence through testimonies of witnesses and the lack of credible contradictory evidence from the defendant [Paras 17-20].

Signature Comparison – Judicial Review – Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, court independently compared disputed signatures with admitted ones – Trial court and appellate court both found signatures to be identical – Court reiterated that judicial comparison of signatures is permissible and affirmed trial court’s decision [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs ordered – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

Speedy Trial – Right to Expeditious Disposal – Petitioner sought directions for the swift resolution of the complaint filed against the respondent for non-repayment of a friendly loan – Emphasized respondent’s attempts to delay proceedings by avoiding court appearances – Court referenced precedents on the right to a speedy trial, affirming it as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 – Directed Trial Court to expedite the complaint proceedings [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Precedents – Right to Speedy Trial – Cited key Supreme Court decisions underscoring the significance of timely judicial processes to prevent undue incarceration and to uphold justice – Highlighted the detrimental impact of delays on the accused’s ability to defend themselves and the prosecution’s case integrity [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Trial Court directed to dispose of the complaint bearing No. COMA-7558-2021 titled “Anish Mehra Vs. Sunil Jha” expeditiously, preferably within one year – Emphasized the obligation of criminal courts to ensure speedy trials as part of the fundamental rights [Paras 8-10].

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition: Petitioner sought discharge in a case involving rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities – Trial Court dismissed the discharge petition – High Court reviewed the material and found no sufficient ground for Section 304(ii) IPC but sufficient for Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Discharge petition partly allowed [Paras 1-14].

Facts and Circumstances – Application of Section 304(ii) IPC: Court held that facts did not warrant charge under Section 304(ii) IPC as the accused’s conduct, though rash and negligent, did not demonstrate the necessary knowledge to constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Case more appropriately falls under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC [Paras 7-13].

Procedure under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – Revision: High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court’s procedure in considering the discharge petition but differed on the applicability of Section 304(ii) IPC – Revision partly allowed, and case directed for trial under appropriate sections [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed in part – Charge under Section 304(ii) IPC set aside – Case remanded for trial under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Directed to be tried by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class [Para 14].

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].
 

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged the decision of the NCDRC upholding compensation for medical negligence – Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – High Court emphasized supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to courts and tribunals within its territorial limits – Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-14].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals situated outside its territorial limits – Reference to L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and subsequent case law confirming jurisdictional limits [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The High Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise decisions of tribunals outside its territorial limits – Reaffirmed need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries [Para 14-15].