Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.

Criminal Law – Section 528 BNSS – Quashing of Charge-sheet – Cognizable Offence Disclosed – Application Dismissed – FIR lodged by informant (aged 73 years) alleging that Applicant No. 1 (his former driver) along with others forcibly entered his house, misbehaved with him and outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law by tearing her clothes – Charge-sheet filed under Sections 354-Kha, 452, 352, 323, 504, 506 and 448 IPC – Applicants contended that the dispute was civil in nature arising from a builder's agreement, that the FIR was a counterblast to their own FIR dated 04.08.2023 against the informant, and that there were material contradictions in witness statements – Held: Prima facie cognizable offence is made out from contents of FIR; question of counterblast and contradictions in witness statements are matters for the trial court; inherent power under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to evaluate evidence; application dismissed [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Jurisdiction – Section 528 BNSS – Scope and Limitations – High Court's inherent power under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court, to give effect to an order under the Code, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice – Power must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases – Court cannot conduct a mini trial or evaluate evidence in such proceedings – Pendency of civil case has no bearing on continuation of criminal proceedings where cognizable offence is disclosed [Paras 8, 12-14].

Decision: Application under Section 528 BNSS dismissed – Charge-sheet and cognizance/summoning order not quashed – Matter to proceed before trial court.

Service Law – Recruitment – Non-Joining Vacancies – Claim for Appointment from Merit List – Petitioner secured marks below cut-off and not selected – Claimed appointment against vacancies caused due to non-joining of selected candidates – State policy mandates carry forward of such vacancies to next recruitment – Held: No right accrues to non-selected candidate to claim appointment from exhausted select list [Paras 29–31, 35].

Waiting List / Select List – Nature and Operation – Select list cannot be treated as perpetual reservoir for appointment – Once recommended candidates equal to advertised vacancies are appointed, selection process ends – Vacancies arising thereafter treated as fresh vacancies – Held: No mandamus to fill such vacancies from same merit list [Paras 17, 18, 35].

Policy Decision – Carry Forward of Vacancies – Clause 16 of Government Resolution dated 16.07.2007 provides that vacancies arising due to non-joining shall be carried forward to next recruitment – Consistent policy since 1977 upheld – Held: Policy valid and binding, cannot be interfered with [Paras 17, 26, 35].

Participation in Selection – Estoppel – Petitioner participated in selection process knowing rules and policy – After being unsuccessful, cannot challenge recruitment process or policy – Held: Challenge barred by principle of acquiescence and estoppel [Paras 31–34].

Right to Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Mere participation or inclusion in merit list below cut-off does not confer right to appointment – State not bound to fill all vacancies unless decision is arbitrary – Held: No arbitrariness shown [Paras 29, 35].

Subsequent Recruitment – Effect – Subsequent advertisements issued and recruitment process completed/underway – Earlier select list loses significance – Held: Relief cannot be granted at belated stage [Paras 30, 35].

Distinction – Cases where waiting list operated – Supreme Court precedents allowing filling of vacancies from waiting list distinguishable – In present case, no waiting list prepared and policy mandates carry forward – Held: Petitioner not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–24, 35].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No direction for appointment – Pending applications dismissed.

Property Law – Sale Deed – Want of Consideration – Void ab initio – Sale Deeds Null and Dead Letters – Two registered sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendant for total consideration of Rs. 1,02,30,000/-, stated to have been paid through eight cheques all dated the respective dates of execution – Cheques were returned to the defendant at his insistence on the ground that mutation was denied by the authorities – Defendant failed to prove subsequent payment of consideration through alternate mode to the plaintiffs/creditors/relatives – Held: Where a sale deed recites that the entire sale consideration has been paid through cheques on the date of execution and the cheques are admittedly returned without encashment, the consideration does not pass in terms of the sale deed; the sale deed is null and void, a nullity and dead letter in the eyes of law – No declaration or cancellation of such void deeds is required to be sought as the same is non-est – Appeal allowed [Paras 69, 70, 80, 86, 89].

Sale – Passing of Title – Condition Precedent – Intention of Parties – Ta Khubzul Badlain – The true test for passing of title is the intention of the parties, to be gathered primarily from the recitals of the sale deed; mere registration is prima facie but not conclusive proof of intention to transfer if payment of consideration is a condition precedent – Where sale deed recites entire consideration paid on the date of execution through cheques but the cheques are returned and defendant fails to prove subsequent payment, neither title nor possession passes to the purchaser, notwithstanding recitals to the contrary – The practice of "Ta Khubzul Badlain" (title passing only on exchange of equivalents) applicable in undivided State of Bihar continues to apply to the State of Jharkhand created out of Bihar by the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 [Paras 72–77, 81, 84].

