Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Direct Evidence – FIR Delay – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Report – Role of MLA Accused – Appeals Dismissed – Jai Prakash Singh, father of the informant (PW-8), was abducted and murdered on 20.08.2015 by a mob of over 20 persons allegedly associated with a caste-based political meeting – PW-8 provided a detailed and consistent eye-witness account identifying all key accused, including Manoj Manzil (a sitting MLA) as the main assailant – Corroboration from PWs 1-4 confirmed the assault and motive – Delay in FIR held immaterial as police reached the spot within 20–25 minutes and search continued overnight – FIR was lodged next morning and delay duly explained [Paras 2–5, 30–34].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole Testimony – Natural Conduct – PW-8’s Testimony Accepted as Wholly Reliable – Court found PW-8’s narration natural and consistent with other evidence – His presence at the scene with his father was undisputed – Supported by PWs 1–4, his evidence formed the backbone of the prosecution case – Testimony found credible despite absence of independent witnesses – Held: Sole testimony of a trustworthy witness can sustain conviction [Paras 35–44].

Medical Jurisprudence – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Test Not Produced – No Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellants challenged the identification of the body recovered after 7 days, claiming mismatch in age and postmortem findings – Court held identification by scar and dyed hair acceptable – Cause of death (strangulation) corroborated with ocular evidence – Held: Failure to produce DNA report does not vitiate trial in light of other cogent evidence – Relying on Pattu Rajan, S. Kaleeswaran and Vadivelu Thevar, Court held DNA is opinion evidence and absence does not negate otherwise proved facts [Paras 46–56].

Delay in FIR – Explained and Justified – No Concoction or Fabrication Found – Police investigation began immediately post-incident – FIR delay caused by overnight search and immediate police arrival – FIR handed to Chaukidar next morning – No questions raised in cross-examination to challenge genuineness – Delay not fatal per Chotkau and Hariprasad rulings [Paras 31–34]

Mob Violence – Identification – Role of Each Accused Clearly Established – Specific roles attributed to Manoj Manzil and others in eyewitness testimonies – Defence plea of vague allegations rejected – Presence and participation of accused clearly narrated – Motive (revenge for earlier caste killing) held proved [Paras 38–41, 45].

Independent Witnesses – Absence Not Fatal – Explanation Accepted – Court noted fear and political influence (accused was an MLA) as factors deterring neutral witnesses – Relatives’ testimony not discarded for being ‘interested’ – Held: Credibility, not relationship, determines evidentiary weight [Paras 42–43].

Postmortem and Artefacts – Decomposition Effects Not Inconsistent With Assault – Court relied on Modi’s Textbook to explain how decomposition distorts signs of external trauma – Foul smell, bloating, liquefaction common in delayed recovery – Observed that absence of external injuries does not negate assault in decomposed state – Postmortem corroborated strangulation, consistent with cause of death [Paras 53–55].

Appeal – Dismissed – Convictions and Sentences Upheld – Bail Cancelled – Accused Directed to Surrender – Appeals dismissed – Court upheld conviction under Sections 302/149, 364/149, and 201/149 IPC – Life sentence and fines confirmed – Accused on bail directed to surrender within one week; failure to attract coercive action [Paras 57–59].

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Evidentiary Value of Charge Sheet – Accident occurred when claimant’s motorcycle (KL-31E-1713) collided with another motorcycle (KL-04V-4339) insured with appellant – Tribunal fixed contributory negligence at 50:50 and awarded ₹1,12,110/- with 8% interest – Held: Ext.B1 charge sheet showed claimant as accused for rash and negligent driving – AMVI report confirmed rear-side impact to insured vehicle – No evidence led by claimant to prove negligence of other rider – Charge sheet is prima facie proof of negligence under New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KHC 595] – Tribunal erred in finding contributory negligence without valid reasoning [Paras 5–8].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Burden of Proof – Claimant must establish negligence of the offending vehicle – In absence of oral or documentary evidence supporting negligence of the insured rider, claim cannot be sustained against insurer – Tribunal’s reliance on conjecture that vehicle ahead lacked indication light insufficient to fix contributory negligence [Paras 7–8].

