POCSO – DNA Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – The prosecutrix and her family turned hostile and denied sexual assault – DNA report (Ex.P33) confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child – Held: DNA evidence is expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot alone establish guilt without corroboration – Hostile testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Trial court rightly acquitted the accused [Paras 6–10, 16].

Evidentiary Value – DNA Profiling – Limitations of Sole Reliance – The Court emphasized that while DNA reports are strong indicators of biological relationship, they are not infallible and must be weighed with caution – DNA evidence alone cannot override direct oral evidence especially when it contradicts the scientific conclusion – Held: In criminal jurisprudence, conviction must rest on clear, cogent and consistent evidence – DNA report without supporting testimony fails that test [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Review Limited – The Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or perverse – Since the trial court had taken a plausible and reasoned view, the High Court declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court held that DNA evidence, though indicating biological paternity, could not solely sustain a conviction under POCSO and IPC when the prosecutrix and witnesses denied sexual assault – The trial court’s judgment was found to be a plausible and legally sound conclusion based on available evidence – No interference warranted in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Civil law  – Declaration of Title and Possession – Failure to Prove Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration of title over the ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of possession and injunction – Plaintiff failed to establish title by not producing foundational documents, including the prior sale deeds, and failed to prove encroachment by defendants – The High Court held that plaintiff must prove his own title without relying on weaknesses in the defendant’s case – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-24].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – The Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law – Appreciation of facts and evidence by lower courts, unless perverse or ignoring material evidence, does not justify interference – No such question arose in the present case – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-27].

Encroachment Claim – Absence of Proof – Case of Plaintiff Disbelieved – Plaintiff’s allegation of encroachment in 2007 was disproved by evidence showing compound wall constructed in 2003 by defendants – Boundaries described in sale deeds were inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim – Held: No basis to declare title or grant possession to the plaintiff [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law Found – The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, upholding concurrent factual findings of both lower courts – Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession – No merit in the appeal – No costs awarded [Para 28].

Criminal Law - Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. - Discharge Petition – Prima Facie Material – Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120B IPC – Dismissal of Discharge Petition Upheld – The petitioners, holding positions of legal officer and Managing Director in Malabar Cements Ltd (MCL), were accused of facilitating illegal invocation of a bank guarantee and causing loss to MCL by conspiring with a private company – Held: The trial court rightly dismissed discharge applications after finding sufficient prima facie materials against both accused to proceed to trial; allegations involve deliberate omission and misuse of position, which need adjudication in trial [Paras 5-20].

Corporate Contractual Obligations – Drafting of Biased Contract Clauses – Clause Found to Favour Private Company – Malafide Intent Alleged – The Court observed Clause 20 of the agreement drafted by the legal officer was entirely favourable to the private company (ARK Co.), without reciprocal rights to MCL, suggesting collusion; the clause enabled unilateral invocation of bank guarantee without termination of contract, causing pecuniary loss to MCL [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Legal Action – Omission to File Suit in Proper Jurisdiction – No Interim Relief – Willful Negligence Established – The Court held that the legal officer and Managing Director deliberately failed to file timely suits in the appropriate court (Tuticorin), resulting in loss of ₹50 lakhs to MCL; actions of both accused constituted prima facie criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 13, 16-18].

Limited Scope of Discharge Proceedings – Sufficiency of Material – No Mini Trial Permissible – It was reiterated that at the stage of considering discharge, only a prima facie case is to be seen; detailed scrutiny of evidence is not permissible – Dismissal of discharge justified based on available materials [Paras 20].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Expeditiously – The Court dismissed both revision petitions, upheld the orders of the Special Judge, and directed completion of trial within three months, observing that findings in discharge stage would not bind final trial adjudication [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law - Appeal challenging conviction - False Implication in Sexual Offence – Conviction Based on Unreliable Testimony – Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act – Conviction Reversed – The appellant, a 45-year-old man, was convicted under IPC and POCSO for allegedly raping his minor cousin – The FIR and victim’s statements were riddled with inconsistencies, including contradictory accounts of the incident’s timing, location, and manner – Crucial discrepancy noted in medico-legal examination report which showed no recent sexual activity or bodily injury – Held: Serious contradictions and absence of corroborative medical evidence render the prosecution case unreliable, justifying acquittal [Paras 1-53].

Medico-Legal Evidence – Significance of Scientific Findings – Weightage Over Oral Testimony – Section 376 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The trial court erroneously disregarded conclusive medico-legal findings which negated recent sexual intercourse – Pathological reports found absence of spermatozoa and any physical injury – Court held such scientific evidence must prevail when oral evidence contains major discrepancies – Reiterated that conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was absent in this case [Paras 21-22, 39-42, 50-52].

Witness Credibility – Inconsistent Testimonies – Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Law – Multiple inconsistencies in statements of victim and her parents regarding crucial facts like time of incident, role of police, and conduct during the incident – No independent witnesses examined despite alleged presence of neighbours – Held: Where testimonies are contradictory on core aspects and unsupported by objective evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused – Conviction reversed [Paras 26-30, 43-50].

