Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Section 348 BNSS (Section 311 Cr.P.C.) – Investigating Officer recalled to prove disclosure statements and connected documents – Trial Court found that certain material documents relating to ownership of vehicle, lease deed of hospital and inspection report were not put to PW-4 during examination-in-chief – Held: Power under Section 348 BNSS can be exercised at any stage if evidence appears essential to just decision of case – Recall not to fill lacuna but to place complete link evidence on record – No illegality in order permitting recall [Paras 19-21, 24].

Scope of Section 348 BNSS – “Essential to the Just Decision of the Case” – Expression covers holistic adjudication and not confined only to prejudice or benefit of accused before Court – Court empowered to summon or recall witness to ascertain truth even if documents are already on record but not duly proved through concerned witness – Power to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily [Paras 21-23].

NDPS Act – Disclosure Statements under Section 27 Evidence Act – Disclosure statements of accused recorded by Investigating Officer referred to involvement of hospital owner and use of vehicle registered in name of hospital – Though other witnesses proved disclosure memos, IO failed to depose about relevant facts during examination – Recall justified to complete chain of evidence – Objection that prosecution seeks to implicate discharged person held speculative [Paras 16-20].

Filling Lacuna – Distinction – Mere recall of witness to formally prove documents or clarify omissions does not ipso facto amount to filling lacuna – Unless serious prejudice is demonstrated, recall permissible – Reliance placed on principles laid down in Rajaram Prasad Yadav and Mannan Sk. [Paras 23-24].

Fair Trial – Balancing Interests – Section 348 BNSS serves object of discovery of truth – Fair trial entails rights of accused, victim and society – Court must ensure evidence essential for just decision is not shut out on technicalities [Para 23].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Order dated 21.05.2025 allowing recall of PW-4 (Investigating Officer) upheld – No illegality or infirmity found.

