Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen – Extra-Judicial Confession – Strangulation – Delay/Withholding of Disclosure by Family Witnesses – Motive Absent – Sudden Provocation – Conviction of Ram Avtar Altered to Section 304 Part-II; Co-accused Visharad Acquitted – Last Seen Alone Insufficient [Paras 29–34, 45–51].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Together – Proof and Reliability – Evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 consistently established that appellants were last seen consuming liquor with deceased on the night before death – proximity of time (death discovered next morning) and absence of explanation by accused sustain last-seen theory – immaterial who first discovered body; distinction between ‘last seen’ and ‘first seen’ emphasized [Paras 29–30, 35–38].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Subsequent Disclosure by Son of Deceased – Acceptability – PW-9’s testimony explaining delay due to emotional turmoil (brother-in-law being culprit, father deceased) found natural and credible – confession made on morning after incident; later revealed in supplementary statement after postmortem clarified cause of death – remained unimpeached in cross-examination – held satisfactorily proved [Paras 31–34, 39–40].

Family Members as Witnesses – Alleged Interestedness – Credibility Upheld – PW-2, PW-3, PW-9 (sons of deceased) not discredited; their youth, emotional conflict and familial ties explained initial silence; no motive to falsely implicate appellants, especially son-in-law of deceased [Paras 22–23, 31–33].

Investigation – Allegations of IO Connivance – Rejected – Non-detaining of sons, absence of fingerprints on neck, and failure to trace informant ‘Sita’ do not vitiate prosecution – IO’s explanation on multiple women named Sita accepted – fingerprints on neck medically improbable – investigation found fair [Paras 37, 41–43].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation Established – Post-mortem report and PW-4 conclusively show death due to asphyxia by manual strangulation – argument that open/closed eyes contradict strangulation rejected; common cultural practice explained [Paras 19, 23, 44].

Motive Absent – Consumption of Liquor Together – Possibility of Sudden Provocation – No motive proved; parties were drinking together regularly; death by manual strangulation without weapon – held consistent with sudden fight under intoxication rather than premeditated intent to kill [Paras 46–47].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 304 Part-II – Ram Avtar – Considering absence of motive, sudden provocation, manner of assault and long passage of time (24 years), conviction converted to Section 304 Part-II IPC – reliance placed on Dattatraya v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 14 SCC 286 – sentence reduced to period undergone (~5 years) [Paras 46–48].

Acquittal – Co-Accused Visharad – Last Seen Alone Insufficient – No confession or incriminating circumstance against co-accused; PW-9’s confession only implicates Ram Avtar – last-seen alone insufficient for conviction under Sections 302/34 or 304 Part-II – conviction set aside and acquittal granted [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Ram Avtar’s conviction altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC with sentence reduced to period already undergone – Visharad acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 48, 51–52].

Writ Petition – Suppression of Material Facts – Abuse of Process – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners challenged 33KV transmission line being laid through residential area citing safety concerns and violations of Indian Electricity Rules – However, petitioners failed to disclose ongoing civil suit on identical subject matter with interim relief already granted by Trial Court – Held: Non-disclosure of parallel litigation amounts to abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentation; writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked with unclean hands [Paras 14–26, 30].

Electricity Infrastructure – Safety Standards – Petitioners raised concerns regarding insufficient clearance (less than 3.7 meters) from residential buildings in alleged violation of Indian Electricity Rules – Spot inspection confirmed proximity of lines to houses – However, since matter was already under adjudication in civil court, High Court declined to adjudicate merits under Article 226 [Paras 3–11, 22].

Civil Suit Pending – Parallel Proceedings – Interim relief in civil suit already granted to maintain status quo – Petitioners failed to await outcome and instead filed writ – Held: Filing of writ petition despite pendency of civil proceedings on same cause of action is improper and amounts to forum shopping [Paras 16–20, 24–25].

Costs Imposed – Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed in limine with cost of ₹20,000 to be deposited in Advocates’ Welfare Fund – Exemplary costs imposed to deter litigants from misleading the Court [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Petition dismissed in limine – Petitioners held to have suppressed material facts – Costs of ₹20,000 imposed for abuse of process – Petition to be listed after two weeks for verification of cost deposit compliance.

