Criminal Law – Murder – Single Blow – Eyewitness Credibility – FIR Delay – Recovery – Appellant (A2) convicted for murder on the basis of consistent ocular testimony of independent temple witnesses (PWs 8 & 9) corroborated by medical evidence establishing homicidal death from a deep penetrating stab wound – Delay in registration and forwarding of FIR held satisfactorily explained and not fatal – Recovery of knife at appellant’s instance not indispensable in view of strong ocular and medical evidence – Plea to convert conviction to Section 304 Part II rejected; the single stab, aimed at the chest and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, attracts Section 300 “Thirdly” – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 12, 14–23, 24 (FIR delay), 26–28].

Witnesses – Credibility – Independent/Unrelated Eyewitnesses – PWs 8 & 9 were natural witnesses present within temple premises; no suggestion of bias or motive to falsely implicate – Minor discrepancies held natural and not going to the root of the case; testimonies inspire confidence and bear the “ring of truth” [Paras 16–23].

Evidence – FIR – Delay – FIR recorded at 2:34 p.m. on 18.11.2015 and reached Court at 4:20 p.m. the same day; sequence of medical and investigative steps (inquest 11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.) explained – Held, no undue delay undermining prosecution case [Para 24 (FIR delay)].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 (Disclosure) – MO6 knife – Even assuming infirmities in seizure procedure or ownership of premises, conviction sustained on robust ocular and medical evidence; recovery not the sole or essential link in chain [Para 24 (recovery)].

Penal Code – Section 300 “Thirdly” – Single Injury Homicide – Where a single stab is intentionally inflicted on the chest with force, traversing vital organs (heart/aorta/esophagus), and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, offence is murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Prayer to alter conviction to Section 304 Part II declined [Paras 26–28].

Medical Jurisprudence – Autopsy Findings – Penetrating chest wound (left front chest; track piercing costal cartilages, pericardium, right ventricle, left atrium, part of aorta, and esophagus) – Opinion supports homicidal death; weapon MO6 capable of causing described injury [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed; fines and default clause maintained [Para 28; Final Order].

Education Law – D.El.Ed. Eligibility – Government Order – Judicial Review – Prospective Quashing of G.O. – Restored – Learned Single Judge quashed Clause 4(1) of the Government Order dated 09.09.2024 prescribing graduation as minimum eligibility for D.El.Ed. course – Held: State Government empowered under Clause 3.3 of NCTE Regulations, 2014 to frame policy on admissions – Graduation-based eligibility prescribed consistently since 1998 – Not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 – Quashing order unsustainable [Paras 1, 6, 19, 20, 25–27, 32–34]

Training – Interpretation of Rules – Rule 2(q) of 1981 Rules – Eligibility for Training Must Be Read with Graduation Requirement – Challenge Not Raised – “Training” under Rule 2(q) means courses for which only graduates are eligible – Respondents did not challenge Rule 2(q) – Hence, State justified in aligning D.El.Ed. admission eligibility with Service Rules for teacher appointments [Paras 25–27]

NCTE Regulations vs State Policy – Harmonious Construction – State May Prescribe Higher Qualification – NCTE Regulations prescribe higher secondary as minimum eligibility but allow State policies to determine admission process – Held: NCTE norms are minimum standards – State may prescribe higher qualifications, provided they are not lower than NCTE's – Policy prescription of graduation not ultra vires [Paras 17–19, 25]

Administrative Law – Procedural Fairness – Amendment Application Allowed – Decision Rendered Without Granting Time to Respond – State was not granted opportunity to file a counter to amended writ petition – Judgment passed within a week of amendment – Held: Denial of fair opportunity to defend Government Order also vitiates findings of learned Single Judge [Paras 10, 32]

Comparative Courses – D.El.Ed. vs D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Flawed Equivalence – No material to show DIETs conduct D.El.Ed. (Special Education) – Learned Single Judge’s reliance on this distinction misplaced – Conclusion on arbitrariness based on false parity discarded [Paras 7, 11, 32]

Delay Condonation – Special Appeal – Procedural Delays Explained – No Objection by Respondents – Delay Condoned – 50-day delay explained through inter-departmental approvals – Not opposed by respondents – Delay in filing appeal condoned [Paras 1–3]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 24.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 24528 of 2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Clause 4(1) of Government Order dated 09.09.2024 upheld as constitutionally valid.