Motor Vehicles Act – Pay and Recover – Insurance Liability – Driver Without Driving License – Third-Party Victims Cannot Be Deprived – Tribunal erred in exonerating Insurance Company from liability solely on the ground that the owner-cum-driver of the offending Tata Magic vehicle did not hold a valid Driving License on the date of accident – Investigating Officer at Exhibit 65 stated the driver had no Driving License; Insurance Company also examined its Officer at Exhibit 70 and RTO Officer at Exhibit 75, however, no clear evidence was produced to conclusively prove absence of license – Owner failed to produce any license or appear before the Court despite being duly served – Insurance policy being a statutory contract for the benefit of third parties, the victims (rider and pillion rider of motorcycle) are third parties having no concern with the inter se terms and conditions of the insurance policy – Applying the principle of "pay and recover" consistently laid down by the Supreme Court in Shamanna, Anu Bhanvara, Sunita, Rama Bai, and Swaran Singh – Held: Insurance Company directed to first pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle – Tribunal's omission to pass pay and recover order was error [Paras 7-12]
Compensation – Fatal Accident – Income Assessment – Average Income Method Questioned – Future Economic Loss Enhanced – Tribunal assessed annual income of deceased CRPF employee at Rs.2,86,856/- by averaging Form No.16 income figures for AY 2011-12 (Rs.2,34,873/-) and AY 2012-13 (Rs.3,27,372/-) – Following Nidhi Bhargava vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine 872 and Sayar Ram vs. Ram Kara, SLP (Civil) No. 24501/2025, held that income tax returns filed after the accident/death can also be considered and the preceding year's return must be taken as a foundational benchmark as business profits exhibit progressive growth – In view of Malarvizhi & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr., 2020 ACJ SC 526, annual income of the deceased is required to be reassessed at Rs.3,19,264/- (monthly Rs.26,605/-) – Future prospect of 50% applied (deceased aged 32 years, permanent CRPF employment), 1/4 deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier of 16 – Future economic loss reassessed from Rs.51,63,264/- to Rs.57,46,752/- – Additional amount of Rs.5,83,488/- awarded [Paras 14-17]
Compensation – Fatal Accident – Conventional Heads – Loss of Consortium – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Enhanced – Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium for 4 dependents (Rs.1,60,000/- total) – High Court relying on Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 enhanced the same to Rs.48,400/- each (Rs.1,93,600/- total) – Loss of estate and funeral expenses enhanced from Rs.15,000/- each to Rs.18,150/- each as per National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 – Total compensation in fatal accident (MAC Petition No.1079 of 2013) enhanced from Rs.53,53,264/- to Rs.59,76,652/- – Additional amount of Rs.6,23,388/- awarded [Paras 18-21]
Compensation – Injury Claim – Minimum Wages – Household Worker – Income and Future Prospect – Tribunal assessed income of injured appellant (household worker) at Rs.4,000/- per month in absence of any proof of income – High Court following Govind Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC) held that in absence of proof of income the Tribunal must apply the prevailing minimum wage rate – Accident occurred on 28.08.2013 and minimum wages for unskilled worker at the relevant time was Rs.5,300/- per month – Income of appellant enhanced to Rs.5,300/- per month – Tribunal further committed error in not considering future prospectus; 40% addition towards future prospectus awarded as per Pranay Sethi – Disability of 30% body as a whole (as properly assessed by Tribunal from Exhibit 33) upheld – Multiplier of 17 (age 29 years) upheld per Sarla Verma – Future economic loss reassessed from Rs.2,44,800/- to Rs.4,54,104/- – Total injury compensation (MAC Petition No.1080 of 2013) enhanced from Rs.3,07,800/- to Rs.5,19,704/- – Additional amount of Rs.2,11,904/- awarded [Paras 23-28]
Compensation – Power of Tribunal and Court to Award Compensation Beyond Claimed Amount – Following Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274, there is no restriction that compensation can only be awarded up to the amount claimed – If evidence on record justifies a higher amount, the Tribunal or Court is empowered to award compensation exceeding the claimed amount [Paras 22, 29]
Decision: Both First Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and award dated 14.10.2019 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad, in MAC Petition Nos.1079 of 2013 and 1080 of 2013 modified to the extent of enhanced compensation – Insurance Company directed to deposit additional amount of Rs.6,23,388/- (FA No.3068/2022) and Rs.2,11,904/- (FA No.3043/2022) along with proportionate interest as awarded by the Tribunal within four weeks – Pay and recover order passed against the owner of the offending vehicle – Offending vehicle to be attached as security – Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered.

Criminal Law – Receiving Stolen Property – Section 411 IPC – Possession of 26 stolen motorcycles including 3 in subject case – Independent mediator (PW4) deposed regarding apprehension of accused and recovery – No explanation offered by accused for possession – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act attracted – Conviction upheld [Paras 11, 18, 22–24].

Evidence – Section 27 Evidence Act – Custody and Arrest – Accused apprehended while attempting to flee and physically restrained by police – Held: Arrest complete upon apprehension as per Section 46 CrPC – Requirement of custody satisfied – However, conviction not based on confessional statement but on independent evidence and seizure – Rajesh v. State of M.P. distinguished on facts [Paras 15–19].

Confession – Police Statement – Section 161 CrPC – Confessional statement not marked as exhibit – Trial Court did not rely upon inadmissible confession – Conviction recorded on basis of direct evidence of prosecution witnesses and seizure of material objects – Challenge to admissibility held inconsequential [Paras 18–19].

Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – Right to Silence – Material incriminating circumstances regarding possession of stolen motorcycles specifically put to accused – Accused remained silent – Held: Silence permissible only where material circumstances not put – When specific questions framed, failure to offer explanation permits adverse inference – Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. distinguished [Paras 20–23].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court – No perversity or legal infirmity found – Revisional Court not to re-appreciate evidence unless glaring illegality shown – Revision dismissed [Paras 7, 24].

Sentence – Modification by Appellate Court – Trial Court imposed three years RI – Appellate Court reduced to one year RI – High Court found no ground for further interference – Suspension of sentence vacated – Petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks [Paras 1, 25].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case dismissed – Conviction under Section 411 IPC and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment affirmed – Petitioner directed to surrender within four weeks – Interim suspension vacated.