Trademark Infringement – Territorial Jurisdiction – Assessment of Damages – LC Report – Burden of Proof – Arbitrary Quantification – Delhi High Court partially sets aside decree on damages for lack of evidence; territorial jurisdiction upheld; matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits [Paras 35–36, 39–43].

Trademark Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Interactive Website – Test Purchase – Sliding Scale and Effects Test – Banyan Tree Doctrine – Jurisdiction Upheld – Defendant’s website enabled actual commercial transactions into Delhi; invoice showing delivery to Bhajanpura constituted sufficient injurious effect – Plaintiff’s presence in forum state established – Held, District Court correctly assumed territorial jurisdiction under Sections 134(2) TM Act & 62(2) Copyright Act – Banyan Tree applied cumulatively (Sliding Scale + Effects test) [Paras 34–36].

Damages – Burden of Proof – Rule 20, DHC IPRD Rules, 2022 – Need for Foundational Facts – No Evidence Led – Damages Cannot Be Based on Speculation – Plaintiff led no evidence for computation of damages; quantification first introduced in written submissions and not subjected to cross-examination – Held, claimant must prove damages with documentary/oral evidence; principle “he who claims must prove” applies – Reliance on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances reiterated that speculative claims cannot sustain a substantial award [Paras 39–41].

Damages – LC Report – Arbitrary Assumptions – No Basis to Treat Seized Stock as One Month’s Supply – No Evidence of Duration of Infringement – District Court assumed (i) seized stock represented one month’s quantity, (ii) defendant operated for two months prior to injunction, (iii) MRP of Rs. 45/- as selling price – Held, each assumption unsupported by evidence; LC report alone cannot justify hypothesized duration or scale of business; award of Rs. 48,35,610/- unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Trademark Remedies – Section 135 TM Act – Compensatory vs. Punitive Damages – Requirement of Evidentiary Bedrock – Quantum of damages must relate to actual loss or infringer’s profits; absence of rational basis risks unjust enrichment – District Court failed to follow benchmarks under Rule 20 (lost profits, infringer’s profits, duration, intentionality, mitigation, etc.) – Award set aside [Paras 37–38, 42].

Procedure – Appeal – Remand – Limited Remand for Damages – While infringement findings and injunction remain undisturbed, matter remanded solely for fresh adjudication on damages/account of profits; parties permitted to lead evidence; appellant allowed to withdraw deposited decretal amount [Paras 43, 46].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Damages award set aside – Matter remanded for fresh determination of damages/account of profits – No order as to costs [Paras 36, 43–44].

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Interim Stay Order – Wilful Disobedience – Despite being served with the High Court’s stay order dated 07.10.2025 restraining action on the cancellation of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the respondent-contemnor initiated fresh proceedings under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act and issued an order dated 24.10.2025 for closure of the petrol pump – Held: This amounted to wilful disobedience and circumvention of the Court’s order – Civil contempt established under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Subsequent order quashed [Paras 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48].

Disaster Management Act – Section 34 – Jurisdictional Overreach – Action taken under Disaster Management Act was based on the same reports already forming basis of earlier NOC cancellation order, which had been stayed – Held: The respondent-contemnor acted in excess of statutory powers and bypassed the judicial stay order – Such conduct amounts to colourable exercise of power and is legally unsustainable [Paras 20, 28, 33, 36].

Power of High Court – Article 215 – Setting Aside Executive Action Resulting from Contempt – In exercise of contempt jurisdiction, the High Court can nullify an executive order passed in wilful disobedience of its directions – Court not restricted to punishing contempt alone but can undo the resulting harm to uphold rule of law [Paras 41-47].

Precedent – A Party Cannot Benefit From Breach of Court Order – Reiterated that contemnors should not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of contempt – Order passed in breach of a court’s directive cannot be sustained – Relief under contempt jurisdiction includes restoration of status quo ante [Paras 43-45].

Decision: Contempt petition allowed – Respondent found guilty of wilful disobedience of interim order dated 07.10.2025 – Order dated 24.10.2025 passed under Section 34 of Disaster Management Act quashed – Respondent directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the petitioner within 15 days.

Service Law – Recovery from Salary – Theft of Stock – Absence of Notice & Enquiry – No Responsibility Fixed – Executive Engineer’s Recommendations Ignored – Principles of Natural Justice – Held: Petitioner cannot be held liable for thefts; unilateral recovery illegal; order quashed; Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest [Paras 15–18].