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

Suo Motu - Education Law – Suicide of Law Student – Alleged Mental Harassment – Attendance Norms – Institutional Responsibility – Court-Initiated Writ Petition – Directions Issued for Mental Health and Legal Education Reform – Held: Criminal proceedings closed due to lack of evidence linking suicide to any direct instigation – However, Court proceeds to address systemic failures in mental health and rigid attendance requirements in legal education – Guidelines issued to Bar Council of India and UGC for reform [Paras 1–13, 144–147, 233–252]

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Suicide – Closure Report – Lack of Proximity – Ld. ACJM accepts cancellation report in FIR No. 153/2017 filed against faculty and administration of Amity Law School, Delhi – Held: No act of instigation, provocation or conspiracy made out – No mens rea established – Student had not attended college in three months preceding the suicide – Detention due to low attendance was in line with university and BCI norms – No legal ground to prosecute faculty or administrators [Paras 11–13, 146–147]

Evidence – Mental Harassment Allegations – Unsubstantiated Claims – Email communication from deceased seeking exemption from debarment cited – Held: Lack of direct communication or threats from faculty – Conversations with friends cited general dissatisfaction but not sufficient to show intention to provoke suicide – Relying on M. Arjunan v. State, mere harsh behaviour insufficient to constitute abetment [Paras 146, 39–41]

Settlement – Out-of-Court Agreement – Amity Law School and deceased’s family enter into settlement – All legal proceedings including protest petition to be withdrawn – Professors removed from array of parties – Institution to remain only for assisting Court on systemic issues – No further claims to be pursued against them [Paras 19–21, 12, 20]

Judicial Review – Scope – Court holds it cannot interfere with criminal court’s acceptance of closure report – However, exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to address larger public interest issues of mental health and attendance in legal education [Paras 147–148]

Mental Health – Student Suicides in Higher Education – Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) – Held: Mental health is part of right to life under Article 21 – Courts cite cases from NIT Jamshedpur, IIT Guwahati, NLU Delhi – Supreme Court decisions in Amit Kumar and Sukdeb Saha underscore institutional responsibility – Institutions act in loco parentis – GRCs to include 50% student representation, not just special invitees – Presence of trained counsellors/therapists mandatory – Weekly, proactive engagement with students emphasized [Paras 149–163, 248]

UGC Regulations – Grievance Redressal Committees – UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 – Held: Current structure insufficient – Student role must be strengthened – Mandate issued to UGC to amend regulations – Institutions to immediately appoint 2–3 student members on GRCs pending amendments [Paras 156–163, 248]

Legal Education – Mandatory Attendance – Rigid Norms Under BCI Rules – Held: Rule 12 of BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008 too inflexible – Penalises students with detention for not meeting 70% attendance without adequate flexibility – Disproportionate and archaic in light of NEP 2020 – Fails to consider internships, moot courts, model parliaments as educational equivalents – NEP and 2003 UGC Regulations emphasize flexibility, blended learning – Court directs BCI to reconsider attendance norms and consult stakeholders [Paras 164–229, 249–250]

Comparative Standards – Attendance in Other Disciplines – Court finds professional courses like medicine/dentistry justify attendance due to practical lab/patient work – However, legal education has multiple dimensions including court visits, moots, field work – Flexibility necessary – Institutions like BITS Pilani show attendance can be voluntary with continuous evaluation [Paras 177–179]

Right to Education – Attendance and Right to Appear in Exams – Held: Barring students from exams for shortage of attendance disproportionate – Institutions to adopt flexible measures – Weekly attendance updates, parental intimation, extra classes, home assignments, internships to compensate shortage – If attendance not met despite measures, student may face grade reduction but not be barred from exams or progression [Paras 215–232, 249]

Data Privacy – Biometric and CCTV Attendance Surveillance – BCI Circular dated 24.09.2024 mandates biometric tracking and CCTV in classrooms – Court finds it invasive – Rejects implementation citing privacy and disproportionate surveillance – Held: Data protection under Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not justify intrusive attendance mechanisms – Circular not to be enforced [Paras 207–209, 249(4)]

