Property Law – Rights of Widow – Appellant’s rights in deceased husband’s property ceased upon remarriage – Section 2 of the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 applied – Court held that remarriage caused widow to lose her rights in the deceased husband’s estate – Estate to devolve upon the next heirs of deceased husband [Paras 17-22].

Succession – Possession and Title – Plaintiff’s plea of possession through relationship with widow dismissed – Plaintiff failed to prove possession and title through cogent evidence – Lower appellate court erred in granting decree of injunction based on unsubstantiated relationship and possession claims [Paras 23-25].

Procedural Law – Successors not Impleaded – No successor of deceased husband impleaded in the suit – Injunction suit failed without necessary parties – Mere plea of possession not sufficient for decree without proving title and proper succession [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Original suit dismissed for lack of evidence on possession and title [Paras 26-28].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reliance on Evidence – A1, A2, and A3 were convicted of murder and related offenses. Witnesses PW1 to PW3 initially supported the prosecution but later turned hostile. The FIR’s timing was questioned, and discrepancies were found in the Accident Register. Prosecution’s failure to conclusively establish involvement of A2 and A3 led to their acquittal. A1’s involvement was established, but the nature of the offense was reconsidered under Section 304 (I) IPC due to lack of premeditation and the use of a found object as a weapon [Paras 1-18].

Evidentiary Issues – Hostile Witnesses – Witnesses, initially supporting prosecution, turned hostile upon recall, rendering their testimonies unreliable. FIR timing and entries in the Accident Register raised doubts about the prosecution’s case against A2 and A3, resulting in their acquittal [Paras 9-13].

Mens Rea and Intent – The court re-evaluated A1’s intent, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation and concluding that the single stab wound, inflicted with a found object, did not constitute murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (I) IPC [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Appeal by A2 and A3 (Crl.A.No. 338 of 2019): Allowed; Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.

Appeal by A1 (Crl.A.No. 329 of 2019): Partly allowed; Conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 (I) IPC with a reduced sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- [Paras 18-19].

Senior Citizen Law – Voidance of Gift Deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – High Court quashes order of the Assistant Commissioner dismissing the mother’s petition – The Court held that the absence of a clause in the Gift Deed obligating the donee (son) to take care of the donor’s (mother’s) basic needs does not preclude the application of Section 23 of the Act. The petition was maintainable, and the son’s failure to provide for his aged mother, despite her having gifted him the property, warranted declaring the Gift Deed void [Paras 1-19].

Legal Principles – Interpretation of Section 23 of the Act – The Court rejected the argument that the donor must have been a senior citizen at the time of executing the Gift Deed for Section 23 to apply. The focus is on the donor’s status as a senior citizen at the time of filing the petition, not at the time of the property’s transfer. The Court emphasized that the Act aims to ensure the welfare of senior citizens, regardless of the specific terms of the Gift Deed [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Allowance of Writ Petition – Held – The Writ Petition was allowed, the Gift Deed declared void, and the son was directed to return the gifted property to his mother within sixty days. The Court upheld the legislative intent to protect senior citizens’ welfare, ensuring that adult children fulfill their obligations to their elderly parents [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Disproportionate Assets – Charge Framing – Petitioners challenged the framing of charges by the trial court alleging disproportionate assets – Original closure report indicated no disproportionate assets – Subsequent investigation reopened after four years – Charges framed for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income – Petitioners argued suppression of relevant income evidence by prosecution – High Court found trial court erred in not considering complete investigation period – Charge sheet framed ignoring substantial income during relevant period, leading to wrongfully framed charges [Paras 1-24].

Investigation Procedures – Supplementary Reports – High Court emphasized the need for trial courts to consider primary and supplementary investigation reports conjointly – Ignoring critical income evidence resulted in unjust framing of charges – Upheld principles from Supreme Court precedents mandating full assessment of all investigative findings before forming charges [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Held – Order by XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases set aside – Charges against petitioners discharged – Directed trial court to adhere to proper procedure by considering complete investigation data before framing charges [Paras 28-29].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Gangsters Act – Appellant convicted under Section 3(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act – Trial court sentenced appellant to four years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine – Prosecution’s evidence primarily based on a single FIR and witness testimonies – High Court examines procedural lapses, evidence admissibility, and credibility of witnesses [Paras 1-88]. 

Evidence Act – Hostile Witnesses and Corroborative Evidence – Court scrutinizes the testimony of key witnesses, including hostile witnesses – Emphasis on corroborative evidence linking appellant to the gang activities – Court addresses the legal standards for invoking Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act [Paras 62-70, 57-61]. 

Acquittal in Base Case and Impact on Gangsters Act Conviction – Appellant previously acquitted in a related murder case – Appellant’s acquittal used to challenge the Gangsters Act conviction – Court discusses the implications of acquittal on subsequent convictions under the Gangsters Act [Paras 34-48]. 

Procedural Lapses in Gangsters Act Application – Examination of procedural requirements under the Gangsters Act – Collector’s mechanical approval without proper enquiry – Importance of reasoned decisions by authorities highlighted [Paras 75-82]. 

