Negligence – Electrocution Injury – Damages – Minor plaintiff electrocuted due to contact with live wire while checking water tank at neighbor's request – Plaintiff sustained burns, lost three toes – Trial court awarded Rs. 35,000 in damages – High Court affirmed the award, rejecting appellant’s contentions of procedural non-compliance and alternate injury causation – No permanent disability proven [Paras 1-18].

Evidence – Electric Burn Injuries – Photographic Proof – Plaintiff relied on photographs (Exs. A2-A6) and hospital records (Ex. A8) to substantiate injuries – Court accepted the evidence despite absence of timely accident notice to electricity board – Appellant failed to prove house construction violations or alternate injury cause [Paras 9-12].

Appellate Review – Upholding Trial Court Judgment – No substantial grounds for interference with trial court’s judgment – Damages awarded justified based on available evidence – No cross-appeal for higher compensation by plaintiff [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree upheld – Damages of Rs. 35,000 awarded to the plaintiff confirmed [Para 18].

Civil Procedure – Striking Off Defence – Appellants’ defense struck off for breaching court undertaking – Alleged breach involved executing an agreement to sell part of the disputed property – Agreement included transferring possession to third party – Appellants argued mere execution of agreement does not constitute sale, transfer, or alienation – Court found agreement did not create interest or charge on the property as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Order of striking off defense set aside, suit to be decided on merits [Paras 1-35].

Agreement to Sell – Interpretation – Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act clarifies that agreement to sell does not create interest in or charge on property – Court emphasized agreement alone does not equate to sale or transfer – Notarized original agreement lacked additional handwritten contents alleging part payment and possession transfer – Trial court’s reliance on contested handwritten contents deemed erroneous [Paras 18-34].

Order XXXIX Rule 11 CPC – Applicability – Provision allows striking off defense for willful disobedience of court orders – Court noted provision is directory, not mandatory – Each case to be judged on its facts – Striking off defense in absence of conclusive evidence deemed harsh [Paras 30-35].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of striking off defense quashed – Suit remanded to trial court for decision on merits – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 35].

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Rape Allegations: Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The petitioner allegedly committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix under the false promise of marriage. The trial court denied bail, and the petitioner approached the High Court.

Prima Facie Evidence – Consent and Misconception: The court observed that the prosecutrix was in a long-standing relationship with the petitioner and had engaged in consensual intercourse on multiple occasions. The prosecutrix’s subsequent resumption of the relationship cast doubt on her claim that her consent was obtained under a misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage.

Grant of Bail – Factors Considered: The court considered the nature of the accusation, the petitioner’s young age, and the prosecutrix’s conduct. The petitioner had been in custody for over a year, and the chargesheet was already filed. The court found a prima facie case for granting bail.

Decision: Bail granted subject to conditions, including furnishing a bail bond, appearing before the trial court on each hearing, not tampering with witnesses, and not leaving the territorial limits without permission.

Impleadment of Additional Defendants – Criteria – Plaintiff's failure to substantiate claims of proposed defendants' rights over the property – Mere information without supporting evidence insufficient – Impleadment application rightly dismissed by Munsiff's Court [Paras 2-4].

Removal of Advocate Commissioner – Grounds – Plaintiff’s objections regarding Commissioner's conduct during property measurement found to be trivial – Proper procedure for land measurement highlighted – Trial court's rejection of removal application upheld [Paras 5-6].

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – High Court's supervisory role not to re-appreciate evidence or correct all errors – Intervention warranted only in cases of serious dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law – Orders of Munsiff's Court found to be within jurisdiction and free from patent illegality [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Munsiff's Court upheld – Emphasis on due process and proper legal procedure in land measurement and boundary fixation disputes.

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].

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].

Bail – Grounds for Granting – Petitioner, a 22-year-old female student, sought bail after being in judicial custody for over seven months – Alleged involvement in a conspiracy with parents to kidnap a minor child for ransom – Prosecution claimed petitioner was the mastermind, but evidence primarily implicated parents – Supreme Court precedents emphasize bail as rule, detention as exception, especially for women – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-18].

Conspiracy and Kidnapping – Allegations of financial crisis leading to kidnapping for ransom – Prosecution's claim of petitioner's role as key planner – Evidence includes notebook with detailed plan, CCTV footage, and victim's statement – Court noted petitioner's educational pursuits and lack of criminal antecedents as factors favoring bail [Paras 2-10].

Judicial Principles – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on bail principles, particularly for women – Cited cases emphasizing presumption of innocence, right to speedy trial, and balancing societal impact – Court followed guidelines to ensure fair application of law [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail with conditions including regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, prohibition from entering Kollam District, and surrender of passport – Bail granted considering petitioner's age, educational status, and absence of prior criminal record [Paras 16-19].

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 – 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].