Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Ocular Evidence – Appellant convicted for murder of his aunt by assaulting her with axe – Eye-witness (P.W.1) consistently deposed that appellant inflicted fatal blows while co-accused held the deceased – Medical evidence corroborated ocular testimony – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC justified.

Evidence – First Information Report – Allegation of Ante-Timing – Delay in Receipt by Magistrate – FIR lodged promptly within two and half hours of incident – Delay in receipt by Magistrate explained due to distance and administrative process – Mere late receipt by Magistrate not sufficient to infer ante-timing – Held: FIR not ante-timed.

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Minor Contradictions – FIR vs Court Deposition – Variance regarding number of assailants and blows – Such discrepancies natural and not touching core of prosecution case – Eye-witness not expected to possess photographic memory – Held: Testimony of P.W.1 reliable and trustworthy.

Medical Jurisprudence – Nature of Injuries – Incised vs Lacerated Wounds – Post-mortem initially described injuries as lacerated wounds though bones cut – Doctor admitted error and clarified injuries were incised wounds – Injuries consistent with use of sharp-edged weapon (axe) – Held: Medical evidence supports prosecution version.

Evidence – Recovery – Weapon of Offence – Axe recovered near dead body containing human blood – Chemical examination confirmed presence of blood – Recovery corroborates ocular account – Absence of further recovery not fatal.

Criminal Trial – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Effect – Co-accused acquitted as no overt act attributed – Acquittal of co-accused does not dilute credible evidence against main assailant – Doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus not applicable in India – Held: Conviction of appellant sustainable despite acquittal of others.

Motive – Role in Murder Trial – Property dispute between deceased and accused family established – Even otherwise, presence of direct eye-witness renders motive non-essential – Held: Absence or weakness of motive immaterial.

Appellate Interference – Scope – Trial court’s appreciation of evidence reasoned and based on record – No perversity or illegality found – Appellate court to give due weight to trial court’s assessment of witness demeanour – Held: No ground for interference.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence – Period already undergone to be set off.

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Service Law – Police Personnel – Unauthorized Absence – Removal from Service – Judicial Review – Petitioner, a PAC Constable, removed from service for unauthorized absence of 160 days after departmental inquiry – Appellate and revisional authorities affirmed removal – Writ petition challenged legality of punishment, inquiry findings and proportionality [Paras 2, 11, 15-19].

Alternative Remedy – Delay in Raising Objection – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Objection of availability of alternative remedy before U.P. Public Service Tribunal raised after 21 years – Pleadings complete and writ entertained long back – Held: Writ not liable to be dismissed on ground of alternative remedy at belated stage [Paras 12-14].

Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Fairness – Opportunity of Hearing – Chargesheet issued, witnesses examined and opportunity of cross-examination granted – Petitioner chose not to cross-examine prosecution witnesses – Inquiry not vitiated on ground of violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 4-5, 21].

Unauthorized Absence – Illness and Compelling Circumstances – Appreciation of Evidence – Petitioner relied on medical certificates and plea of collapse of house – Inquiry Officer found contradictions between pleas, absence of hospitalisation, non-coverage of entire period and lack of contemporaneous intimation – Held: Findings based on evidence and not perverse – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6-8, 25-28, 43-46].

Police Regulations 381 & 382 – Nature and Effect – Regulations are administrative instructions without statutory force – Non-compliance may raise doubt but is not conclusive – However, in present case, even ignoring strict applicability, petitioner failed to justify prolonged absence after fitness certificate – Regulations treated as directory [Paras 32, 46].

Unauthorized Absence – Willfulness – Scope of Krushna Kant B. Parmar Doctrine – Absence due to compelling circumstances may not be wilful – However, principle not absolute – Long unauthorized absence without satisfactory explanation can constitute misconduct – Supreme Court decisions in Krushna Kant B. Parmar and T.T. Murali Babu harmoniously explained and applied [Paras 33-40].

