POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Recovery of Heroin – Section 37 Rigours – Petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 258 grams of heroin attributed to petitioner, which is more than non-commercial quantity – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely attracted and bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions [Paras 1, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope of Consideration at Bail Stage – Court not required to conduct mini trial or detailed appreciation of evidence – Reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail must coexist – Held: Such satisfaction could not be recorded on facts of present case [Paras 7–8].

Conscious Possession – Recovery from Polythene Thrown by Accused – Effect – Argument that contraband was not recovered from physical possession but from polythene allegedly thrown on seeing police – Held: Does not negate prima facie case of conscious possession at bail stage, particularly when apprehension was preceded by specific secret information [Para 8].

Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Plea at Bail Stage – Contention regarding violation of NDPS procedural safeguards – Held: Mixed question of law and fact to be adjudicated during trial and not determinative at stage of consideration of regular bail [Para 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevance in NDPS Bail – Petitioner involved in other NDPS and criminal cases – Held: Criminal antecedents are relevant factor while considering likelihood of re-offending and weigh against grant of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 4, 8].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Effect under NDPS Act – Custody of about nine months – Held: Mere completion of investigation or likelihood of delay in trial is not sufficient ground to override statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act in absence of exceptional circumstances [Paras 4, 8–9].

Section 27-A NDPS Act – Challenge at Bail Stage – Argument that provision wrongly invoked – Held: Such contention cannot be examined conclusively at bail stage when prima facie material indicates involvement in narcotics trade [Para 8].

Decision – Regular Bail – Refusal – Seriousness of offence, quantity of contraband, manner of recovery, and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Firearm – Conviction under Sections 395 and 397 IPC – Acquittal – Appellants convicted for dacoity and causing firearm injury based primarily on testimony of injured witness – On appeal, High Court finds serious contradictions and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Conviction set aside [Paras 9–11].

Identification of Accused – Night Occurrence – FIR against Unknown Persons – Failure to Hold Test Identification Parade – Incident occurred at about 2:00 A.M. when victims were asleep – Accused not named in FIR – Identification made belatedly through Section 164 CrPC statement – Informant failed to participate in Test Identification Parade – Held, identification highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon [Paras 6–9].

Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – Evidence of P.W.1 (injured) inconsistent with version of P.W.3 (informant) regarding manner of firing and place of occurrence – Version of scuffle and unmasking of accused contradicted by presence of victim inside mosquito net – Held, prosecution story unreliable [Paras 9].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – No recovery of looted articles or weapons – No seizure of bloodstained clothes, mosquito net or mattress – Fired cartridge not recovered – Statements of neighbours and minor daughter (eye-witness) not recorded – Held, investigation perfunctory and deficient, weakening prosecution case [Paras 9].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Suspicion vs Proof – Mere occurrence of dacoity and firearm injury insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of reliable identification and corroborative evidence – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2003 set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Pending interlocutory applications closed.

Tenancy Law - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 7(2) & 7(3) – Striking out of Defence – Non-compliance with order directing deposit of arrears and current rent – Tenant directed to deposit arrears for specific months and current rent within stipulated time – Tenant failed to deposit arrears within one month and did not seek extension within prescribed period – Held: Provisions of Section 7 are mandatory and require strict compliance – Failure attracts consequences under Section 7(3) – Defence against delivery of possession rightly struck off [Paras 9, 12, 13, 18].

Deposit of Rent – Extension of Time – Proviso to Section 7(2) – Extension can be granted only once and only if application is made within original period fixed by court – No application for extension filed within time – Subsequent deposit beyond stipulated period cannot cure default – Liberal interpretation impermissible in view of statutory mandate [Paras 6, 13, 16, 17].

Deposit before Rent Controller – Payment in Name of Deceased Landlord – Validity – Alleged deposit of rent for long period made in name of dead landlord – No documentary proof produced – RTI response confirmed absence of records – Held: Deposit, even if made, is invalid under Section 22(2) – Tenant failed to withdraw and redeposit as directed – Wilful and negligent default established [Paras 5, 9, 18].

Refusal to Grant Rent Receipt – Statutory Remedies – Sections 21 & 32 – Tenant alleged payment without receipt – No steps taken under Sections 21 or 32 within statutory period – Tenant cannot rely on such plea to avoid consequences of default under Section 7 [Paras 10, 11].

Arrears of Rent – Mandatory Deposit on Service of Summons – Supreme Court Precedent – Law laid down in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya reiterated – Deposit of admitted arrears is a condition precedent to protection against eviction – Tenant cannot invoke equitable considerations or Limitation Act – No estoppel against law declared by Supreme Court – Law operates retrospectively [Paras 11, 12].

