Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Confirmed – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for inflicting multiple sword blows on vital parts of deceased – Ocular evidence of wife (PW-2) corroborated by independent witness (PW-5) regarding chase with blood-stained swords – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to penetrating chest injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Recovery of swords under Section 27 Evidence Act and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood on weapons and clothes of accused – Held: Complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 23, 26, 29, 36].

Ocular Evidence – Related Witness – Minor Contradictions – Testimony of complainant-wife found substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies regarding sequence and attribution of blows – Such variations held natural in traumatic incident – Core prosecution case remained intact and corroborated by independent evidence – Principle of “sifting grain from chaff” applied [Paras 14, 26-27].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon – Swords recovered at instance of accused from bushes – Even though some panch witnesses partly hostile, recovery sustained through panchnama, Investigating Officer’s testimony and FSL corroboration – Discovery distinctly connected with information given by accused – Recovery held reliable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20, 30-31].

FSL Evidence – Blood Stains – Serological report established deceased’s blood group on clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on recovered swords – Accused failed to explain incriminating circumstance in Section 313 CrPC statements – Adverse inference drawn – Scientific evidence formed clinching link in chain [Paras 22, 32].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Prior quarrel and threats established motive – Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly chased and assaulted deceased with deadly weapons on vital parts – Acts done with knowledge and intention likely to cause death – Offence squarely falls under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 13, 23, 29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Interference – Accused No.3 acquitted of charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Evidence insufficient to establish shared common intention to commit murder – Her role limited to quarrel and assault on complainant – Applying principles in Chandrappa and Rajesh Prasad, no perversity found in acquittal – State appeal dismissed [Paras 33-35, 36.1].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2013 (by accused Nos.1 and 2) dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine confirmed – Accused to surrender within six weeks.

Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2013 (by State against acquittal of accused No.3) dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Commercial Suit – Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Statement of Truth – Non-compliance – Whether fatal – Trial Court dismissed suit as not maintainable for failure to file Statement of Truth and proper attestation – However, after full trial, evidence led and findings on merits returned in favour of plaintiff for principal sum – Held, requirement though mandatory is procedural and defect is curable – Procedural law is handmaid of justice – In absence of prejudice and after adjudication on merits, dismissal solely on technical defect unsustainable [Paras 21-25].

Order VI Rule 15A(5) CPC – Discretion to Strike Out Pleadings – Use of expression “may” confers discretion – Striking off pleadings not automatic consequence of non-compliance – Judgment in M/s A.V. Industries distinguished as rendered in context of ex parte decree and different factual matrix – In present case, plaintiff undertook to cure defect – Held, discretion ought to have been exercised to permit rectification [Para 26].

Commercial Dispute – Conversion from Summary Suit – Suit initially filed under Order XXXVII CPC and later treated as commercial suit – Omission to file Statement of Truth attributable to change in procedural regime – Defect does not go to root of jurisdiction nor render proceedings void ab initio – Held, opportunity to comply with Order VI Rule 15A to be granted [Paras 25, 27].

Recovery Suit – Findings on Merits – Trial Court, on appreciation of ledger, invoices, dishonoured cheques and oral evidence, held plaintiff entitled to principal sum of Rs. 29,64,404/- but denied relief solely due to procedural non-compliance – Held, once merits adjudicated in favour of plaintiff, dismissal of suit on curable defect amounts to elevating form over substance [Paras 13-14, 24, 27].

Decision: Impugned judgment dated 06.10.2023 set aside – Plaintiff granted four weeks to file appropriate application to comply with Order VI Rule 15A CPC – Trial Court directed to pass fresh decree in terms of findings on Issue Nos. 3 and 4 and determine pendente lite and future interest in accordance with law – Appeal disposed of.