Maintainability – Suit for Return of Void Sale Deeds – Section 34 Specific Relief Act – A suit for return of original sale deeds, asserting the deeds to be void for want of consideration, does not amount to a suit for declaration of title and is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act merely because no prayer for recovery of possession is made – When a document is void ab initio, no decree setting aside the same is required as it is a nullity; accordingly, the plaintiff need not seek cancellation or declaration and the suit for return of the void documents is maintainable [Paras 57, 60, 63, 64, 65].

Court Fees – Suit for Return of Void Documents – Where neither a declaration that the sale deeds are void nor recovery of possession is prayed for and the only relief is return of original sale deeds, ad valorem court fees is not payable and a fixed court fee of Rs. 250/- is sufficient [Para 63].

Decision: First Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2023 of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) III, Jamshedpur in O.S. No. 212 of 2016 set aside – Sale deeds bearing No. 705/508 dated 07.02.2014 and No. 2736/2125 dated 17.05.2014 held to be void, null and dead letters for want of consideration – Defendant directed to hand over the original sale deeds to the plaintiffs within three months, failing which plaintiffs are at liberty to recover the same through court process [Paras 88–91].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Streedhan – Section 406 IPC – Applicant No.1 (wife) lodged FIR against opposite party No.2 (husband) for offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Charge-sheet filed against the husband – Maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month for the son awarded against the husband – Thereafter, husband filed a complaint alleging that on 29.09.2018 the applicants entered his house and took away Rs. 6,400/-, ornaments worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and household articles – Applicants summoned under Sections 323, 504 and 406 IPC by the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner without proper application of judicial mind – Held: Streedhan is the absolute property of the wife with full rights of disposal; the husband or in-laws have no control over streedhan; the husband may use it in distress but has a moral obligation to restore the same – Streedhan does not become joint property of husband and wife – Ingredients of Sections 405 and 406 IPC not attracted on the facts of the case; the summoning order was passed without considering the definitions under Sections 405 and 406 IPC and is contrary to the facts of the case – Complaint appears to be a counterblast to the prior proceedings initiated by the wife [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Application allowed – Summoning order dated 17.11.2022 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 8240 of 2018 set aside – Entire proceedings of the aforesaid case quashed.

Criminal Law – Section 412 IPC – Receiving property stolen in dacoity – Essential ingredients – Prosecution must prove recovery of looted property, knowledge or reason to believe it was stolen in dacoity, and nexus with dacoits – Failure to establish identity of recovered property and knowledge of accused – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 22–23, 39, 43]

Evidence – Recovery – Non-production of Rawangi G.D. – Departure of police party not proved – Absence of General Diary entry creates serious doubt regarding presence of police at place of recovery – Held: Recovery proceedings doubtful [Paras 29–31]

Evidence – Documentary Proof – Fard Baramdagi – Carbon copy without signatures, date or proof of preparation – Not admissible as secondary evidence – Failure to examine scribe – Held: Recovery memo unreliable and inadmissible [Para 33]

Evidence – Identification of Property – Gun with erased serial number – No independent evidence to connect recovered gun with looted property – Informant’s identification based on number unreliable when number erased – Held: Identity of property not established [Paras 34–35, 40–42]

Confession – Police Custody – Sections 25, 26 & 27 Evidence Act – Confessional statement made to police inadmissible except to extent of discovery – Statement regarding source of gun and its history not leading to discovery cannot be relied upon – Held: No evidentiary value [Paras 35–38, 39]

Presumption – Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery must be soon after theft – Recovery after about three months and doubtful identity of property disentitles presumption – Held: Presumption not attracted [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to examine alleged seller (co-accused) and to link accused with dacoity – Creates serious doubt in prosecution case – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 39, 42–43]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial Court conviction based on conjectures and improper appreciation – Interference warranted – Held: Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 44–45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 412 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled with direction to furnish bond under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. / Section 481 BNSS.