Appeal – Interference with Tribunal’s Finding – Appellate Court held that findings of contributory negligence unsupported by evidence are liable to be set aside – Insurer absolved of liability as entire negligence lay with claimant who was charge-sheeted as tortfeasor [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence on rider of insured vehicle set aside – Insurer not liable to pay compensation to claimant [Para 8].

Criminal Law – House Trespass – Assault with Firearm – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC for unlawfully entering complainant’s residence at night and threatening with a country-made pistol – Prosecution established recovery of firearm, live and fired cartridges – Eyewitness accounts by daughter (PW-2) and complainant (PW-10) corroborated by police witnesses – FSL report confirmed the firearm and ammunition fell under Arms Act – Held: Trial Court rightly convicted appellant based on reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 2–11]

Witness Testimony – Identification of Accused – PW-2 positively identified the appellant and detailed sequence of events – PW-10 (complainant) unable to identify appellant in court due to passage of time, but had identified him at the time of incident – Police witnesses confirmed arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution not discredited merely because one witness could not identify the accused after long delay – Conviction sustainable on basis of other credible witnesses [Para 9]

Sentencing – Probation – Reformative Justice – Long Pendency – Appellant was 18–19 years old at the time of incident and has no prior record – Trial concluded after 22 years and appeal pending for 20+ years – Appellant married with six children and sole breadwinner – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Mohammad Giasuddin, Pramod Kumar Mishra, K. Pounammal) emphasizes reformative approach in long-pending matters – Held: While conviction upheld, sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year under bond of ₹10,000 with one surety [Paras 12–15]

Decision:  Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC upheld – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year – All pending applications disposed of

Criminal Law – Forgery and Cheating – Loan Fraud – Proof of Partnership and Entrustment – Petitioners (A1 and A2) convicted for conspiring with absconding co-accused Sethuraman to obtain Rs.25.95 lakh loan from Central Bank of India by submitting forged mortgage deeds and fake valuation certificates – A1 claimed false implication and absence of proof of partnership – A2 contended no link to forgery or conspiracy – Held: Documentary and oral evidence of Bank Manager (PW1), Sub-Registrar (PW5), VAO (PW6), and Advocate (PW4) established that forged documents were produced and mortgage executed to secure loan – Signatures, stamp denominations, and vendor details differed from originals – Prosecution proved conspiracy and fabrication beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–16].

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients and Proof – Court reiterated that criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires evidence of agreement between parties to commit unlawful act – Direct proof rarely available; can be inferred from conduct, documentary links, and chain of circumstances – In present case, joint execution of loan documents, mortgage deeds, and submission of false valuation certificates proved common intention [Paras 7–10, 15–16].

Forgery – Use of Forged Documents – Responsibility of Makers – Petitioners argued that forgery not attributed to them as makers – Held: A1 and A2 actively used forged documents to avail loan and stood as partners/guarantors – Liability attaches to those who use forged instruments knowing them to be forged – Supported by Sub-Registrar’s testimony confirming discrepancies in stamp papers and seals [Paras 5–6, 15–16].

Sentencing – Modification Considering Gender and Age – While affirming conviction under all charges, Court modified sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year in view of A1’s gender and both petitioners’ age and health condition – Fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence maintained – Sentences to run concurrently [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revisions partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence – Sentences to run concurrently.

Specific Performance – Non-title Holder – Agreement Executed by Agreement-holder – Plaintiff sought enforcement against a defendant who was himself only an agreement-holder and not the actual owner – Defendant had no title or authority to convey property – Held: Such an agreement is not enforceable – Specific performance cannot be granted under Section 54 TPA and Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 18–22, 41(a)]

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff did not plead or prove consistent readiness and willingness to perform his part – No evidence of financial ability or legal notice – Held: Failure to prove readiness disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief [Paras 23–27, 41(b)]

Limitation – Though suit was filed within limitation, the absence of enforceable title and readiness made limitation irrelevant to the relief – Trial court’s finding on limitation not disturbed [Paras 7, 27]