Judicial Review – Limits under Article 226 – High Court not an appellate authority over disciplinary findings – Interference permissible only in cases of perversity, no evidence, procedural illegality or disproportionate punishment – Reliance placed on Railways v. Rajendra Kumar Dubey and allied precedents [Paras 41-42].

Past Conduct – Reference in Punishment Order – Double Jeopardy – Past misconduct not made a charge – Mere reference to past conduct permissible to add weight, if punishment founded independently on proved charge – No violation of principles of double jeopardy or natural justice [Paras 52-55].

Inquiry Officer – Recommendation on Punishment – Validity – Appendix-I to Rule 14(1) of 1991 Rules permits recommendation, but requires it to be made separately – Composite inquiry report containing recommendation held defective – Recommendation beyond permissible manner influenced disciplinary process – Held in favour of petitioner [Paras 56-57].

Punishment – Proportionality – Long Service and Subsequent Developments – Petitioner reinstated under interim order, served till superannuation, promoted as Head Constable and drawing provisional pension – Removal from service held disproportionate in peculiar facts – Court justified in interfering with quantum of punishment [Paras 59-61].

Relief – Remand on Quantum of Punishment – Orders of removal, appeal and revision set aside – Matter remanded to disciplinary authority to impose any punishment other than dismissal/removal – Fresh decision on salary for period of unauthorized absence directed after notice – Post-retiral dues to be recalculated and released within stipulated time [Paras 62-65].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Removal from service set aside – Matter remanded to disciplinary authority for reconsideration of punishment in accordance with law – Directions issued for timely compliance.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Law – Divorced Muslim Woman – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) Section 127 / Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act, 1986) Section 3(2) – Enhancement Allowed – A divorced Muslim woman is not precluded from invoking Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance even if the initial order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1986 – The Act, 1986 is not in derogation of, but in addition to, the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – The Family Court has jurisdiction under Sections 7(1)(f) and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to decide and enhance maintenance considering inflation and changed circumstances – Wrong nomenclature of a petition does not oust the Court's jurisdiction – The husband's objection to maintainability was rejected – The High Court affirmed the maintainability of the application for enhancement [Paras 8-10, 23].

Maintenance Law – Muslim Husband's Liability – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3(1)(a) / Cr.P.C. Section 125 – Liability Extends Beyond Iddat Period – A Muslim husband's liability to make fair and reasonable provision and maintenance for his divorced wife extends beyond the iddat period and includes making provisions for her future sustenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a secular provision applicable to all women, including divorced Muslim women, to prevent vagrancy and destitution – The 1986 Act does not supplant Section 125 Cr.P.C. but provides additional remedies – This interpretation ensures the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act in light of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.3, 9, 9.1, 9.2].

Maintenance Law – Minor Children – Cr.P.C. Section 125 / Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3(1)(b) – Father's Duty Irrespective of Religion – A father has a duty to maintain his minor children irrespective of his religion – The rights of children to claim maintenance from their father are covered by Section 125 Cr.P.C. and are not abrogated by Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act – The Court previously directed maintenance for the son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until he attained majority [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 8.3].

Maintenance Law – Major Son's Educational Expenses – Cr.P.C. Section 125 – Father's Duty to Support Education – A father is duty-bound to provide maintenance until the completion of his son's or daughter's education, even if they attain majority during studies and lack independent income – A strict interpretation of majority as a cut-off date could lead to hardship and abandonment of studies – The Court previously upheld an order directing the father to pay Rs.8,00,000/- for his son's B.Tech educational expenses [Paras 3.9, 10, 17].

