Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].

Arbitration – Section 9 – Interim Protection – Attachment of Cargo – Demurrage Claim – Maintainability – Petitioner (shipowner) sought attachment of 1600 MT rice cargo and security of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage under a charter party with 1st respondent – Cargo carried from Kakinada to Ho Chi Minh City under fixture note dated 12.03.2021 – Delay at discharge port allegedly caused by respondent – Invoice for demurrage raised on 23.06.2021, followed by demand notice and updated invoice in April 2024 – Held: Claim for demurrage, being in nature of liquidated damages, does not create a “debt” until liability is adjudicated – Unless damages determined by arbitral award, no actionable claim arises – Interim attachment cannot be granted merely to secure unadjudicated liquidated damages [Paras 22–24].

Section 9, Arbitration Act – Interim Measures – Application of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Preconditions – Power under Section 9(1)(ii)(b) read with Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly – Applicant must establish (i) strong prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) reasonable expedition; and (iv) attempt by respondent to remove or dispose assets to defeat award – Mere bald assertions of risk of dissipation insufficient – No material produced to show respondents’ intention to defeat possible award – Interim attachment cannot be used to convert unsecured claim into secured debt [Paras 14–19, 30–31].

Liquidated Damages – Distinction from Debt – Section 74, Contract Act – Demurrage under charter party is a form of liquidated damages; under Indian law, no pecuniary liability arises until determination of breach and assessment of reasonable compensation – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 – Hence, claim for demurrage remains contingent until adjudicated by arbitral tribunal [Para 22].

Delay and Laches – Reasonable Expedition – Section 9 Proceedings – Petitioner remained silent for nearly three years (July 2021–April 2024) before filing Section 9 petition – No immediate legal steps taken despite contractual arbitration clause – Delay fatal to claim for urgent interim protection – Balance of convenience lies against petitioner [Paras 25–26].

Attachment Before Judgment – Vague Pleadings – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Mere apprehension of sale or encumbrance of goods insufficient – No concrete allegation or evidence that respondent disposed assets to defeat claim – Allegations in petition general and speculative – Attachment of respondent’s stock-in-trade (rice cargo) unjustified [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Petitioner failed to satisfy the preconditions for interim protection under Section 9 and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC—No material to show intent by respondents to defeat award—Claim for demurrage yet to be adjudicated by arbitrator—Delay of nearly three years unexplained— Held: Interim attachment dated 23.04.2024 vacated—Application dismissed—Registry directed to return security amount of USD 296,326.74 deposited by 1st respondent—No costs [Para 31].

Motor Accident Claim – Driver Identity Dispute – Insurer contended that Aman Chauhan, a deceased without a valid driving license, was driving the Alto car at time of accident, rendering policy coverage void – Tribunal and High Court rejected insurer’s claim based on consistent eyewitness testimony and admission of Anil Kumar, who confessed to being the driver and fleeing the scene – FIR and police final report found unreliable as no investigating officer was examined and discrepancies existed in factual narration [Paras 5.4, 6, 9-13, 16]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurer – Defence of breach of policy failed – Insurer failed to prove that Aman Chauhan was driver – Testimony of surviving occupant (Prince Chauhan) and six independent eyewitnesses supported that Anil Kumar was driving – Police's reliance on ASI’s second-hand report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly fastened liability on insurer [Paras 10.1 to 10.9, 14-17]

Compensation – Quantum Determination – Aman Chauhan’s income estimated at ₹15,000/month by Tribunal, though not supported by documentary proof – Court reduced monthly income to ₹10,000 based on skilled worker’s minimum wage – Total compensation modified to ₹20,53,932 from ₹30,06,000 [Paras 20-20.2]

Compensation – Quantum Re-assessment – In Jasvinder’s case, Tribunal assumed ₹12,000/month income; Court revised it to ₹10,000 based on minimum wage – After 50% deduction and 40% future prospects, compensation recalculated as ₹14,14,000 instead of ₹16,82,800 [Paras 21-21.1]

Personal Injury – Compensation – In Prince Chauhan’s claim (injury case), award of ₹50,000 upheld – Court found it reasonable and not excessive – No interference warranted [Para 22]

Evidence – FIR and Police Report – FIR based on ASI’s inference from hearsay and not supported by direct evidence – Final report filed months later without timely recording of survivor’s version – Held: FIR and police report untrustworthy, especially in absence of testimony of investigating officer [Paras 12-13, 15-16]

Appellate Interference – FAO No. 31 (Prince Chauhan) dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 and 33 (Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder) partially allowed to modify compensation quantum – Awards modified but insurer held liable [Paras 24-25]

Decision: FAO No. 31 of 2023 dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 & 33 of 2023 partially allowed – Compensation in MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 and MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 reduced – Tribunal’s finding on liability upheld – Interest to remain as awarded [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Evidence of Child Witness – The child victim (aged 10 years) consistently deposed about inappropriate touch by her uncle – Her version remained intact despite cross-examination – Court held child’s testimony trustworthy for offence under Section 10 POCSO though not sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 [Paras 7–10, 16–18].

POCSO Act – Sections 5(l), 5(m), and 6 – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Inconsistencies between victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and deposition at trial – Medical evidence (MLC) recorded hymen intact, no injury to private parts, and FSL report negative – Held: Prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 6 set aside [Paras 16–17].

POCSO Act – Section 10 read with Section 9(m) – Sexual Assault (Non-penetrative) – Victim’s version corroborated by tuition teacher’s statement about accused touching her inappropriately – Conduct consistent with sexual intent – Conviction under Section 10 sustained [Paras 10, 17–18].

