Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sudden Quarrel – Conversion of Conviction – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for causing death by assault with agricultural implement (kudal) – Incident arose suddenly during dispute over cutting of drainage mound between adjoining fields – No premeditation or prior enmity proved – Held: Case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable and liable to be converted to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 29–31, 41].

Evidence Appreciation – Prompt FIR – Credibility of Eye-Witnesses – FIR lodged within one and a half hours of incident – Explanation for delay satisfactory – Testimonies of P.W.1 (complainant), P.W.2 (father of deceased) and independent witness P.W.4 found consistent and reliable – Presence of witnesses natural and corroborated by site plan, inquest and recovery memos – Conviction cannot be discarded merely because some witnesses were related [Paras 16–19, 27].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Nature of Injuries – Post-mortem revealed multiple head injuries caused by blunt weapon – Doctor opined injuries sufficient to cause death due to shock and haemorrhage – Medical evidence corroborated ocular version – Minor discrepancy regarding use of blunt side of kudal immaterial – FIR not expected to be an encyclopedia [Paras 20–25].

Weapon Recovery – Forensic Evidence – Blood-stained kudal and handle recovered from spot – Human blood detected on seized articles – Recovery proved by Investigating Officer and witnesses – Recovery lends assurance to prosecution case [Paras 23–25].

Motive – Role in Criminal Trial – Though motive not conclusively proved – Held: Absence of proof of motive not fatal where direct and reliable ocular evidence establishes commission of offence – Motive only provides additional corroboration [Paras 37].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Heat of Passion – Sudden Fight – Quarrel occurred on the spur of moment over boundary issue while both parties were working in fields – Assault committed in heat of passion without undue advantage or cruelty – Held: Offence covered under Exception 4 – At best knowledge of likelihood of death attributable, not intention to kill [Paras 29–33, 41].

Sentence – Long Passage of Time – Period Already Undergone – Incident occurred about 26 years prior – Appellants on bail for long duration without misuse of liberty – Held: Ends of justice met by sentencing appellants to period already undergone with substantial fine – No purpose served by re-incarceration [Paras 42–43].

Compensation – Victim’s Family – Out of fine imposed, Rs.1,00,000 directed to be paid to legal heirs of deceased as victim compensation [Para 44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants convicted under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone with fine of Rs.50,000/- each – Default sentence of one year RI – Conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated qua deceased appellant – Directions issued for compliance [Paras 43–46].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of conviction by Trial Court and Appellate Court – Revisional Court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, grossly erroneous or based on no evidence – Held: No jurisdictional error or perversity shown warranting interference [Paras 11–16].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Debt – Sections 118(a) and 139 – Accused admitted issuance of cheque and signature – Statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable debt arises – Burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption by leading evidence – Mere denial in Section 313 CrPC statement insufficient – Held: Presumption not rebutted [Paras 18–21, 27–28].

Cheque Issued as Security – Liability under Section 138 – Even cheque issued as security attracts Section 138 if liability existed on date of presentation – Accused failed to prove prior discharge of liability – Held: Defence of “security cheque” not tenable [Paras 23–26].

Evidence – Defence of Lottery Business – Accused alleged cheque issued towards lottery dues – Complainant denied running lottery business – No defence evidence led by accused – Cross-examination and suggestions do not constitute proof – Held: Defence improbable and unsubstantiated [Paras 22, 27].

Notice under Section 138 – Validity – Demand of Cheque Amount – Notice mentioned total outstanding amount and specifically demanded cheque amount of ₹90,000/- with separate notice charges – Held: Notice valid and in compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 – Mention of transaction background does not invalidate notice [Paras 41–42].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Proof – Complainant not required to initially prove financial capacity unless specifically challenged – No reply to notice disputing capacity and no cross-examination on aspect – Held: Objection unsustainable [Paras 33–34].

Dishonour of Cheque – Proof – Bank return memo showing “funds insufficient” – Presumption under Section 146 NI Act – No rebuttal evidence by accused – Held: Dishonour duly proved [Paras 36–37].

Sentence and Compensation – Quantum – Sentence of one year simple imprisonment and compensation of ₹1,36,000/- (including interest @6% p.a.) – In line with deterrent object of Section 138 and Supreme Court guidelines – Held: Sentence and compensation not excessive [Paras 44–47].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court affirmed.

Civil Law – Written Statement – Signature Requirement – Right to Lead Evidence – Trial court denied defendant no.2 permission to lead evidence holding that written statement was unsigned – High Court noted that written statement was signed by defendant no.1 and accepted as written statement on behalf of all defendants by Original Side of High Court – Replication also treated it as written statement of all defendants – Held: Technical objection regarding signature could not defeat substantive right to lead evidence, especially when written statement stood accepted on record [Paras 1–4].