Service Law – Recovery from Employee – Theft of Departmental Materials – Absence of Fixation of Responsibility – Procedural Fairness Mandatory – Petitioner, Junior Engineer in-charge of Central Store, had repeatedly reported thefts, lodged FIRs and pursued investigation – Executive Engineer consistently recommended dropping the outstanding amount and treating stolen items as loss to Corporation – Held, responsibility cannot be fixed merely because thefts occurred during petitioner’s tenure [Paras 9–11, 15].

Natural Justice – Recovery Order Without Notice or Enquiry – Illegality – Opposite Party No.2 issued common order of recovery dated 26.09.2018 without issuing show-cause notice, conducting enquiry, or providing opportunity of hearing – such decision imposes civil consequences and hence is violative of fair play and natural justice [Paras 5, 7.2, 14, 16].

Administrative Law – Internal Recommendations – Selective Acceptance by Authority – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Corporation rejected earlier recommendations of Executive Engineer treating loss as non-recoverable but relied selectively on subsequent communication dated 18.09.2018 without reasons or notice to petitioner – Court held such selective adoption arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12–13].

Employee Not Responsible for Theft – Evidence on Record – Letters dated 03.10.2007, 21.10.2017 and 30.01.2018 demonstrate: (i) severe staff shortage due to VRS, (ii) store guarded by Home Guard, (iii) thefts despite reasonable precautions, (iv) FIRs lodged promptly – held, petitioner fulfilled all duties; Corporation failed to justify liability [Paras 9–11].

Public Money Argument – Cannot Override Due Process – Corporation’s plea that loss being public money justified recovery rejected; recovery must follow established procedure, enquiry, and opportunity to be heard [Paras 6, 16].

Refund of Amount Unlawfully Recovered – Interest Awarded – As entire amount of Rs.1,24,774.20 had been deducted during pendency of writ petition, Court directed refund with 7% simple interest from date of last deduction; failure to refund within four weeks will attract 12% penal interest [Para 18].

Decision:Writ petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2018 quashed vis-à-vis petitioner – Corporation directed to refund recovered amount with interest – No costs [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Speaking to Minutes – Finality of Judgment – Section 362 CrPC bar – No power to modify or alter sentence after appellate and Supreme Court affirmations – Concurrent running of sentences cannot be inserted subsequently – Application for speaking to minutes cannot substitute review or modification – Application rejected [Paras 16–23, 25].

Criminal Procedure – Speaking to Minutes – Scope and Limits – Application seeking insertion of direction that sentences run concurrently – Held: Speaking to minutes is confined to correction of clerical or typographical mistakes and cannot be used to modify, review or alter substantive findings or directions in a judgment – Any such attempt amounts to impermissible review under Section 362 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Application not maintainable [Paras 4, 19–23].

Sentence – Concurrent vs. Consecutive – Section 31 CrPC – Trial court did not direct concurrent running of sentences and appellate court also confirmed conviction without such direction – In absence of explicit direction, sentences run consecutively – Principle that sentences in a single transaction must run concurrently is not absolute; depends on nature and gravity of offence – Heinous offence of gang rape, threats, children kept hostage – Trial court rightly refrained from granting concurrency – No ground to alter sentencing mode post-finality [Paras 7, 10–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Limits – High Court cannot invoke inherent powers to modify a concluded judgment when CrPC expressly bars review and alteration – Inherent powers cannot override statutory prohibitions – Only clerical/arithmetical errors may be corrected – Present request is for substantive modification and hence barred [Paras 14–16, 22].

Finality of Criminal Judgments – Section 362 CrPC – Once appellate and Supreme Court have affirmed conviction and sentence, the High Court becomes functus officio – No power to revisit or modify operative portion – Any change to sentencing mode (concurrent vs. consecutive) constitutes substantive alteration and is prohibited – No exception applicable (fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of hearing etc.) [Paras 17–21].

Delay and Conduct – Applicant never raised plea of concurrency before Trial Court, Appellate Court, or Supreme Court – Raised for first time after many years – No explanation for delay – Plea barred both on law and conduct [Paras 2.6, 3, 17–18, 24].