Single Default – Effect – Even a single violation in deposit of arrears or current rent attracts Section 7(3) – Delay in payment of current rent also sufficient to strike out defence [Paras 9, 14, 15].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court will not interfere with well-reasoned orders unless there is perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted within jurisdiction and followed settled law – No ground for interference made out [Para 19].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order striking out defence against delivery of possession upheld – No interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Dismissal of Appeal – Husband sought dissolution of marriage alleging mental cruelty and desertion by wife – Allegation that wife compelled husband to live separately from parents and left matrimonial home since 15-03-2018 – Trial Court dismissed divorce petition – Affirmed by High Court [Paras 2, 16].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Cruelty not defined under the Act – Reliance placed on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur – Mental cruelty to be assessed from entire matrimonial life and gravity of conduct – Mere inconvenience, employment-related constraints, or normal wear and tear of married life do not amount to cruelty [Paras 12–14].

Wife’s Employment – Compulsion to Stay at Parental Home – No Cruelty – Wife employed as Government Teacher prior to marriage – School located approximately 75 km from matrimonial home – Daily commuting impracticable – Staying at parental home held to be a matter of compulsion, not reluctance or cruelty – Wife regularly transferred substantial portion of her salary to husband – Demonstrates willingness to continue marital relationship [Paras 14–15].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Not Established – Desertion requires willful abandonment without reasonable cause – Wife’s stay at parental home for attending duties cannot be termed willful abandonment – Efforts made by wife for transfer nearer to matrimonial home – Expressed readiness to live with husband – Ingredients of desertion not proved [Paras 15].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Prior Settlement – Effect – Earlier proceedings under Section 9 HMA ended in compromise – Subsequent non-resumption of cohabitation, in facts of case, insufficient to establish cruelty or desertion – Conduct of parties assessed holistically [Paras 4, 15].

Finding of Fact – Appreciation of Evidence – No Interference – Trial Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law found – Appellate Court declined interference under First Appeal jurisdiction [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Family Court affirmed – No decree of divorce – Pending interlocutory applications closed.

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is the final court on facts, unless such findings are perverse, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence or rendered without evidence – No substantial question of law arises merely because a different view is possible [Paras 14, 35].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Mandatory Reference to Arbitration – Partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause – Arbitral proceedings were pending since 2007, much prior to institution of suit in 2011 – Civil court had no jurisdiction to continue the suit – Judicial authority bound to refer parties to arbitration once existence of arbitration agreement and arbitrable dispute is shown [Paras 20, 26, 28–30].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Arbitration Clause – Outright rejection of plaint improper where arbitration clause exists – Correct course is to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act – First Appellate Court rightly modified the trial court’s order rejecting plaint and directed reference to arbitration [Paras 10–11, 32].

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Partnership Deed – Effect – Existence of arbitration clause and pendency of arbitral proceedings admitted by both parties – Plaintiff, being Managing Partner and custodian of original deed, cannot take advantage of non-production – Requirement of filing original or certified copy not fatal in admitted circumstances [Paras 16–17, 20].

Arbitrability – Partnership Disputes – Rights in Personam – Dispute relating to partner’s share of profit and loss is a dispute in personam – Amenable to arbitration – Not a category of non-arbitrable disputes as explained in Booz Allen & Hamilton [Paras 18–21].

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Allegations of fabrication of documents or fraud simpliciter do not oust arbitral jurisdiction – Arbitral Tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act – Civil court should not assume jurisdiction on such pleas [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Parallel Proceedings – Civil Suit During Pending Arbitration – Discouraged – Institution of civil suit during pendency of arbitral proceedings amounts to forum shopping – Bifurcation of disputes between arbitral tribunal and civil court would delay proceedings, increase costs and risk conflicting decisions – Contrary to object of Arbitration Act [Paras 29, 34].

Limitation – Appointment of Arbitrator Already Made – Arbitrator appointed in 2007 and proceedings pending – No issue of limitation or failure to appoint arbitrator arises – Objection not raised before courts below – Cannot be agitated in second appeal [Para 22].

Cross Objections – No Independent Merit – Once reference to arbitration upheld and no substantial question of law found, cross objections filed by defendant do not survive – Liable to be dismissed [Para 35].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference of parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affirmed – No substantial question of law involved – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

Criminal Law - Bail – Cancellation of Bail by Supreme Court – Fresh Bail Application – Maintainability – Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC after bail earlier granted by Supreme Court was cancelled for violation of bail conditions – Held: Where bail granted by the Apex Court is cancelled by the Apex Court itself for breach of conditions and without reserving liberty, subordinate courts cannot reconsider or grant bail – Accused must re-approach the Supreme Court for reconsideration [Paras 20–28, 38].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction Between Setting Aside Bail and Cancellation of Bail – Clear distinction drawn between (i) setting aside of a bail order by a superior court on merits, and (ii) cancellation of bail for violation of conditions – In latter case, accused disentitles himself from seeking fresh indulgence before subordinate courts – Judicial propriety mandates restraint [Paras 26–27, 35–37].