Evidence – Defendant’s Right – Examination of Witness – Petitioners sought permission to examine one witness on behalf of defendant no.2 – Respondent fairly did not oppose setting aside of impugned order – Held: Defendant no.2 entitled to examine one witness subject to trial court schedule and convenience [Paras 4–5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Procedural Orders – Impugned order found to be hyper-technical and causing miscarriage of justice – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the order and issued directions for expeditious disposal of suit [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Impugned order dated 10.03.2025 set aside – Defendant no.2 permitted to examine one witness – Trial court directed to record evidence on scheduled date or fix fresh date as per convenience – Trial court requested to dispose of suit expeditiously – Petition and applications disposed of by consent of parties.

Judicial Review – Tender Matters – Disputed Questions of Fact – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petitioner sought cancellation of tender and award in his favour alleging higher revised bid and violation of tender conditions – Rival parties produced mutually contradictory documents regarding the amount of revised bid submitted – Held: Where adjudication requires examination of disputed and contested facts and authenticity of documents, High Court would not exercise writ jurisdiction – Parties relegated to civil remedies [Paras 11–14].

Tender Process – Financial Bid – Alleged Non-Consideration of Revised Bid – Petitioner claimed submission of revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- whereas tendering authority asserted last valid revised bid was Rs. 11,00,000/- – Both sides relied upon separate acknowledgments and bid documents – Court held that determination of which document was genuine required leading of evidence – Such controversy not amenable to adjudication under Article 226 [Paras 12–13].

Tender Conditions – Clause 6.3 of RFP – Mandatory Notice of 7 Days for Opening of Financial Bids – Admitted infraction by tendering authority – Effect of Violation – Held: Mere violation of tender condition does not ipso facto vitiate tender process unless serious prejudice is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to establish prejudice caused due to non-issuance of notice, especially in light of disputed facts regarding presence of petitioner’s representative and bid amount – No ground for annulment of tender or grant of contract [Paras 15–18].

Natural Justice – Prejudice – Requirement of Proof – Even where procedural lapse is admitted, Court must be satisfied that such lapse resulted in real and demonstrable prejudice to the complaining party – In absence of clear proof of prejudice, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to be exercised [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No interference with tender process or award in favour of successful bidder – Liberty implicit to petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Acquittal Appeal – Kidnapping and Outraging Modesty – Respondents acquitted of offences under Sections 366-A, 342, 344, 368, 354, 420, 379 r/w 109 IPC – Prosecution case based primarily on victim’s testimony that she was enticed by A1 and wrongfully confined across various locations for over ten days, forcibly drugged and threatened to marry – Allegations uncorroborated by any independent witness – Babu Rao, in whose house she was allegedly confined, not examined – No medical evidence or recovery of stolen property – Alleged confinement in populous areas without alerting others raises serious doubts – Held: Victim’s version lacked credibility and was riddled with improbabilities – Findings of acquittal by trial court based on thorough appreciation of evidence and cannot be termed perverse [Paras 13–27, 33–39].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – High Court reiterates settled principles that acquittal can be reversed only if findings are perverse or manifestly illegal – Held: Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and exercised caution in light of presumption of innocence – No compelling reasons shown to justify appellate interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10–12, 34–37].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – FIR filed 22 days after incident despite alleged abduction and theft – No satisfactory explanation offered by complainants – Trial Court held delay unreasonable and suspicious – Held: Unexplained delay in FIR adversely affects prosecution credibility [Paras 28–32].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Burden lies entirely on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – In absence of independent corroboration, inconsistencies and delay fatal to prosecution – Reaffirmed that if two views are possible, appellate court must lean in favour of acquittal [Paras 35–38].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 08.01.2002 by Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali in Sessions Case No. 942 of 2000 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in trial court's findings – Miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of [Paras 39–40].