Decision – Appeals partially allowed – Conviction under Gangsters Act set aside due to procedural deficiencies and lack of sufficient evidence – Appellant acquitted of charges under the Gangsters Act – High Court emphasizes need for proper procedural adherence and reliable evidence in such convictions [Para 14-15]. 

Public Interest Litigation – Welfare of Senior Citizens – Petition initiated suo motu based on a letter highlighting the issues faced by senior widows and widowers. The court examined the detailed counter affidavit filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, outlining the management and implementation of pension schemes and financial assistance programs for widows, widowers, and senior citizens. Court concluded no further orders necessary and closed the petition [Paras 1-4].

Financial Assistance Schemes – Delhi Government – Two departments, namely the Department of Women and Child Development and the Department of Social Welfare, are responsible for the administration of these schemes. The schemes provide financial aid to widows, women in distress, and senior citizens residing in Delhi, ensuring social security and financial assistance [Paras 2-3].

Financial Aid to Widows and Women in Distress – The Department of Women and Child Development oversees the Delhi Pension Scheme to Women in Distress, offering Rs. 2500 per month, and the Financial Assistance for Marriage of Daughters of Poor Widows and Orphan Girls, providing Rs. 30,000 for marriage expenses [Para 3].

Senior Citizens’ Welfare – The Department of Social Welfare manages the Old Age Assistance scheme, providing financial aid to elderly residents of Delhi, ensuring a monthly pension for eligible senior citizens based on specific criteria [Para 3].

Decision:

Petition closed – No further orders required – Court acknowledged the detailed steps taken by the GNCTD for the welfare of widows, widowers, and senior citizens [Para 4].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for offences under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act – Contention that petitioner was not directly involved in the contravention, merely being the owner of a drug license and a medicine shop – Alleged procedural lapses in seizure and inventory preparation – Prosecution's reliance on co-accused's statements inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Supreme Court precedent in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu applied – Court held that mobile call records and other prima facie evidence justified continuation of proceedings [Paras 1-29].

Evidence Law – Admissibility – Co-accused Statements – Statements made by co-accused to customs officers deemed inadmissible as confessions under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – However, such statements can be corroborative – Court upheld the prima facie establishment of conspiracy through call records and corroborative evidence [Paras 24-25].

Procedure – Seizure and Inventory – NDPS Act Compliance – Allegations of procedural non-compliance in seizure and inventory under Section 52 of the NDPS Act – Court observed such procedural issues to be decided during trial – Emphasized that prima facie evidence warranted trial [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

Criminal revision petition dismissed – Prima facie material sufficient to proceed with trial – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 29-31].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Procedural Compliance – Appeal against conviction for possession of contraband (charas) – Appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fined rupees one lakh – High Court found non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act – Samples not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate – Prosecution failed to establish primary evidence as required by law – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-22].

Facts of the Case – On 09.12.2006, a police team, while on patrol duty, apprehended the appellant who attempted to flee upon seeing the police – Personal search revealed 2kgs of charas – Independent witnesses, PW-5 and PW-6, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case – The police officials’ testimonies were consistent but did not meet the statutory requirement of sampling in the presence of a Magistrate [Paras 2-12].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Independent witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution’s version of events – Police officials’ testimonies were insufficient to uphold the conviction in absence of compliance with Section 52A – Hostility of witnesses impacted the evidentiary value of the seizure and recovery process [Paras 9-12].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Importance of Magistrate’s Presence – Supreme Court precedents emphasized the need for Magistrate’s presence during the sampling of seized contraband – Failure to follow this procedure creates doubt about the integrity of the evidence – Prosecution’s non-compliance with Section 52A led to the inadmissibility of the CFSL report as primary evidence [Paras 15-21].

Legal Precedents – Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Mohan Lal, Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Yusuf v. State, Bothilal v. Narcotic Control Bureau, and Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana were cited to highlight the necessity of following the procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act for a valid conviction [Paras 16-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Release warrants to be prepared immediately [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction: The appellant was convicted of rape and penetrative sexual assault of his minor cousin, resulting in pregnancy. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 376 IPC and 7 years under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction due to serious doubts about the prosecution’s story, unexplained delay in FIR, and conflicting evidence regarding the biological father of the victim’s child [Paras 1-38].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Delay in FIR: The victim’s testimony was scrutinized for inconsistencies and unexplained delay in reporting the incident. The court emphasized the need for the victim’s testimony to be of high quality and consistent to be accepted without corroboration. The nine-month delay in lodging the FIR raised suspicions of fabrication, particularly given the strained relations between the victim’s and appellant’s families [Paras 13-16, 24-27].

DNA Evidence: DNA profiling revealed that the appellant’s younger brother, not the appellant, was the biological father of the victim’s child. This crucial evidence undermined the prosecution’s case and supported the appellant’s claim of innocence [Paras 22, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith, with directions for the preparation of a release warrant and provision for personal bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 38-39].