Electrocution – Compensation – Minor Child – Severe Permanent Disability – Petitioner (6-year-old child) suffered 92% permanent disability due to contact with 11 kV high tension line – Amputation of right arm and deformity in left hand – Distribution licensee held liable – Compensation enhanced applying principles of just compensation [Paras 2.1, 21, 25]

Strict Liability – Electricity as Hazardous Activity – Duty of Distribution Licensee – Electricity being inherently dangerous, Nigam under statutory duty to ensure safety – Failure to maintain safe distance and protective measures – Liability attracted irrespective of fault – Case falls within strict liability [Paras 11–12]

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability – Accident due to live high voltage wire passing close to residence – Occurrence itself establishes negligence – Burden shifts on Nigam – Liability affirmed [Para 12]

Contributory Negligence – Child Victim – Inapplicability – Tender age child cannot be attributed contributory negligence – No material to prove fault of petitioner or her guardian – Entire liability on Nigam [Para 12.1]

Compensation – Public Law Remedy – Maintainability – Acceptance of compensation under policy does not bar claim for higher compensation – Clause 4 of policy expressly preserves additional remedies – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 9.3, 14]

Compensation Policy – Nature – No-Fault Liability – Instructions dated 15.07.2019 provide compensation on humanitarian basis – Payment under policy is in addition to legal entitlement – Does not restrict right to claim just compensation [Paras 9–10, 26]

Challenge to Policy – Rejection – Policy prescribing uniform norms including application of Employees’ Compensation Act to minors held not arbitrary – Being a concession, adequacy cannot be questioned – Does not infringe vested rights [Para 26]

Assessment of Compensation – Principles – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages – Compensation must include loss of earning capacity, future prospects, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, etc. – Courts must award “just compensation” and not token damages [Paras 16–17]

Notional Income – Minor Victim – Determination – Notional monthly income of Rs.20,000/- adopted with 40% future prospects – Multiplier method applicable even for children [Para 19]

Functional Disability – Assessment – Though medical disability 92%, functional disability assessed at 70% of whole body – Impact on entire life considered [Para 21]

Attendant Charges – Multiplier Method – Victim requiring lifelong assistance entitled to attendant charges calculated using multiplier – Even if family provides care, compensation payable [Para 22]

Future Medical Expenses – Prosthetic Limb – Victim entitled to compensation for advanced prosthetic limb, maintenance and replacement – Financial security for future treatment necessary [Paras 24–25]

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Substantial compensation required for lifelong trauma, disability, loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects – Recognised heads [Paras 18, 29–30]

Child Victim – Loss of Future Life Opportunities – Court recognizes impact on education, social life, marriage and dignity – Compensation must reflect lifelong deprivation [Para 22]

Quantum of Compensation – Comprehensive Award – Total compensation assessed at Rs.99,93,600/- under multiple heads including income loss, attendant charges, medical expenses, pain and suffering, prosthetic limb, etc. [Para 25]

Interest – Award – Compensation to carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization [Para 28]

Disbursement – Safeguards – Majority of compensation to be kept in fixed deposit till minor attains majority – Monthly withdrawal permitted for care and maintenance [Para 29]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Petitioner awarded compensation of Rs.99,93,600/- with 7.5% interest – Compensation over and above amount already paid under policy – Directions issued for structured disbursement and protection of minor’s interest.

Civil Law – Judgment on Admissions – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Scope – Suit for possession decreed based on registered Sale Deed – Defendant relied on Rajinama, Declaration and unregistered Family Settlement – Held: Documents did not create any right, title or interest in immovable property and even if admitted, did not constitute a valid defence – Decree on admissions justified [Paras 26, 30, 39, 40]

Property Law – Title and Ownership – Registered Sale Deed vs Unregistered Documents – Plaintiff proved ownership through registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005 – Defendant’s reliance on prior unregistered documents and vague pleadings rejected – Held: Registered Sale Deed prevails and conclusively establishes ownership in absence of challenge [Paras 26, 27, 32]

Family Settlement – Requirement of Registration – Alleged family settlement creating rights in immovable property – Not registered – Held: Such document requires compulsory registration under Section 17 Registration Act and cannot be read in evidence to create or transfer rights – No enforceable title flows from unregistered family settlement [Paras 36, 37]

Transfer of Property – Creation of Rights – Section 54 TPA – Transfer of ownership in immovable property can only be effected through registered instrument – Informal arrangements or declarations insufficient to confer ownership rights [Paras 36]

Limitation and Specific Performance – Defendant’s plea based on Declaration – No action taken within limitation period for enforcement – Held: Even if document assumed valid, remedy for specific performance not pursued within prescribed time, weakening defence [Para 33]

Pleadings and Defence – Vague and Unsupported Claims – Defendant failed to specifically plead or substantiate documents relied upon – Documents filed without proper pleadings carry no evidentiary value – Defence held illusory and insufficient to resist decree [Paras 27, 38, 39]