Criminal Law – Rape/Aggravated Sexual Assault – Section 376 IPC, Section 4/6 POCSO Act – Conviction Sustained in Part – The victim's initial statement (fard beyan) implicated only Bijali Yadav for penetrative sexual assault, while her subsequent Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement implicated all three appellants for gang penetrative sexual assault – The Court found the charge of penetrative sexual assault established beyond doubt against Bijali Yadav based on consistent victim testimony and medical evidence – However, due to discrepancies in the initial statement regarding the involvement of Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah in penetrative sexual assault, they were acquitted of charges under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(g) IPC – The principle of "falus in uno, falus in omnibus" is not applicable in criminal cases, requiring the court to sift grain from chaff – Solitary evidence of the prosecutrix, if trustworthy and inspiring confidence, can be sufficient for conviction, especially when corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Medical examination confirmed hymen rupture, blood oozing, and injuries consistent with aggravated sexual assault – The victim's identification of the accused, who were residents of the same village, was deemed reliable despite the Investigating Officer not seizing the torchlight used for identification – The prosecution's failure to produce FSL report for seized apparels and mobile phone did not negate the victim's credible testimony – Bijali Yadav convicted under Section 4 POCSO Act [Paras 31, 39, 40, 49, 51, 52, 54, 67].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307/34 IPC – Conviction Sustained – When the victim disclosed identifying the appellants, they physically assaulted her on her face, chest, and abdomen, twisting her neck, with the intention to kill her to prevent identification – Medical evidence corroborated these injuries, including swelling, hemorrhage, abrasion, and scratch marks on the neck – This established the appellants' common intention to commit murder – All three appellants, Bijali Yadav, Chhedan Yadav, and Rajo Sah, were rightly convicted under Section 307/34 IPC [Paras 61, 62, 67].

Criminal Law – Minor Offences – Section 341 IPC, Section 323 IPC – Acquittal – Given the convictions and sentences under Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 307/34 IPC, the Court declined to pass separate orders of punishment for the offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC – All accused persons were acquitted of charges under Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC [Paras 65, 67].

Sentence – Section 4 POCSO Act, Section 307/34 IPC – Sentence Modified – The Trial Court's sentence was reversed – Bijali Yadav was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default, one year further imprisonment) for the offence under Section 4 POCSO Act – Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah, along with Bijali Yadav, were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each (in default, six months further imprisonment) for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC – The Court considered that this was the appellants' first offence and they were young men from a remote village, thus deserving minimum punishment [Paras 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Sentence modified – Chhedan Yadav and Rajo Sah acquitted of charges under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(g) IPC, and Sections 341 and 323/34 IPC – Bijali Yadav convicted under Section 4 POCSO Act – All three appellants convicted under Section 307/34 IPC [Paras 67, 68].

Public Gambling Act – Section 13 – Cognizable or Non-Cognizable Offence – FIR registered alleging applicant and co-accused found gambling in public place – Charge-sheet filed under Section 13 – Applicant sought quashing contending offence is non-cognizable and investigation barred under Section 155(2) CrPC – Held: Section 13 expressly authorises police officer to apprehend without warrant – Hence offence squarely falls within definition of “cognizable offence” under Section 2(c) CrPC – Police competent to register FIR, investigate and submit charge-sheet [Paras 2–3, 9–10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 155(2) CrPC – Applicability – Prior permission of Magistrate required only for non-cognizable offences – Since Section 13 of Gambling Act is cognizable, embargo under Section 155(2) CrPC not attracted – Investigation not vitiated [Paras 9–10].

Distinction between Sections 3/4 and Section 13 of Gambling Act – Coordinate Bench decisions quashing proceedings under Sections 3/4 relied upon by applicant – Held: Said judgments inapplicable as they relate to non-cognizable offences under Sections 3/4 – Present case concerns Section 13 which stands on different statutory footing – No parity on facts or law [Paras 6–7, 11].

Cognizance on Police Report – Magistrate’s Power – Cognizance taken on charge-sheet under Section 13 upheld – No illegality or irregularity found in summoning order dated 24.02.2020 [Paras 6, 11].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope – No abuse of process or miscarriage of justice demonstrated – Mere plea of non-cognizability untenable – Quashing refused [Paras 11–12].

Expeditious Trial – Minor Offence – Considering limited punishment prescribed under Section 13 as amended in Uttar Pradesh – Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously, preferably within three months [Para 14].

Decision: Application dismissed – FIR, charge-sheet dated 21.12.2019 and summoning order dated 24.02.2020 sustained – Trial court directed to conclude trial expeditiously.

Custodial Violence – Suo Motu PIL on letter alleging illegal arrest and torture – Prima facie inference of custodial beating supported by contemporaneous complaints, photographs and Magistrate’s injury observations – State directed to pay interim compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with recovery from erring officials – Inquiry ordered against medical officer issuing “fit for custody” certificate despite serious injuries – Non-installation of CCTV in police station held as blatant non-compliance of Supreme Court directions [Paras 2-3, 6, 8-9, 26-33].

Public Interest Litigation – Suo Motu Cognizance by High Court – Letter by victim’s wife alleging illegal arrest, torture and threats treated as PIL – Notice issued – SP directed to appear with records and CCTV DVR footage [Paras 2].