Civil Law - Partition – Settlement Deed Creating Life Estate and Vested Remainder – Settlement deed conferred life interest on mother without power of alienation and vested remainder on her sons and their male progeny – Both sons predeceased life estate holder – Held, vested rights accrued on date of settlement and not contingent – Death of vested remaindermen before possession does not defeat their interest – Their widows and legal heirs entitled to succeed to such vested shares – Life estate holder had no right to execute relinquishment deed – Relinquishment ineffective – Trial Court decree upheld [Paras 41-46, 55-56].

Family Status – Validity of Marriage – Presumption from Cohabitation – Appellant claimed to be legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu – Oral evidence of herself, relatives and tenant coupled with documentary evidence (criminal proceedings describing her as wife) proved marriage – Long cohabitation raises strong presumption of valid marriage – No cross-appeal against trial court finding – Held, appellant is legally wedded wife – Finding affirmed [Paras 25-27].

Legitimacy and Heirship – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be son born to Madhavarao and Anjamma – Evidence of mother, independent witness and admissions of defendants established marriage and paternity – Presumption in favour of marriage where parties lived together as husband and wife – No rebuttal by cogent evidence – Held, plaintiff proved to be son and legal heir of Madhavarao [Paras 28-33].

Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will must satisfy Section 68 Evidence Act read with Section 63 Succession Act – Scribe and two attesting witnesses examined – Evidence established that testatrix gave instructions, Will was read over, thumb impression affixed in presence of attestors and attested accordingly – No suspicious circumstances – Held, Will duly proved – Beneficiary entitled to share of testatrix [Paras 34-39].

Limited Estate – Power of Alienation – Life estate holder cannot convey better title than possessed – Settlement deed conferred only right of enjoyment without power of alienation – Relinquishment deed executed by life estate holder held ineffective – Vested remainder could not be defeated by such relinquishment – Rights of widows and son of predeceased vested remaindermen protected [Paras 42-45, 55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – Respondent cannot seek larger relief in appeal without filing cross-appeal or cross-objections – Trial Court findings regarding shares accepted for over two decades – Held, in absence of challenge, respondents cannot seek modification of decree to claim entire property – Appeals confined to grounds raised by appellant [Paras 49-53].

Decision: A.S. Nos. 804 and 820 of 2002 dismissed – Common judgment and decree dated 09.09.1998 in O.S. Nos.13 and 18 of 1986 confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Section 396 IPC – Appellants convicted for committing dacoity at house of Pohap Singh during intervening night – One Summera died due to firearm injuries and nine persons sustained injuries – FIR promptly lodged naming five appellants and one Kunji along with six unknown persons – Trial Court convicted appellants – High Court on reappraisal found prosecution story improbable and identification doubtful – Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 30-32, 44-45].

Identification – Visibility in Electric Light – Prosecution case that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces – Accused known to witnesses and one appellant resident of same village – Court held it unnatural and against human conduct that known dacoits would commit crime openly without concealing identity – No evidence produced from electricity department to prove availability of power supply at 2:00 a.m. – Identification unsafe to rely upon [Paras 31-33, 35, 43].

Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – Motive alleged that appellant Hardayal bore grudge as Pohap Singh had helped Deepa after Hardayal eloped with his wife – Will executed and cancelled by Hardayal in favour of informant’s son – Held: Enmity can be motive for crime as well as false implication – In present case, prior animosity raised serious doubt regarding false implication [Paras 38-40].

Recovery – Non-Recovery of Looted Property – Despite prompt FIR and raids conducted, no looted ornaments, cash or valuables recovered from appellants – No incriminating material seized – Failure to connect accused with stolen property weakens prosecution case in dacoity [Paras 22, 30, 33].

Withholding of Material Witness – Non-Examination of Pohap Singh – Dacoity allegedly committed at his house – Prosecution failed to examine him without explanation – Adverse inference drawn – Prosecution version rendered doubtful [Para 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inherent Improbabilities – Courts must assess probabilities and intrinsic circumstances – Story that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces and without recovery of stolen property held improbable – Prosecution version found artificial and fabricated – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 32, 36-38, 42, 44].