Possession – Permissive User – Defendant’s possession held to be permissive in absence of valid title – No legal right to retain possession against true owner [Para 40]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment dated 08.01.2025 upheld – Decree of possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Mental Healthcare – Suo Motu PIL – Systemic deficiencies – Court  intervention – Proceedings initiated on inspection report of BSLSA highlighting shortcomings in mental health infrastructure, functioning of BIMHAS and lack of compliance with statutory obligations under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Court issued directions seeking detailed responses from multiple authorities including Health Department, Police, Prisons, SMHA and Union of India – Matter kept under continuous judicial monitoring [Paras 1–2, 19–20]

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 – Implementation and compliance – State submitted constitution of State Mental Health Authority and Mental Health Review Boards in all divisions – Steps taken for free food, medicines, infrastructure, Tele-MANAS services and expansion of District Mental Health Programme – However, Court found gaps in effective implementation, monitoring and rehabilitation mechanisms – Held: Mere constitution of statutory bodies insufficient without functional compliance and outcome-based implementation [Paras 3, 10]

Mental Healthcare – Rehabilitation and reintegration – Lack of structured rehabilitation policy – Patients discharged or shifted to half-way homes without clarity on vocational training, employment and financial independence – Only two half-way homes operational in State – Held: State directed to submit detailed report on nature of vocational training, employment linkage and expansion of half-way homes to ensure social reintegration and self-sufficiency [Para 10]

Mental Healthcare – Police duties – Section 100, Mental Healthcare Act – Sensitization of police regarding handling of persons with mental illness – Court directed DGP to ensure continuous monitoring of compliance by SSPs/SPs – Direction issued for establishment of 24×7 toll-free helpline and public awareness mechanism to identify and assist wandering mentally ill persons – Held: Proactive police engagement essential for protection, treatment and rehabilitation [Paras 5–7]

Mental Healthcare – Prisoners with mental illness – Section 103, Mental Healthcare Act – I.G. Prisons directed to file detailed affidavit regarding steps taken for treatment and care of prisoners with mental illness – Compliance with statutory standards and Rules 10 and 11 of 2018 Rules emphasized [Paras 8, 15–16]

Mental Healthcare – Institutional functioning – BIMHAS – State and Director placed on record facilities including free food, medicines, therapeutic environment, departments, rehabilitation unit and legal aid clinic – However, Court noted deficiencies in infrastructure, capacity, rehabilitation planning and implementation gaps – Held: Functional efficiency must align with statutory mandate of dignified, rights-based care [Paras 9–10]

Mental Healthcare – Legal aid – NALSA Scheme, 2024 – Requirement of specialized “Mano Nyay Legal Services Clinic” – Court directed Member Secretary, BSLSA to submit detailed report on legal aid services and compliance with scheme, including data of beneficiaries – Emphasis on legal empowerment of persons with mental illness [Para 13]

Mental Healthcare – Role of Amicus Curiae – Detailed inspection report highlighting statutory violations, infrastructural deficiencies and systemic gaps including non-functioning MHRBs, inadequate SMHA compliance, lack of community-based care, absence of ICU, staff shortage, environmental hazards, and lack of vocational training – Court directed State to respond to concerns and consider implementation of recommendations [Paras 11–12]

Mental Healthcare – Statutory compliance – Non-functional Mental Health Review Boards – Failure to hold periodic meetings and exercise statutory oversight – Lack of independent regulatory functioning of SMHA – Held: Violates patient rights including review of involuntary admissions and grievance redressal [Para 12]

Mental Healthcare – Right to dignity and humane treatment – Article 21 – Conditions such as environmental hazards, lack of infrastructure, absence of ICU, inadequate staff, and lack of rehabilitation undermine statutory and constitutional guarantees – Court emphasized need for holistic, rights-based mental healthcare system [Paras 10–12]

Mental Healthcare – Community-based approach – Failure of State to develop integrated inter-departmental rehabilitation framework – Lack of supported accommodation, employment linkage and community reintegration – Held: State must move beyond institutionalization towards community-based recovery model [Para 12]

Mental Healthcare – Public awareness and accessibility – Need for awareness campaigns, tele-mental health services, and integration of services at district level – Court emphasized decentralization of mental healthcare and strengthening of grassroots systems [Paras 3, 6, 12]

Mental Healthcare – Judicial monitoring – Court directed filing of affidavits by all authorities including Union of India – Personal presence of key officials ordered – Continuous supervision to ensure compliance with statutory obligations and implementation of recommendations [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Matter listed for further monitoring – Authorities directed to file detailed affidavits on compliance, rehabilitation measures, legal aid, police and prison obligations, and implementation of recommendations – Personal presence of key officials directed on next date.