Maintenance Law – Enhancement of Maintenance – Cr.P.C. Section 127 – Enhanced to Rs.10,000/- – The determination and enhancement of maintenance depend on factors such as the parties' status, claimant's reasonable needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical), respondent's income and liabilities, claimant's income, number of dependents, and changed circumstances like inflation and increased salary of the husband – Considering the husband's basic salary of Rs.52,000/- per month, the Court applied the principle of awarding approximately 25% of the net income as just and reasonable maintenance – The Family Court's enhancement from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,100/- was deemed inadequate – The High Court further enhanced the maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month, effective from 05.07.2016 (date of filing the petition) – The husband was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards differential arrears from January 2026 until full adjustment [Paras 3.7, 3.8, 5, 5.1, 5.3, 6.3, 12, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 15, 16, 19, 21].

Evidentiary Law – Claimant's Income – Maintenance Proceedings – Failure to Prove Alleged Income – The husband's allegations regarding the wife's income from rental property or a beauty parlour were not substantiated by concrete evidence – While the son was a graduate engineer and likely employed, conclusive proof of his exact income during the relevant period was absent – The Court held that maintenance enhancement could not be denied based solely on unproven allegations of the wife's or son's income [Paras 5.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 14, 18, 19].

Maintenance Law – Future Adjustments – Cr.P.C. Section 127 – Liberty to Approach Court – Both parties retain the liberty to approach the Family Court for further enhancement, reduction, or stoppage of maintenance in the event of changed circumstances, including an increase in the husband's salary, employment or improved earnings of the son, or gainful employment/earning of the wife [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – RPFAM No.260 of 2017 allowed to the effect of enhancing maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month and directing payment of arrears – RPFAM No.293 of 2017 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 21, 23].

Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Failure to file written statement within 90 days – Lethargy and negligence – Personal hardship not “exceptional circumstance” – Striking off defence upheld – Article 227 interference declined.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Striking Off Defence – Defendant failed to file written statement despite appearance, repeated opportunities and imposition of costs – Delay extended far beyond statutory period of 30 days and outer limit of 90 days – Held: Order VIII Rule 1 CPC mandates timely filing; prolonged inaction amounts to lethargy and wilful negligence justifying striking off defence [Paras 5–6].

Exceptional Circumstances – Meaning and Scope – Plea of personal distress due to death of son and alleged lapse of counsel raised to justify delay – Held: Such grounds, without substantiating circumstances showing impossibility to act, do not constitute “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 3, 6].

Conduct of Litigant – Lethargy Not to Be Encouraged – Defendant remained inactive for nearly 1½ years after appearance – Courts not required to come to aid of negligent litigants who abuse procedural indulgence – Procedural discipline essential for expeditious justice [Para 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – High Court will not interfere with discretionary orders of Trial Court unless perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Trial Court exercised discretion judiciously and recorded cogent reasons – No ground for interference made out [Paras 4, 6].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed – Order dated 15.10.2025 striking off defence upheld – Petition found meritless.

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Liability – Absence of Fitness Certificate – Accident occurred after expiry of fitness certificate of offending pickup vehicle – Insurance policy contained no condition regarding fitness certificate – Evidence of insurer’s witness admitted absence of such condition – Held: Mere absence or expiry of fitness certificate does not constitute breach of policy conditions under Section 149 MV Act so as to absolve insurer of liability – Insurer liable to satisfy award [Paras 14–17].

Insurance Policy – Breach of Conditions – Burden of Proof – Insurer failed to establish specific policy condition regarding fitness certificate – Reliance on judgments of other High Courts rejected in view of binding coordinate Bench decisions – Held: In absence of explicit policy condition, insurer cannot avoid liability [Paras 14–17].

Composite Negligence and Contributory Negligence – Head-on Collision – Tribunal held drivers of both vehicles negligent – In claim of driver of Innova car, contributory negligence assessed at 60% – High Court reappreciated evidence including spot map and oral evidence – Held: Contributory negligence of deceased driver Deepak reduced to 50% as no evidence showed greater negligence on his part [Paras 19–21].

Spot Map – Evidentiary Value – Spot map showing position of vehicles and point of impact relied upon along with other evidence – Distinguished from cases where negligence inferred solely from resting position of vehicles – Held: Spot map can be considered when it depicts actual point of accident and is supported by evidence [Paras 19–21].