Prolonged Incarceration – Procedural Lapses – Human Rights Violation – Bail Denied – Procedural Failure Noted – The appellant languished in jail since 2016 without proper legal assistance – Amicus Curiae failed to file bail or substantiate defence – Court took judicial notice of systemic failure and deprivation of rights – Directed immediate release, restoration of residence, and return of fine imposed – Held: Justice demands rectification of miscarriage caused by institutional neglect [Paras 12-17, 54-56].

Possession of Property – Protection of Rights of Accused Post-Acquittal – Court acknowledged realistic threat of land/property dispossession during appellant’s incarceration – Directed police authorities to ensure restoration of peaceful possession of appellant’s house – Held: Judicial duty extends beyond release to securing post-acquittal rehabilitation of falsely implicated accused [Para 56].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – Court found material irregularities in trial court’s findings – Conviction under Section 376(3), 342 IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act set aside – Sentence of 20 years imprisonment quashed – Ordered immediate release with refund of fine amount and protective directions – Appeal allowed in entirety [Paras 52-53].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Recruitment – Minimum Qualifying Speed in Shorthand Test – Rule 10 of 1986 Rules – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner applied for Stenographer Grade-III post under PH category, secured 121.142 marks including shorthand, speed and efficiency tests – Failed to meet mandatory speed of 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand test (secured only 50.167 WPM) – Held: Mere aggregate marks irrelevant without meeting mandatory qualification—Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 13].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule – Mandatory Requirement Cannot Be Diluted – Rule 10 Interpretation – The petitioner argued for reading 'must have passed' as 'might have passed'—Court rejected contention citing clear and unambiguous language of Rule 10 prescribing passing speed of 70 WPM – Applied literal interpretation principle emphasizing legislative intent and statutory compliance—Held: No scope for dilution of mandatory eligibility criteria [Paras 10, 14-15].

Recruitment Process – Vacancy Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Even if category vacancies remained unfilled, absence of requisite qualification disqualifies petitioner – Held: Petitioner has no vested right to appointment merely because of vacant posts or higher marks – Eligibility conditions sacrosanct [Paras 16].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Guidelines on Statutory Interpretation – Court relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja case affirming that clear statutory mandates must be implemented without judicial alteration—Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutes under guise of interpretation [Para 15].

Decision – Eligibility Deficiency Fatal – Petition Rejected – Petitioner’s failure to achieve minimum shorthand speed rendered him ineligible—Petition dismissed, no interference warranted under writ jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Civil Law – Partition and Possession – Second Appeal - No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession of ½ share to the respondent/plaintiff – The Courts below based findings on admitted facts and evidence, including judicial admissions in pleadings and documents – Held: No substantial question of law arises where findings are based on proper appreciation of facts; second appeal liable to be dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-15, 29-30].

Adverse Possession – No Proof of Ouster – Claim Denied – Appellant's plea of exclusive possession and adverse possession since father’s death was rejected – Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not constitute ouster in absence of clear hostile claim – Courts correctly held that possession by one co-owner is deemed on behalf of all co-owners – Adverse possession and ouster claims not proved by evidence [Paras 21-22, 25-27].

Judicial Admissions – Admissions in Pleadings and Legal Notices Binding – Defendant admitted in written statement and legal notice that suit properties were joint family properties – Admission being best evidence, the burden shifted to defendant to prove relinquishment by plaintiff, which was not discharged – Courts below rightly relied on judicial admissions to grant partition [Paras 17-19].

No Scope for Reappreciation of Facts in Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Law clarified that High Court does not re-examine findings of facts in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or misapplication of law – No such perversity or legal error found in concurrent judgments of lower Courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 28-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees granting the plaintiff ½ share in the property and dismissed the second appeal without costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].

Taxation Law - Municipal Property Tax – Mandatory Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Sections 233 and 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 – Demand Notices Quashed – The Court held that the demand notices issued by the Municipality for property tax arrears were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 233 of the Act and Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules – The notifications mandatorily required under Rule 4(4) (regarding publication of basic property tax notifications) and Rule 10 (calling for self-assessment returns) were not issued in the manner prescribed – Held: Absence of such notifications renders any subsequent levy illegal and without authority of law [Paras 3, 9-13, 27].

Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Taxation Without Authority of Law – Demand Notices Held Unconstitutional – The Court reaffirmed the principle that taxes cannot be collected without authority of law – Non-compliance with the statutory mandate under the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules led to the conclusion that the property tax arrears were levied without lawful authority – Held: Demand notices are invalid being violative of Article 265 of the Constitution [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Alternative Remedy – Inapplicability When Levy Itself Is Non-Est – The Court rejected the Municipality's argument that the respondents ought to have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Rule 16(4) of the 2011 Rules – Held: Where the levy itself is non-existent in law, the existence of an appellate remedy is irrelevant – Tax demand set aside as a jurisdictional error [Paras 13].

Culture of Justification – Doctrine of Reasonableness and Fairness in State Action – The Court emphasized the need for tax authorities to adhere to a 'culture of justification' where any demand on citizens must be supported by legal authority and due process – Arbitrary demands without adherence to mandatory procedures offend constitutional guarantees [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Dismissed – Demand Notices Invalidated – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the Perinthalmanna Municipality, and directed that any future assessment or demand for property tax must comply strictly with the statutory framework laid down in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the 2011 Rules [Paras 12-13, 27].