Education – PG-NEET In-Service Quota – Delay in Issuance of Form-H – Petitioners, in-service GDMOs, applied for PG-NEET 2025 – Unable to claim OBC benefit due to non-issuance of Form-H by Tahsildar despite Government Circular dated 08.05.2025 – Cut-off percentile subsequently reduced making them eligible – Held: Delay in issuance of Form-H not attributable to petitioners – They cannot be deprived of in-service reservation benefits on account of administrative lapse [Paras 6-8, 17].

Reservation – Decategorisation of In-Service Seats – Large number of in-service seats decategorised and merged with general pool due to absence of eligible candidates in earlier rounds – Petitioners subsequently became eligible after reduction of percentile – Held: Though decategorisation per rules not disputed, petitioners entitled to equitable consideration consistent with earlier order of co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.110014/2025 [Paras 16-19].

Parity – Similarly Situated Candidates – Co-ordinate Bench (Dharwad) had directed that petitioner therein be treated as in-service candidate and offered first preference in Mop-up round along with similarly situated candidates – No challenge shown to said order – Held: Present petitioners, being similarly situated, also entitled to same treatment and first preference in order of merit in Mop-up round [Paras 19-20].

Mop-Up Round – Allotment of Seats – Petitioners to be treated as in-service candidates and offered first preference in order of merit along with petitioner in W.P. No.110014/2025 to choose from available regular PG seats and DNB seats reserved for Health and Family Welfare in-service candidates – Remaining seats thereafter to be offered to other candidates – Timelines fixed for completion of Mop-up and stray vacancy rounds [Paras 20-22, Post-order directions].

Administrative Directions – Timeline – Court directed Mop-up round to be held before 05.03.2026 and stray vacancy round before 12.03.2026 – Entire process to be completed on or before 18.03.2026 – KEA permitted to coordinate with MCC for portal access [Post-order directions].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Petitioners to be treated as in-service candidates and granted first preference in Mop-up round along with similarly situated candidate in W.P. No.110014/2025 – Directions issued regarding completion of counselling process within stipulated timeline.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 20(C), 61 and 85 of the NDPS - Commercial Quantity – Petitioner implicated solely on disclosure statement of co-accused – 25.265 kg ganja recovered from co-accused – No recovery effected from petitioner – Petitioner not present at spot – Co-accused already granted regular bail – Investigation completed and challan presented – 18 prosecution witnesses cited but none examined – Held: Disclosure statement of co-accused without corroborative evidence has limited evidentiary value and cannot be sole basis for continued incarceration – Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act diluted in facts of case – Further detention not warranted – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 6, 6.1, 6.3, 7].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Scope and Applicability – Court reiterated that twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) are cumulative and in addition to Cr.P.C./BNSS parameters – However, rigour may pale into oblivion in cases of long incarceration and delay in trial in light of Article 21 – Satisfaction under Section 37 to be based on prima facie assessment without detailed appreciation of evidence – Judicial discretion to be exercised based on facts of each case [Paras 6.2, 6.3].

Bail – Second/Successive Petition – Maintainability – Earlier bail petition dismissed as withdrawn – Substantial change in circumstances required – Extended incarceration and slow pace of trial constitute relevant change – Held: Second petition maintainable and can be entertained where cogent reasons exist – Court recorded reasons for grant of bail [Paras 6.4].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Disclosure Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused is weak piece of evidence – Cannot form sole basis of conviction – Final admissibility and probative value to be tested at trial – At bail stage, Court must consider nature of material linking accused with offence [Paras 6, 6.1].

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Mere involvement in other cases – Not ipso facto ground to deny bail – Bail to be considered on facts of present FIR – Reliance placed on Supreme Court and High Court precedents – Held: Other cases not sufficient by themselves to decline bail when case otherwise made out [Para 6.5].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate – Stringent conditions imposed including non-tampering of evidence, non-commission of offence, surrender of passport, disclosure of mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offences, and liberty to State to seek cancellation on breach – Observations not to affect merits of trial.

