Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Reliance on Admissible Portion – The Court held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely and must be considered with due care. The admissible portion of PW-5’s testimony, corroborated by other reliable witnesses, indicated that the appellants had kidnapped the deceased. [Paras 9-10, 12-14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Delay in Lodging FIR – The trial court observed no undue delay in lodging the FIR and found the evidence regarding the kidnapping and subsequent murder of the deceased credible, notwithstanding the partial hostility of PW-5 and PW-6. [Paras 9, 13-14].

Burden of Proof – Homicidal Death – The Court reiterated that once the kidnapping is proved and the deceased is found dead, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the cause of death, which they failed to do. The conviction under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC was upheld based on the evidence and the failure of the accused to rebut the prosecution’s case. [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court confirmed the trial court’s judgment, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fines for the offences under Sections 302, 364, and 201 IPC. [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appeal against conviction for murder – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for brutally killing Vinod Kumar – Trial court’s judgment based on eye-witness testimonies and corroborative evidence upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-23].

Witness Testimony – Interested Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 1 to 3 scrutinized despite their relationship with the deceased – Court finds their testimonies reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence – The presence of eye witnesses at the crime scene confirmed by timely FIR and inquest report [Paras 13-22].

FIR and Inquest Report – Timeliness and accuracy – FIR lodged within short time after the incident – Inquest report conducted soon after FIR, listing the same eyewitnesses – Validates the presence of witnesses and the occurrence of the crime as described [Paras 20-22].

Motive – Political Disputes – Political rivalry between the families of the accused and deceased traced back to 2006 MPTC elections – Despite the lapse of time, lingering enmity considered credible motive – Court emphasizes that motive is secondary to direct evidence [Paras 13-14].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Examination – Accused’s denial and alternative defense rejected – Court finds no merit in the appellant’s claims – Accused’s defense of false implication due to political rivalry dismissed based on strong evidence [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence affirmed – No costs [Para 23].

Condonation of Delay – Sufficient Cause – Petitioner sought condonation of delay of 2361 days in filing an appeal – Claimed unawareness of suit and its result till recently – Respondents opposed, alleging falsehood in petitioner’s claims – Court emphasized liberal construction of “sufficient cause” to advance substantial justice – Considered petitioner’s plausible explanation and substantial questions of fact and law involved – Delay condoned [Paras 1-18].

“Government vs. Private Litigants” – Liberal Approach – Reference to principles where government involved – Emphasis on substantial justice over technical considerations – Inapplicability of such latitude to private litigants – Consideration of bona fides and diligence in delay matters – Recognition that judicial discretion must balance both parties’ interests [Paras 7-10].

Case Management and Procedural Lapses – Examination of concurrent posting of related cases – Lack of direct knowledge attribution between separate suits – Assessment of petitioner’s awareness and action upon discovering suit details – Rejection of collusion allegations based on common legal representation [Paras 11-16].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Delay of 2361 days in filing appeal condoned – Emphasis on merits over procedural delays in interest of justice [Para 18].

Disciplinary Action – Basis of Breath Analyzer – Petitioner challenged dismissal order – Contention that breath analyzer report is not conclusive proof of alcohol consumption – High Court referred to Supreme Court precedent requiring blood and urine tests for confirmation – Disciplinary authority failed to consider Supreme Court’s observation – Order of dismissal quashed [Paras 1-10].

Principle of Natural Justice – Inadequate Evidence – Petitioner argued that no scientific tests were conducted to conclusively prove alcohol consumption – Mere breath analyzer report insufficient – High Court held that disciplinary proceedings did not adhere to principles of natural justice – Orders set aside [Paras 3-12].

Scientific Examination Requirement – Breath Analyzer Insufficiency – High Court emphasized necessity of blood and urine tests for proving alcohol consumption – Referenced Supreme Court ruling in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra – Breath analyzer alone cannot justify major penalty like dismissal [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Disciplinary authority's order of dismissal and appellate order quashed – High Court mandates reinstatement of petitioner in service with all consequential benefits [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure – Notice under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. – Petitioner received a notice via WhatsApp from the police without any crime number or specific allegations – Petitioner sought reasons for the notice, but was not informed – A second notice was issued with the crime number but without proper procedural compliance – High Court emphasized that notice must include the crime number and a copy of the FIR, ensuring the accused is aware of the reasons for being summoned [Paras 1-14].

Issuance of Notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. – Mandates proper procedural compliance – Notice must be detailed, mentioning crime number and attaching FIR – Non-compliance invalidates the notice, preventing coercive action against the noticee – High Court orders implementation of detailed guidelines for issuing such notices [Paras 8-14].

Guidelines for Issuance of Notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C.:

(a) Notice under Section 35 of the BNSS shall mention the crime number and the offense alleged in the crime number. This can be communicated to the noticee either through conventional methods or electronically.

(b) The communication shall attach a copy of the FIR so registered, as the FIR would contain the gist of the complaint.

(c) In the event the notice does not contain the crime number, the offense alleged, or the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken for non-appearance.

(d) It is necessary for the Police Department to implement a robust system for the FIR being uploaded immediately upon registration and make it search-friendly.