Police Accountability – Production of CCTV Footage – Police claim CCTV not installed at concerned police station – Court records the statement and notes systemic human rights concern – DGP interacted and expected to take corrective steps given recurring instances within 48 hours [Paras 3].

Custodial Torture – Prima Facie Assessment – State version that injuries caused in clash with villagers not accepted prima facie – Court relies on detailed complaint addressed to President of India, repeated complaints to authorities, and photographs indicating injuries consistent with custody violence – Held: case prima facie of custodial torture/beating [Paras 6, 8-9].

Arrest/Detention – Medical Treatment Duty – Primary investigation report noted injured accused should have been sent for treatment immediately but were not – Delay/omission treated as gross negligence and unprofessional conduct – Officer-in-charge suspended based on inquiry material [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Scrutiny of Injuries – Magistrate’s Observations Prevail Over Police Certificate – ACGM, Chandil recorded multiple injuries including fracture of both legs and sought explanation from Officer-in-Charge – Court notes mismatch between Magistrate’s observations and hospital certificate describing only bruises and declaring “fit for custody” – Held: certificate appears “managed” – medical officer cannot be exonerated [Paras 26-27].

Medical Negligence/Complicity – Departmental Inquiry Directed – Director, Health Services ordered to hold inquiry into issuance of medical certificate showing minor bruises and fitness for custody despite serious injuries including fractures – Report to be submitted before next hearing [Paras 27, 35-36].

Human Rights – Constitutional Safeguards – Court reiterates Article 21/22 protections and condemns any custodial violence regardless of duration or degree – Relies on Supreme Court jurisprudence including D.K. Basu guidelines and principles against third-degree methods – Emphasizes transparency and accountability in arrests and detention [Paras 14-17, 24-25].

CCTV Cameras in Police Stations – Binding Supreme Court Directions – Failure to install CCTV and inability to produce footage criticized – Court holds State has blatantly violated and flouted Supreme Court directions (Shafhi Mohammad / Paramvir Singh Saini line) and cannot justify absence of footage – Time sought by State till 31.12.2025 noted in other proceedings [Para 30].

Compensation – Public Law Remedy for Article 21 Violation – Interim compensation ordered based on prima facie custodial torture and suspension order acknowledging lapses – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 within one week to victim (Tarun Mahto) – Amount to be recovered from erring officials/officers – Clarified that interim compensation will not affect victim’s right to seek additional civil/criminal compensation [Paras 31-32].

Procedure – Further Pleadings and Listing – Counter affidavit directed within four weeks – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 – Copy of order to be sent to Director, Health Services for compliance [Paras 33-36].

Decision: Interim directions issued – State to pay Rs.1,50,000 as interim compensation within one week and recover from erring officials – Director, Health Services to conduct inquiry against concerned medical officer and file report – Counter affidavit to be filed – Matter listed on 07.01.2026 [Paras 32-36].

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation – Fabricated Court Filings – Conviction – Accused filed a statement of objections purportedly on behalf of Union of India by forging the signature and affidavit of the Central Government Standing Counsel – Counsel categorically denied preparing or filing the objections and disowned the affidavit – Held: Filing forged pleadings and impersonating counsel amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and constitutes criminal contempt [Paras 1–2, 11–14].

Contempt of Courts Act – Section 2(c) – Interference with Administration of Justice – Accused personally served forged statement of objections on opposite counsel and filed the same before the Court – Evidence of Assistant Registrar, Oath Commissioner and Advocate witnesses corroborated fabrication – Held: Conduct squarely falls within definition of criminal contempt [Paras 6–7, 12–14].

Suo Motu Contempt – Procedure – Framing of Charges – Charges framed after detailed consideration by coordinate Bench – Accused given full opportunity to contest proceedings and lead evidence – Principles of natural justice complied with [Paras 2–4, 6].

Evidence – Oath Commissioner and Witness Testimony – Signature Mismatch – Oath Commissioner testified that signatures in oath register did not tally with genuine signature of the Central Government Counsel – Advocate witness identified accused as person who attempted service of forged objections – Held: Prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 12–14].

Defence of Accused – Plea of Assistance to Counsel – Rejected – Accused claimed he merely assisted counsel in filing objections – No documentary or electronic evidence supporting authorisation – Counsel entered appearance only later and expressly denied preparation or filing – Defence found false and untenable [Paras 10–13].

Sentencing – Criminal Contempt – Lack of Remorse – Accused showed no regret and persisted in allegations against Judges and counsel – Gravity of offence and impact on judicial process considered – Held: Custodial sentence warranted [Paras 16–18].

Decision: Accused convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs.2,000/- – Accused directed to be taken into custody forthwith – Conviction warrant ordered to be issued – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.