Real Estate – Enforcement of RERA Order – Recovery as Arrears of Land Revenue – Petitioner allotted housing unit and paid substantial consideration – RERA allowed complaint and directed refund with 9.3% interest – Recovery certificate issued under Section 40(1) RERA – District Collector declared amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 103 H.P. Land Revenue Act – Recovery proceedings stalled on ground that project land vested in State under Section 118 H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act – Held: Vesting of subject land does not defeat enforceability of monetary recovery order – Authorities bound to proceed in accordance with statutory modes of recovery – Recovery to be taken to logical conclusion expeditiously [Paras 3-4].

RERA – Section 40 – Scope and Effect – Where promoter fails to comply with refund order, amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue – Recovery certificate validly issued – Finality of RERA order not disputed – Enforcement cannot be frustrated by subsequent change in asset profile of debtor – Statutory mechanism under Land Revenue Act must be invoked in entirety [Para 4].

Land Revenue Recovery – Statutory Procedure – Sections 74 to 83 H.P. Land Revenue Act provide multiple modes including writ of demand, arrest and detention, distress and sale of movable property, attachment and sale of immovable property and proceedings against other properties of defaulter – Authorities cannot halt proceedings merely because one property has vested in State – Statute mandates strict adherence to prescribed recovery mechanism – No deviation permissible [Para 4].

Administrative Inaction – Impermissibility – Tehsildar (Recovery) failed to proceed with recovery since 15.09.2023 – Such inaction contrary to statutory duty – Legislative intent of RERA and Land Revenue Act would be frustrated if recovery is stalled – Direction issued to District Collector to ensure expeditious completion of recovery proceedings [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – District Collector, Solan directed to ensure that recovery proceedings pursuant to RERA order dated 26.02.2021, recovery certificate dated 17.10.2022 and Demand Order dated 14.11.2022 are taken to their logical conclusion expeditiously in accordance with law – Pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Appellant challenged concurrent findings dismissing suit for permanent injunction claiming tenancy rights over municipal land – Substantial questions framed in memo began with “Because” and were improperly worded – Held: To qualify as substantial question of law, issue must be debatable, arise from pleadings, materially affect rights of parties and not be settled by binding precedent – Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or based on no evidence – Questions framed did not satisfy test laid down in Chandrabhan v. Saraswati – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13-16, 25-29].

Tenancy vs Licence – Agricultural Land of Municipal Body – Plaintiff pleaded tenancy on yearly Lagan basis – No Patta or lease deed produced – Defendants pleaded that plaintiff was licencee for one Fasli year (1372 Fasli) and thereafter trespasser – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held plaintiff was licencee for limited period and subsequently trespasser – Mere Lagan receipts insufficient to establish tenancy in absence of lease document – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 18-24, 26].

Pleadings – Beyond Pleadings – Asami Rights – Plaintiff never pleaded that he was Asami – First Appellate Court observed that at best plaintiff could have been Asami for one Fasli year but such rights did not continue – Held: No evidence can be led beyond pleadings – No admission by defendant regarding conferment of Asami rights – Questions of law based on alleged admission misconceived [Paras 19, 22, 24-27].

Admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Requirement of Clear and Unequivocal Admission – Alleged admission regarding Asami status neither clear nor unconditional – Not sufficient to decree suit on admission – Courts below rightly declined injunction [Para 27].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Interference – Supreme Court authorities including Hero Vinoth, Murthy and Rabindranath Panigrahi relied upon – No perversity, misapplication of law or ignoring of material evidence shown – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Interim order, if any, vacated – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed.