Abatement – Appeal against one appellant Hardayal already abated due to death – Remaining appellants entitled to acquittal – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 BNSS) [Paras 46-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellants Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Bahori and Biri Singh acquitted – Hardayal’s appeal abated – Bail bonds cancelled subject to compliance under Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Law - Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Anticipated Retirement – Landlord sought eviction for own use for business upon husband’s impending retirement – Contention that future requirement is no requirement – Held: Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies test of reasonable requirement – Claim neither fanciful nor exaggerated – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras relating to Q. XIV, discussion on Mono Ranjan Dasgupta].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found reasonable requirement and valid service of notice – No perversity or error of law demonstrated – Held: Concurrent findings demand no interference in second appeal [Final paragraphs before dismissal].

Notice to Quit – Service by Registered Post – Postal endorsement “Not Claimed” – No plea of absence or shifting from premises – Held: Endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service when notice properly addressed and tendered – Presumption of service sustainable – Tenancy validly determined [Discussion referring to Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand; Subhas C. Mitra].

Death of One of Legal Heirs of Tenant – Joint Tenancy – Decree against Dead Person – All legal heirs of original tenant were impleaded – On death of widow, other joint tenants remained on record – Held: Tenancy devolves as joint tenancy – Decree against one joint tenant binds all – Suit does not abate – Decree not a nullity [Discussion under Additional Substantial Questions XVII & XVIII; reliance on Suresh Kumar Kohli].

Order XXII CPC – Abatement – Where other legal heirs of deceased tenant already on record, non-substitution of one heir does not vitiate decree – Joint decree permissible – No error by First Appellate Court in rejecting plea [Relevant discussion on applicability of Order XXII Rule 7 CPC].

Relief – Delivery of Possession – Appellants directed to vacate within 60 days from drawing up of appellate decree – In default execution permissible – Liberty granted to Respondent to claim mesne profits in separate suit.

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court upheld – Appellants directed to deliver possession within sixty days – Liberty to Respondent to initiate execution and to institute separate suit for mesne profits – All connected applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Appellant convicted for shooting wife returning from school – Allegation of dowry demand and prior threats – Trial Court disbelieved dowry motive and acquitted all co-accused on plea of alibi but convicted appellant – High Court found material contradictions in testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding manner of assault and identity of second shooter – Conduct of witnesses unnatural – Withholding of material witness (uncle Kamlesh) – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 29, 41, 45-46].

Evidence – Ocular Testimony – Reliability – Contradictions between eye-witnesses regarding who fired second shot and sequence of events – P.W.2’s presence doubtful as he allegedly fled from spot and returned only after police arrival – Admission of tutoring and relationship with complainant – False statement by complainant regarding death of parents – Held: Witnesses not wholly reliable – Their testimony unsafe for sustaining conviction without independent corroboration [Paras 22-23, 27, 44].

Dowry Motive – Demand of Motorcycle – Allegation not supported by victim’s prior statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court recorded finding that demand of dowry not proved – Appellant possessed scooter at relevant time – Motive not established – Though motive not essential in case of reliable ocular evidence, failure to prove motive adds to doubt where ocular testimony shaky [Paras 25, 32].

Parity Principle – Acquittal of Co-accused – All co-accused acquitted after acceptance of plea of alibi and finding of unreliable evidence – Similar evidence against appellant – Court cannot convict one accused and acquit others when identical evidence is relied upon – Principle of parity applicable – Serious cloud cast on prosecution story [Paras 35, 43, 45].

Appellate Duty – Reappreciation of Evidence – Appellate Court duty-bound to independently assess evidence in appeal against conviction – If two views possible, benefit of reasonable doubt to accused – Trial Court erred in convicting appellant despite disbelieving major part of prosecution case – Conviction based on probabilities and assumptions unsustainable [Paras 40-41, 45].