Alternative Relief – Refund of Advance – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹4,20,000 under Ex.A1 – Though specific performance was denied, refund granted under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act – Interest awarded at 9% per annum up to suit and 6% thereafter till realization [Paras 34–38, 41(c), 42(ii)]

Necessary Parties – Non-joinder – Trial court’s view that suit was bad for non-joinder of original owner rejected – Original owners were not parties to the agreement with the plaintiff – Defendant acted independently – Held: Original owners and earlier agreement-holders were not necessary parties [Paras 28–33]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Specific performance refused – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹4,20,000 with interest – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 42(i)–(v)]

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Denial – Petitioner, former TUDA Chairman and Accused No.39 in ₹3200 crore liquor scam, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS – Allegations include misuse of government vehicle for transporting unaccounted cash during 2024 General Elections – Held: Prima facie material including toll data and witness statements support prosecution's case – Offences involve public funds and serious conspiracy – Anticipatory bail rightly refused [Paras 2, 8–13].

Economic Offences – Prima Facie Case – Bail Denied – Statement of L.W.162 (gunman) confirmed Petitioner provided TUDA vehicle for cash transport – Toll records contradict TUDA’s logbooks, indicating vehicle misuse – Cash seizure of ₹8.36 crores from vehicle linked to Petitioner – Court held this constitutes prima facie involvement – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–10].

Anticipatory Bail – Suppression of Antecedents – Failure to Disclose FIRs – Petitioner failed to disclose four prior FIRs in bail petition – Held: Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents relevant ground to deny anticipatory bail – Reliance placed on SC’s judgment in Muneesh v. State of U.P. [Paras 8–9].

BNSS – Section 179 – Non-appearance after Summons – Petitioner failed to appear despite multiple summons under Section 179 BNSS – Court rejected argument that non-cooperation alone should not bar bail – Held: Continued evasion reinforces need for custodial interrogation [Paras 5, 12].

Judicial Discretion – Scope of Anticipatory Bail – Economic Fraud – Court cited multiple SC precedents emphasizing cautious use of anticipatory bail in serious financial crimes – Discretion to be exercised sparingly, especially in cases involving public interest and systemic fraud – Petition not fit for relief [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No grounds for pre-arrest bail – Custodial interrogation found necessary – Gravity and economic implications outweigh claims of political vendetta.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Fraudulent Sale Deed – Date of Knowledge – Plaint to be read as a whole – Plaintiffs’ case that they acquired knowledge of impugned sale deeds only on 14.12.2021 and suit filed in 2022 – Trial Court rejected plaint holding plaintiffs knew of sale deeds since 1992 due to earlier revenue proceedings – Held: Only plaint averments to be considered; written statement or defendant’s material irrelevant at this stage – Where date of knowledge specifically pleaded, limitation is a mixed question of fact and law – Plaint not ex facie barred by limitation – Rejection unsustainable [Paras 20–23, 26–33].

Order 7 Rule 11 – Scope and Nature – Drastic Power – Exercise limited to cases where plaint itself shows clear bar of law – Trial Court erred in interpreting plaint selectively and inferring prior knowledge from unrelated proceedings – Plaint disclosed triable issues regarding knowledge and fraud – Rejection at threshold impermissible [Paras 23, 29–33].

Limitation – Article 59, Limitation Act – Period begins when facts entitling cancellation first become known – Not from date of execution – When plaintiff is not executant of sale deed, limitation runs from date of knowledge – Determination of such knowledge requires evidence – Trial Court exceeded jurisdiction in rejecting plaint summarily [Paras 31–33].

Fraud and Knowledge – Mutation and Collusion in Revenue Records – Allegations that defendants’ predecessors fraudulently mutated names during consolidation proceedings without owners’ consent – Fraud alleged explains delayed discovery – Such pleadings raise factual disputes requiring trial [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 05.05.2025 set aside – Plaint restored to its original number – Defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Trial Court directed to decide suit expeditiously within one year – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 33–36].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Prevention of Corruption – Recruitment fraud in TRC-ICMR – A1 (Administrative Officer) manipulated recruitment process to secure appointment of his son (A2) – Suppressed A2’s ineligibility, leaked question paper, and altered recruitment procedure – Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under IPC and PC Act; State sought conviction under conspiracy – Held: A1 misused official position for personal gain; A2 knowingly participated in deception – Offence of cheating (S.420 IPC) proved against both; Criminal breach of trust (S.409 IPC) and offences under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act established against A1 – Criminal conspiracy (S.120-B) proved only to the extent of S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – Sentences modified to simple imprisonment; institutional corrective directions issued to ICMR [Paras 5, 5.2–5.16, 7].