Decision – Writ Petition allowed in part – Notice dated 06-06-2024 quashed – Notice dated 10-06-2024 sustained, subject to compliance with proper procedural guidelines – State directed to issue guidelines ensuring notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. contain necessary details [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ Petition allowed in part – Notice dated 06-06-2024 quashed – Notice dated 10-06-2024 sustained, subject to compliance with proper procedural guidelines – State directed to issue guidelines ensuring notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. contain necessary details [Paras 14-15].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action and Limitation:

Appeal against the trial court’s rejection of a suit for partition under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC – Appellants contended the plaint disclosed cause of action and was within limitation – Trial court had dismissed the suit citing absence of cause of action and barred by limitation due to an earlier suit’s withdrawal without liberty to file afresh – High Court observed that the plaint disclosed necessary facts constituting cause of action and limitation issues required trial consideration – Rejection of plaint deemed inappropriate at preliminary stage [Paras 1-14].

Order XXIII Rule 1(4)(b) CPC – Bar on Fresh Suit:

Withdrawal of previous suit based on defendants’ assurance to settle – High Court noted withdrawal memo indicated potential settlement, not a simple abandonment – Held plaintiffs did not lose right to file fresh suit as new cause of action arose from breach of assurance – Cited coordinate bench decision affirming maintainability of second suit for partition in similar circumstances [Paras 15-20].

Suppression of Facts – Material Impact on Suit:

Trial court erred in dismissing suit solely on ground of suppression of previous suit – High Court highlighted necessity of trial to determine true nature of alleged partition – Directed plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 1 lakh to safeguard defendants’ interests pending trial [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Impugned order and decree set aside – Suit restored for trial on merits – Plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within six weeks – Trial court to determine partition claims considering both parties’ contentions [Paras 28-29].

Property Law – Settlement Deed vs. Will – Determination of Document Nature – Dispute concerning whether Ex.A.2 is a settlement deed or a will. Lower appellate court held it to be a settlement deed, creating vested rights in praesenti. Appellant contended that the document’s nomenclature should not determine its nature, but the contents should be examined – Court affirmed lower appellate court’s decision, finding clear intention to create vested rights in the property for the respondent with possession postponed until the settlor’s death [Paras 1-23].

Undue Influence – Execution of Settlement Deed – Claim of undue influence in execution of the settlement deed dismissed by both trial court and appellate court. No evidence found to support the claim of undue influence or fraud. The document was executed voluntarily by the settlor out of love and affection for the respondent [Paras 16].

Contingent vs. Vested Interest – Analysis under Transfer of Property Act – Examination of the document revealed an immediate right of future enjoyment for the respondent, consistent with the principles of vested interest under Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act. No conditions or events were specified that would render the interest contingent [Paras 19-21].

Procedural Aspects – Appeal by Subsequent Purchaser – Appellant, a pendente lite purchaser, failed to exhibit documentary evidence of title before the first appellate court. Arguments regarding the validity of her purchase were dismissed, and she was held liable for costs due to prolonged litigation without establishing her claim [Paras 23].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed with costs. The judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram in A.S.No.4 of 1996 stands confirmed.

Property Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiff claimed title and possession over property through registered gift deeds (Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.1) – Trial court granted declaration of title and possession – First appellate court confirmed title but denied permanent injunction due to ambiguous pleadings regarding possession – High Court found appellate court's approach perverse, upholding trial court's finding of constructive possession following title [Paras 1-19].

Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Ex.B.1 and B.2 (photographs) inadmissible without photographer's testimony – Ex.B.3 to B.5 (certificates) inadmissible without issuer's testimony – Ex.B.6 (voter list) irrelevant as it pertained to a different locality – High Court criticized first appellate court's reliance on these documents to deny permanent injunction [Paras 2-18].

Adverse Possession – Defendants' claim of adverse possession for 40 years rejected by trial court and first appellate court – High Court noted lack of evidence showing defendants’ possession for over 12 years – Defendants failed to demonstrate dispossession of plaintiff after transfer under Ex.A.1 [Paras 10-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – First appellate court's judgment reversed to the extent it denied permanent injunction – Trial court’s decree declaring title and possession of plaintiff and granting permanent injunction reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for murdering the informant’s wife by stabbing her with a “Bhujali” – Trial court’s judgment affirmed – Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine – Court addresses the evidentiary value of dying declarations and corroborative testimonies [Paras 1-24].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability – Victim’s statement to the witness immediately after the assault considered a valid dying declaration – Court highlights conditions for accepting dying declarations without medical certification of fitness [Paras 15-15.7].

Witness Credibility – Corroboration – Testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 considered reliable despite not witnessing the actual assault – Court underscores the importance of corroborative evidence from medical and forensic reports [Paras 12.1-12.3, 16-18].

Evidence – Recovery and Examination – Bloodstained weapon and clothes seized and examined by forensic lab, confirming the blood group match with the deceased – Non-production of weapon during trial deemed non-fatal due to reliable testimonies and forensic evidence [Paras 19-22].

Procedure under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Incriminating evidence sufficiently explained to the appellant – Court dismisses claims of procedural prejudice [Para 21].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court finds no merit in the appellant’s arguments against the trial court’s findings [Paras 23-24].