Change in Circumstances – Inapplicability After Cancellation of Bail – Completion of examination of material witnesses or alleged absence of possibility of tampering cannot constitute “change in circumstances” once bail is cancelled for breach of conditions – Doctrine applicable only where bail is rejected, not where liberty earlier granted is misused [Paras 24, 27, 39].

Parity – Co-accused Granted Bail – No Automatic Right – Principle of parity cannot be invoked where petitioner’s bail was granted and cancelled by the Supreme Court itself – Bail granted to co-accused by High Court on separate considerations does not enure to petitioner’s benefit [Paras 10, 15, 39].

Elected Representative – Serious Offences – Bail Considerations – Status of petitioner as elected representative or absence of antecedents held to be irrelevant when allegations are grave and bail earlier cancelled for influencing witnesses – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing seriousness of offences [Paras 9, 14].

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. – Scope Explained – Observations in Vipin Kumar permitting fresh bail application apply to cases where bail granted by High Court is set aside by Supreme Court – Said principle not extendable to cases where bail is cancelled by Supreme Court for violation of conditions – Contextual interpretation mandated [Paras 29–36].

Judicial Discipline – Subordinate Courts Bound by Apex Court Orders – When Supreme Court cancels bail and directs expeditious trial, it reflects intent to balance liberty with societal interest – Subordinate courts must refrain from granting bail in absence of express liberty [Paras 23–28].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to approach the Supreme Court for reconsideration of bail – All contentions on merits kept open – No opinion expressed on guilt or merits of prosecution case

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder by Poisoning – Grant of Bail on Change in Circumstances – Petitioner (A-2) sought regular bail in a case alleging conspiracy and murder by mixing cyanide poison in alcohol of the deceased – Earlier bail application dismissed on the ground that investigation was at a crucial stage – Subsequent completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet constitutes a change in circumstances – Bail granted [Paras 1, 4, 6].

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1), 61(2), 238 r/w 3(5) – Allegation of Conspiracy and Homicide – Prosecution case based on alleged extra-judicial confession made before Village Revenue Officer – Allegation that deceased misbehaved with wife of A-1 and conspiracy hatched by A-1 and A-2 – Court held that at bail stage, detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted [Paras 3, 6].

Parity – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Relevant Consideration – Accused No.1, the prime accused, already enlarged on regular bail by the Trial Court – Principle of parity applicable in favour of petitioner – Continued incarceration of A-2 held unwarranted once investigation concluded [Paras 4–6].

Investigation Completed – Filing of Charge Sheet – No Apprehension of Tampering – Once charge sheet is filed and material witnesses examined during investigation, apprehension of tampering with evidence substantially reduces – Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions [Para 6].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Imposed – Bail granted subject to execution of bond and sureties – Weekly appearance before Station House Officer till cognizance – Deposit of passport – Prohibition on leaving country and on influencing witnesses or making statements on social media – Conditions imposed to ensure fair trial [Para 7].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner/Accused No.2 enlarged on regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rigours of Statute – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 195 intoxicant tablets (Etizolam) amounting to commercial quantity – Court held that once commercial quantity is involved, bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Mere completion of investigation or prolonged custody not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 1, 8].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Recovery allegedly effected from polythene bag thrown by petitioner at the spot – Contentions of false implication, planted recovery and lack of conscious possession held to be matters of trial – At bail stage, Court not required to conduct meticulous examination of evidence – Prima facie material sufficient to attract statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 2, 4, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 – Effect at Bail Stage – Plea of violation of mandatory provisions raised by petitioner – Held: Alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act is a mixed question of law and fact – Cannot be conclusively adjudicated at stage of regular bail – Such issues to be examined during trial [Paras 3, 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail – Petitioner found involved in other NDPS cases – Criminal antecedents weighed against grant of bail – Court held that antecedents coupled with nature of recovery indicate prima facie involvement and disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief [Paras 4, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Discretion of Court – NDPS Offences – Court reiterated that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously keeping in view gravity of offence, severity of punishment and societal interest – In serious NDPS offences, liberty of individual must be balanced against societal interest and statutory mandate [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Court held that no reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Observations made confined to bail proceedings and not to influence trial [Paras 10–11].