Recruitment Fraud – Misrepresentation and Suppression – A2 possessed M.A. (Public Administration) obtained through open university system, without basic degree or prescribed subjects – Falsely declared “M.A.” and claimed proficiency in Telugu – A1, being Administrative Officer, deliberately suppressed A2’s specialization during scrutiny and presentation before the Selection Committee – Held: Concealment and false representation were deliberate and material – Offence of cheating made out beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.9].

Evidence – Question Paper Leakage – Circumstantial and Technical Proof – Question papers and answer keys stored in floppy entrusted to A1 with strict confidentiality; metadata revealed unauthorized modifications on 17 & 19 July 2005; corroborated by approver (PW-15); only A2 and approver’s son scored full marks (25/25) – Defence plea of “easy paper” rejected – Held: Leakage established; breach of trust and cheating proved against A1; active participation of A2 inferred from exclusive benefit gained [Paras 5.6–5.8].

Service Law – Manipulated Circular – A1 issued internal circular for Technician post in deviation from amended recruitment rules – Omitted public advertisement and reversed “essential” and “desirable” qualifications to fit A2’s eligibility – Held: Fraud on recruitment process; vitiated selection of A2; acts amounted to misuse of official authority for personal benefit [Paras 5.10–5.15].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Court reiterates that every irregular appointment does not amount to criminal misconduct unless dishonest intention and unlawful gain are proved – In present case, cumulative circumstances and technical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion insufficient, but prosecution evidence met legal standard [Para 5].

Conspiracy – Scope and Limitation – Evidence showed A1 and A2 acted in concert to cheat organisation by dishonest concealment and manipulation – However, no wider conspiracy involving other officials proved – Held: Guilt under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC sustained; conspiracy for other substantive offences not established [Para 5.18].

Sentence – Modification – A1: Convictions under S.420 IPC, S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed; sentence modified to one year’s Simple Imprisonment on each count, with fine maintained; three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC added – A2: Conviction under S.420 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to three months’ SI; additional three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently; eight weeks to surrender; medical direction issued for A1 – “Being mentioned” order dated 15-10-2025 corrected A1’s age to 76 and imposed additional fine of Rs 1,000 [Para 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Institutional Accountability – Systemic Failures – Court expressed concern over ethical decline in recruitment integrity – Directed ICMR to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against A1 (including post-retirement, if permissible) and to conduct discreet audit of employee-kin appointments – Directed forwarding of judgment to DG, ICMR and Secretary, MoHFW for systemic corrective action [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of A1 under S.420 & S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed with modified sentence of Simple Imprisonment – Conviction of A2 under S.420 IPC maintained with reduced term – State appeal partly allowed by including S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC against both – Sentences to run concurrently – Medical and procedural directions affirmed [Paras 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Civil Law – Injunction – Alleged Encroachment – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and alternate relief of possession based on alleged encroachment on Khasra No. 721 by adjoining landowners in Khasra No. 722 – Plaintiff claimed existence of 3-meter-wide vacant land between the two constructions – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim based on consistent demarcation reports and Local Commissioner’s findings [Paras 2–6, 10–11].

Evidence – Demarcation Reports – Local Commissioner – Plaintiff conducted three demarcations before suit and challenged findings each time – Local Commissioner’s report filed during trial also negated encroachment – Plaintiff failed to summon or cross-examine Local Commissioner – Admission of satisfaction with demarcation recorded – Objections dismissed – Held: Findings based on evidence; no interference warranted [Paras 10–12].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Appeal admitted on substantial question of law regarding misreading of pleadings and evidence – Held: No error found, and substantial question of law answered against appellant [Paras 7, 12–14].

Decision:

Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Appellate Court dated 21.02.2015 affirmed – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 13–16].