Evidence – Corroboration – Absence of injuries or biological evidence not fatal when non-penetrative assault proved through credible testimony – Victim’s statement sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 10 POCSO [Paras 17–18].

Defence – Motive of False Implication – Alleged financial dispute between accused and victim’s father found unsubstantiated – Father (examined as DW-2) denied existence of such dispute – Plea rejected [Paras 14–15].

Sentence – Modification – Appellant sentenced to RI 12 years (Section 6), 5 years (Section 10), and 1 year (Section 506 IPC) by trial court – Having undergone more than six and a half years, sentence under Section 10 deemed served – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Conviction under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) & (m) POCSO set aside – Conviction under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) POCSO upheld – Appellant released as sentence already undergone – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 18–20].

Property Law – Possession under Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Agreement dated 07.05.1963 and receipt dated 15.09.1963 proved on record – However, possession of defendants taken nearly six to seven years after execution of the agreement – Held: Such possession not in part performance of the contract – Essential conditions under Section 53A not fulfilled – Defence of part performance unavailable [Paras 11–13, 16].

Specific Relief – Readiness and Willingness – Defendants failed to establish continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract – Once the suit for specific performance stood dismissed, the right to invoke Section 53A ceased – Doctrine of part performance is purely defensive and cannot sustain possession after extinguishment of contractual rights [Paras 15–16].

Adverse Possession – Inconsistency with Contractual Possession – Plea of adverse possession cannot co-exist with possession under an agreement to sell – Possession under such contract is lawful only during subsistence of the agreement – After dismissal of specific performance suit, no title or ownership can accrue by adverse possession [Para 15].

Case Law – Applicability – Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi (2023) 7 SCC 361 distinguished – Doctrine of part performance applicable only where possession is taken in pursuance of the agreement and transferee remains willing to perform the contract – Defendants failed to satisfy these conditions – No benefit from the cited authority [Para 17].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No perversity or substantial question of law shown – Concurrent decrees of possession based on proper appreciation of evidence – High Court declines interference [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Decrees of possession affirmed – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]

Income Tax – Bogus Purchases – Reopening of Assessment – Information from Sales Tax Department – AO reopened assessment based solely on list of alleged hawala dealers and added entire ₹2,05,74,750 as bogus purchases – Assessee produced purchase bills, VAT auditor’s certificate, ledger, and bank payment proof – CIT(A) restricted addition to 15% of reduced purchase value based on Simit P. Sheth principle – ITAT confirmed – Held: Reopening based only on unverified external information without giving assessee opportunity to cross-examine alleged dealers violates natural justice – Addition of 100% unjustified; estimation at 15% reasonable [Paras 4–10, 13–16].

Section 147 – Reassessment – Mere information from investigation wing or Sales Tax Department cannot be sole basis for belief of escapement without independent inquiry – AO’s reliance on third-party list without supplying material to assessee renders assessment unsustainable [Paras 13–15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Once assessee produces purchase invoices, bank payment details, and VAT audit certificate, onus shifts to Revenue to disprove genuineness; failure to do so vitiates addition [Paras 15–16].

Natural Justice – Violation – Failure to furnish underlying material or allow cross-examination of alleged bogus suppliers renders order contrary to fairness and due process [Paras 13–14].

Factual Finding – Concurrent Findings of CIT(A) & ITAT – Both authorities found partial genuineness and applied 15% gross profit estimation following CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451, Guj.) – No perversity shown – No substantial question of law arises under Section 260A [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Revenue’s appeal dismissed – Order of ITAT and CIT(A) upheld – Addition restricted to 15% of alleged hawala purchases – No substantial question of law arises [Para 17].

Civil Law – Decree Based on Family Settlement – Validity – Decree dated 14.01.1983 allegedly obtained by appellants Satpal and Mohinder Singh against Sukh Ram on basis of family settlement – Courts below held Sukh Ram was not related to appellants and had not suffered decree – Fingerprint expert evidence showed thumb impressions on court record did not match Sukh Ram’s – Held: Decree obtained by impersonation and fraud – Decree unregistered and not based on pre-existing right – Invalid and not binding – Findings of both courts affirmed [Paras 16–16.1].

Revenue Records – Possession – Change in Khasra Girdwari Without Notice – Appellant Lakhmi claimed possession based on revenue entries – First Appellate Court reversed Trial Court and held entries invalid as made without notice to Sukh Ram – Held: Change in revenue records without due process has no legal sanctity – Possession of Lakhmi not established – Sukh Ram rightly held to be in possession of suit land – Declaration and injunction decrees upheld [Paras 17–18].

Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act does not require formulation of substantial question of law as under Section 100 CPC – Held: Findings of fact by lower courts based on cogent reasoning and evidence – Appeals dismissed on merits [Paras 15, 18.1].

Contempt of Court – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – Petitioners claimed respondents violated status quo order by executing sale deed and forcibly taking possession – Held: Petitioners failed to show they were in possession – Allegations vague and lacking specific dates or details – No deliberate or willful disobedience shown – Contempt petition dismissed as misconceived [Paras 18.2–19].

Decision: All four Regular Second Appeals dismissed – Findings of lower courts regarding invalidity of decree and absence of lawful possession affirmed – Contempt petition (COCP-1620-2008) dismissed as vague and lacking merit – All pending applications also disposed of – Judgment to be placed on record of all connected files.