Regulatory Oversight – Role of Bar Council of India – BCI retains authority to set standards – But must act in consonance with NEP 2020 and evolving student welfare needs – Court directs BCI to publish city-wise list of advocates and firms offering internships, especially for EWS and differently abled students – Timeline of three months given [Paras 243–244, 249(3)]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed – Criminal case closed based on closure report – Professors removed as parties – Institution to remain for systemic reform – Directions issued to UGC and BCI for reformation of GRCs and attendance norms – Biometric tracking circular of BCI stayed – Institutions directed not to bar students from exams solely on attendance shortfall – Alternative evaluative measures and reforms ordered in line with NEP 2020 [Paras 233–252]

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC for allegedly murdering his wife by strangulation with a saree and shifting the body to another village – Trial Court relied on Ex.P2 (alleged note by deceased), medical opinion and recovery of saree pieces – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Death occurred in matrimonial home but no direct evidence linking accused – Circumstances insufficient to convict [Paras 12, 17, 22, 41]

Evidence Law – Expert Opinion – Dying Declaration – Handwriting of deceased in Ex.P2 (notebook) opined by expert to be genuine – However, discrepancies in name, date, and content – No corroboration from surrounding facts – Held: Opinion of handwriting expert is weak evidence and cannot solely form basis of conviction – Ex.P2 not reliable or admissible as dying declaration – Not put to accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination – Cannot be used against him [Paras 19, 30-33]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden on Accused – Accused’s explanation of bleeding and shifting to hospital found false – But held: Mere false explanation not sufficient – Failure to explain under Section 106 is an additional link, not a substitute for complete chain of evidence – Prosecution must first establish prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18, 22, 25]

Criminal Trial – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Use of Accused's Statement – Accused’s responses under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence – Circumstances not properly put to accused – Held: Violation of procedural safeguards – Statements under Section 313 must be specific and complete – Incriminating material not placed for explanation – Ex.P2 not referred – Violates right to fair defence [Paras 26-27, 33]

Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive of accused wanting to marry another woman not substantiated – No independent witness to cruelty – Family members' testimony lacked corroboration – Held: Motive not proved – In case of circumstantial evidence, motive is key – Its absence weighs in favour of accused [Paras 13, 36-40]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 201 and 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine amount to be refunded – Accused already on bail directed to complete legal formalities [Paras 42-43]

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Maintenance – Income Assessment – Section 125 CrPC – Family Court awarded Rs. 22,000 per month to wife based on net salary of Rs. 90,562 of the petitioner – High Court held award constitutes ~25% of net income, consistent with guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha – Upheld as fair and reasonable [Paras 5, 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Desertion – Petitioner argued wife had deserted him and was unwilling to reconcile – High Court held that unless desertion is adjudicated under Section 9 HMA in pending Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020, maintenance cannot be denied – Allegations of desertion alone not sufficient to bar entitlement [Paras 4, 7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Court reiterated that in exercise of revisional powers, it cannot reappreciate factual findings unless there is patent illegality or material irregularity – No such error found in the trial court’s maintenance order – Revision dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Family Law – Maintenance Claim – Alleged unwillingness to reconcile or prior settlement proceedings cannot negate statutory entitlement to maintenance – Trial court’s findings based on admitted income and legal entitlement upheld [Paras 3, 5, 6].

NDPS – Bail – Commercial Quantity – MDMA 70 gms – FSL positive – Twin conditions – Bail refused – Accused No.3 sought bail under Sec. 483 BNSS/439 CrPC for offences under Secs. 8(c), 21(c) & 22(c) NDPS – Court held seizure of 70 gms MDMA from petitioner established prima facie by mahazar and FSL report – Quantity is commercial – No grounds to believe petitioner not guilty nor that he would not commit offence on bail – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–9].

Delay/Procedure – Sec. 42 & Sec. 57 NDPS – At bail stage – Petitioner’s contentions that the seizing officer did not comply Sec. 57 and that Sec. 42 was not followed held to be matters for trial – Not determinative at bail stage when commercial quantity recovered [Para 8].

Factual Foundation – Arrest & Seizure – Petitioner arrested on 18.12.2024 – 70 gms MDMA and a mobile phone seized – Charge-sheet filed; case fixed for hearing – No criminal antecedents pleaded, but gravity and statutory rigour under Section 37 outweigh plea for bail [Paras 3, 4, 7–8].

Public Interest – Drug offences against society/youngsters – Court notes societal impact and likelihood of re-offending as factors against grant of bail in commercial quantity cases [Para 4].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – Bail refused [Para 9].