Mohammedan Law – Gift (Hiba) – Registered Gift Deed – Allegation of Consideration – Constructive Delivery of Possession – Scope of Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC – Plaintiffs claimed title based on registered gift deed dated 23.10.2004 executed by father in favour of daughter – Defendants contended it was a mortgage deed and gift was supported by consideration as loan was discharged by son-in-law – No pleading in written statement or grounds of appeal that gift was invalid for consideration – Recitals showed gift made out of love and affection without consideration and possession delivered – Attestor examined and execution proved – Donor never challenged deed during lifetime – Held: In absence of pleadings, new plea cannot be raised in second appeal – Discharge of mortgage by son-in-law does not amount to consideration for gift – Constructive delivery sufficient under Mohammedan Law – No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal dismissed – Two months’ time granted to vacate [Paras 14-19, 22-24, 28-32].

Second Appeal – Interference with Concurrent Findings – High Court’s Jurisdiction – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to law – Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held gift deed valid and plaintiffs proved title and constructive possession – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Held: Interference not warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 14, 32].

Gift under Mohammedan Law – Essentials – Declaration – Acceptance – Delivery of Possession – Registered gift deed contained clear declaration and recitals of delivery – Attesting witness examined – Constructive possession accepted where donor continued in property at request of donee as tenant – Registered deed carries presumption of validity – Burden on defendants to prove otherwise – Not discharged [Paras 21-24, 29-30].

Pleadings – Parties Bound by Pleadings – Substantial Question of Law – Question not raised in pleadings or grounds of appeal cannot be permitted in second appeal – Court cannot travel beyond pleadings – First substantial question framed did not survive in absence of foundational plea [Paras 17-18, 28].

Relief – Declaration and Recovery of Possession – Arrears of Rent – Suit partly decreed by trial Court – Relief of arrears disallowed and not challenged by plaintiffs – Finding attained finality – Declaration and recovery of possession confirmed [Paras 20, 32-33].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court in O.S. No.111 of 2009 and First Appellate Court in A.S. No.37 of 2013 confirmed – Two months’ time granted to appellants to deliver vacant possession – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear own costs.

Criminal Law – Rape and Gang Rape – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Conviction can rest solely on testimony of prosecutrix if of sterling quality – Where testimony suffers from material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies going to root of prosecution case, Court must seek corroboration – Failure to meet standard laid down in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 21–22].

Evidence – Material Improvements – FIR alleged sexual assault about seven days prior to rescue – Deposition before Court alleged confinement and repeated rape for nearly one year by multiple persons – Drastic variation not minor discrepancy – Allegations against A3 (administering injections, arranging multiple men, repeated rape) surfaced for first time during trial – Material improvements render testimony unsafe without corroboration [Paras 22, 26].

Medical Evidence – MLC – History recorded did not mention A3 – While omission of accused’s name in MLC not by itself fatal (Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of A.P., (1985) 4 SCC 80), in present case MLC assumes significance due to inconsistent testimony of prosecutrix – Adds to doubt [Para 23].

Corroboration – Independent Witnesses – PW12 and PW14 corroborated rescue of prosecutrix from house – However, their evidence does not corroborate allegations of prolonged confinement and repeated sexual assault – Presence in house established, but reason for presence doubtful [Para 24].

Wrongful Confinement – Conduct of Prosecutrix – Admitted that she was taken outside house on multiple occasions, including to doctor – Neighbouring houses in close proximity – Gave birth during alleged period of confinement – Failure to raise alarm or escape despite opportunities creates serious doubt regarding prosecution version of continuous wrongful confinement for one year [Paras 25–26].

Role of Co-Accused – Shifting Versions – FIR stated prosecutrix eloped with Angesh who abandoned her – No allegation of rape by him in FIR – During deposition alleged rape by Angesh, A3 and several others – A4 initially implicated but later given clean chit and acquitted – Such shifting stands undermine credibility [Paras 16, 26].

Criminal Trial – Section 232 Cr.P.C. – Non-compliance does not ipso facto vitiate trial unless prejudice shown – No prejudice demonstrated [Para 8].

Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to acquittal [Para 27].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence of A1 (Manoj) and A3 (Mukesh) under Sections 342/34, 323/34, 376, 376(2)(g) IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. – To be set at liberty – Bail bonds cancelled.