Compensation – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Where documentary proof of income not duly proved, minimum wages applicable – Deceased Deepak treated as skilled labour – Multiplier applied as per age – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 22].

Loss of Consortium – Parents Entitled – Parents of deceased victims entitled to filial consortium – ₹40,000/- awarded to each parent in terms of settled law – Tribunal’s omission corrected [Paras 22, 24, 25, 28].

Income Tax Return – Evidentiary Value – Income tax return of deceased Akash filed prior to death accepted as reliable evidence of income – Tribunal erred in discarding return – Held: Income shown in pre-accident return to be taken for computation of compensation [Paras 23–24].

Bachelor Deceased – Deduction for Personal Expenses – In case of bachelor deceased Rajesh, 50% deduction for personal expenses appropriate – Further deduction on ground that mother also received compensation in another claim held impermissible – Tribunal misapplied Sarla Verma principle – Full dependency compensation allowed [Para 25].

Injured Claimants – Quantum of Compensation – Where no evidence of grievous injury or permanent disability produced, Tribunal’s award confined mainly to medical expenses upheld – No enhancement warranted for injured Santosh and Manish [Paras 26–27].

Students and Future Prospects – Notional Income – Deceased engineering student Hemant’s income assessed on basis of claimants’ own pleading – Treated as semi-skilled/skilled appropriately – Consortium awarded to parents – Compensation enhanced marginally [Para 28].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Enhanced compensation to carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of claim petition till realization – Insurer directed to pay entire amount [Para 29].

Decision – Appeals filed by insurance company dismissed – Claimants’ appeals partly allowed with enhancement in specified cases – Common award modified accordingly – Insurer held liable to satisfy enhanced awards [Para 30].

Family Pension – Recovery of Excess Payment – Bank Error – Widow Pensioner – Demand Notice Challenged – Excess family pension paid for more than a decade due to mistake of pension disbursing bank – No misrepresentation, fraud or concealment by petitioner – Recovery sought from widow solely dependent on family pension – Held: Recovery impermissible as being harsh, inequitable and arbitrary – Demand notice set aside to extent of outstanding recovery [Paras 1–3, 18–23].

Pension Law – Recovery of Excess Amount – Principles of Equity – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Recovery from retired employee/family pensioner after long period – Excess payment continued for over 10 years – Court held recovery would cause grave hardship outweighing employer’s right to recover [Paras 12–14, 20–21].

Undertaking for Recovery – Effect – Consent on Dotted Lines – Exploitation – Undertaking furnished by widow authorising recovery from pension – Such undertaking obtained as a matter of routine held insufficient to justify recovery – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment holding such undertakings exploitative and unenforceable in equity [Paras 22–23].

Pension Payment Order (PPO) – Binding Nature – Correction of Pension – While recovery barred on equitable grounds, petitioner held entitled only to family pension strictly as per PPO prospectively – No right to continue receiving excess pension [Paras 18, 23].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Bank as Disbursing Authority – SBI merely a pension disbursing agent – Excess payment due to clerical error of bank – Recovery from vulnerable pensioner deprecated despite absence of misrepresentation [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned demand notice quashed to extent of remaining recovery – Adjustments already made not interfered with – Family pension payable strictly as per PPO henceforth.

NDPS Act – Sections 21(b) & 22(c) – Conviction Set Aside – Non-compliance of Section 50 – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for possession of cocaine and LSD and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and five years respectively – On appeal, High Court examined compliance of statutory safeguards under Section 50 NDPS Act – Held: Conviction unsustainable due to gross and total non-compliance of mandatory provisions [Paras 1, 33–36, 40].

Search and Seizure – Section 50 NDPS Act – Mandatory Safeguard – Right of Accused – Prosecution witnesses including complainant and members of raiding team consistently deposed that accused was informed only of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer – No option of being searched before a Magistrate was given – Such partial or defective intimation held to be in direct violation of Section 50(1) NDPS Act [Paras 12–21, 33–35].