Benefit of Doubt – Material Contradictions – Non-production of best witnesses – Doubt regarding scribing of FIR – Inconsistencies in prosecution case from FIR to deposition – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden under criminal jurisprudence – Appellant acquitted [Paras 39, 43-46].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Employees’ State Insurance – Damages under Section 85-B – Limitation – No express limitation prescribed for passing order under Section 85-B – Contribution for period 1972–1989 paid on 07.09.2000 – Damages imposed on 16.04.2014 – Delay of 14 years – Held: Even in absence of express statutory limitation, power must be exercised within reasonable period – Five years considered reasonable based on scheme of Act – Order passed beyond reasonable period unsustainable [Paras 21–26, 33].

Reasonable Period – Determination – Penal civil liability – Where statute confers power without prescribing limitation, such power must be exercised within reasonable time – Second proviso to Section 45-A (five-year limit), Regulation 32 (five-year record retention) and proviso to Explanation (b) to Section 77(1A) provide legislative guidance – Five years treated as reasonable benchmark for Section 85-B proceedings [Paras 23–25].

Interest Proceedings – Distinction from Damages – Pendency of interest proceedings and litigation regarding rate of interest does not justify delay in initiating damages – Damages levied for delayed contribution, not for interest – Hence, independent cause – Fourteen-year delay unexplained and unreasonable [Paras 27–28].

Welfare Legislation – Penal Provisions – Deterrence – Though ESI Act is beneficial social legislation, penalty provisions cannot be invoked after inordinate delay – Certainty in litigation required – Deterrent effect diluted if invoked after long lapse of time [Para 30].

Scope of Judgment – Court proceeded on assumption that no express limitation exists for Section 85-B – Question whether express limitation is otherwise provided kept open for adjudication in appropriate case [Para 32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Substantial question of law answered against the appellant-Corporation and in favour of respondent-Gymkhana – Order of ESI Court quashing damages upheld – Statutory authorities expected to act within reasonable time henceforth.

Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Essential Commodities Act – Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) – Unauthorised storage of HSD Oil, Kerosene and Fertilizers – Seizure during inspection – Failure to produce licence, documents or stock registers – Prosecution proved seizure and non-compliance with Control Orders – Held: Conviction justified on evidence and statutory presumptions under Sections 10C and 14 EC Act – No interference with findings of guilt [Paras 6-9, 11-12].

Search and Seizure – Challenge to authority under Kerosene Control Order – Appellant contended inspection not by duly authorised officer under Para 15 of 1968 Order – Court found seizure proved and non-production of documents unexplained – Trial not vitiated on alleged procedural irregularities in absence of prejudice [Paras 4(iii), 6-8, 11].

Storage versus Sale – Defence plea that mere storage does not establish dealing – Court held appellant failed to show lawful possession or agricultural use – No books of accounts, licence or returns produced as required under Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 – Presumption of culpable mental state under Section 10C EC Act attracted – Burden on accused under Section 14 not discharged [Paras 4(i), 4(v), 6-9].

Amendment to Para 11(2) of West Bengal Kerosene Control Order – Appellant argued amendment effective from 07.01.1986 not applicable to incident of 30.08.1984 – Court noted absence of any document showing bona fide possession even otherwise – Contravention established independently of amendment plea [Paras 4(iv), 8-9].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability despite Minimum Sentence under EC Act – Offence committed in 1984 – Long lapse of nearly 42 years – Appellant remained on bail and no subsequent offence reported – Following Tarak Nath Keshari and principle that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being later legislation with non obstante clause can override minimum sentence – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of probation under Section 4 PO Act [Paras 12-14].

Sentencing – Reformative Approach – After prolonged pendency, sending appellant to custody not expedient in interest of justice – Appellant directed to execute bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and to maintain peace and good behaviour – Fine enhanced to Rs.20,000/- payable within 60 days – In default to serve sentence [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Conviction under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act upheld – Instead of custodial sentence, appellant released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties – Fine of Rs.20,000/- to be paid within 60 days, failing which sentence to be served – Appeal disposed of.