Gazetted Officer – Member of Raiding Party – Not Independent – Accused was informed that Dy. S.P., a Gazetted Officer and part of the raiding team, was present at the spot and could conduct the search – Held: A Gazetted Officer who is part of the raiding/investigating team cannot be treated as an independent officer for purposes of Section 50 – Offering such “third option” pollutes the free exercise of statutory right of the accused [Paras 23–26, 32, 36].

Evidence Appreciation – Panch and Police Witnesses – Evidence of PW 1 (panch witness) and PW 2, PW 6, PW 9 (police witnesses) uniformly demonstrated that only one option under Section 50 was conveyed – Court held that even police witnesses failed to establish compliance in letter and spirit – Burden on prosecution not discharged [Paras 15–21, 33–34].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Strict Compliance – No Concept of Substantial Compliance – Reiterating settled law from Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja and Ranjan Kumar Chadha – Section 50 confers a valuable and mandatory right – Failure to strictly comply renders recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates conviction where recovery from personal search is the sole basis [Paras 26, 28, 33–35].

Effect of Violation – Recovery Inadmissible – Since recovery of contraband was effected pursuant to an illegal personal search, same could not be relied upon – Presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act could not be raised – Conviction based solely on such recovery held illegal [Paras 33–36, 39].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2024 quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant directed to execute P.R. bond under Section 481 BNSS, 2023 [Paras 40–41].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Second Reopening – Change of Opinion – Invalidity – Assessment for AY 2009–10 earlier reopened and completed under Sections 147/143(3) – Specific issue of interest-free loan received by assessee from closely held company examined – No addition made – Subsequent notice under Section 148 issued for same AY on same foundational facts – Held: Reopening based on mere change of opinion impermissible – Proceedings without jurisdiction [Paras 23–35].

Reassessment – Scope of Sections 147/148 – Abuse of Power – Once reassessment undertaken and concluded after conscious application of mind, Revenue cannot reopen assessment again for same transaction on different legal interpretation – Power of reassessment is an exception and cannot be exercised casually or repeatedly – Second reopening amounts to harassment and uncertainty in tax administration [Paras 31–33, 45].

Interest-Free Loan – Deemed Income – Sections 2(22)(e) and 2(24)(iv) – During first reassessment, AO examined interest-free loan under Section 2(22)(e) and dropped proposed addition – Subsequent attempt to tax notional interest as income under Section 2(24)(iv) based on same facts impermissible – Both provisions held to be “two sides of the same coin” – AO ought to have examined all possible legal consequences in first reassessment itself [Paras 34–35].

Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Extended Limitation – Section 149 – Revenue invoked extended limitation alleging failure to disclose fully and truly material facts – Held: Assessee disclosed primary facts including audited balance sheet, books of accounts and loan transactions – No obligation to disclose secondary facts or inferences – Invocation of extended period held baseless and contrary to law [Paras 36–41].

Primary vs Secondary Facts – Duty of Assessee – Assessee required only to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment – Drawing of inferences and legal conclusions is duty of Assessing Officer – Reopening cannot be justified on ground that AO failed to draw correct inference earlier [Paras 41–42].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Against Section 148 Notice – Despite availability of alternative remedy, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights – Particularly justified where proceedings stayed for years and relate to stale assessment year [Paras 21–22, 43].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrary Reassessment – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Repeated reopening for same issue held violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution – Tax administration must adhere to certainty, fairness and rule of law [Paras 45–46].

Costs – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Court deprecated conduct of Revenue in initiating second reassessment without jurisdiction – Token costs imposed to compensate petitioners and mark disapproval of arbitrary action [Para 47].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Notices dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Costs of ₹1,00,000/- per case awarded to each petitioner – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 46–48].