Held – Sentences imposed under Sections 376(g) and 506 r/w 34 IPC to run consecutively by default – No jurisdiction to insert concurrency after judgment reached finality – Application for speaking to minutes rejected – No direction for release – No costs [Paras 25].

Approver – Revocation of Pardon – Section 308 CrPC – Trial Court revoked pardon without Public Prosecutor’s certificate – Held: Though ordinarily certificate under Section 308 is prerequisite, Court may revoke pardon where approver and prosecution misled Court and where pardon was improperly granted despite overwhelming documentary evidence – Revocation justified; evidence rightly expunged – Summoning under Section 319 CrPC of co-loanee / joint account-holder upheld – All three revisions dismissed [Paras 21, 26–36].

Criminal Procedure – Tender of Pardon – Sections 306–308 CrPC – Legal Framework – Once pardon is granted, approver stands discharged and becomes prosecution witness – Withdrawal of pardon ordinarily requires Public Prosecutor’s certificate certifying violation of conditions of pardon – Evidence of approver thereafter must be ignored in toto – Principles reaffirmed from State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari, A.J. Peiris, Hiralal Girdharilal Kothari, and Jagjit Singh [Paras 16–18].

Revocation of Approver Status – Whether Court Can Act Suo Motu – In present case, trial court revoked pardon at stage of final arguments without certificate under Section 308 CrPC – Held: Although certificate is ordinarily mandatory, where both prosecution and approver mislead court and pardon itself was improperly obtained, court may invoke inherent power to revoke pardon – Court found CBI’s claim that approver was not principal beneficiary to be misleading; documentary evidence overwhelmingly proved his involvement – Revocation justified [Paras 21, 29–35].

Approver’s Misconduct – Circumstances Justifying Revocation – Documentary record showed approver (A-3) as principal beneficiary of fraudulent housing loans, illegal gratification to bank officials, and attempted misuse of fraudulent Safe Keeping Receipt (SKR) of ₹100.86 crores – Evidence showed payment of car purchase amounts as bribe; loans credited to his and wife’s joint account; attempts to siphon public money – Trial Court correctly held approver misled Court and was undeserving of pardon – No prejudice caused by revocation [Paras 23–34].

CBI’s Conduct – Misleading the Court – CBI’s application supporting pardon claimed lack of evidence against A-3 despite seizure of incriminating documents – Court held CBI “misled the Trial Court” and improperly facilitated accused’s approver status – Such conduct justified court’s corrective action independent of Section 308 procedure [Paras 28–32].

Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning of Smt. Kaveri Dutta – Evidence showed she was joint account-holder, co-loanee, signatory to withdrawals, beneficiary of housing loans, aware of transactions – Prosecution witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW12) disclosed her role – Prima facie case established – Trial Court rightly summoned her under Section 319 CrPC – No interference warranted [Para 36].

Documentary Evidence – Prosecution’s Case Not Dependent on Approver – Trial Court rightly held that prosecution case rested substantially on seized bank records, SKR documents, cheques, loan papers, and correspondence – Approver’s testimony had little bearing on merits – Revocation and expunging of deposition caused no impairment to prosecution case – Findings upheld [Paras 26–27, 30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference – Revisional Court will not interfere unless order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or perversity – Impugned order well within jurisdiction; based on correct appreciation of record – No ground for interference in any of the three revision petitions [Paras 35–37].

Decision – All three criminal revision petitions (CRR 516/2020, CRR 2504/2021, CRR 1252/2022) dismissed – Interim orders vacated – Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law [Paras 37–40].

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act – Protected Tenancy – Statutory Purchase – Sections 32G & 32M – Effect of Mutation Entries – Exclusive Title – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Plaintiff (sister) filed suit for partition in 2002 claiming suit property as joint family property inherited from parents who died in 1949 and 1978 – Evidence showed that defendant Krishnabai became protected tenant in 1957 and purchase was duly completed in 1961 after statutory inquiry, issuance of 32G order, fixation of purchase price, and issuance of sale certificate under 32M – Held: Once purchase under 32G/32M fructifies, title statutorily vests in tenant and property ceases to form part of estate of predecessors – Civil Court cannot ignore binding statutory orders – Concurrent findings contrary to statutory record unsustainable [Paras 5.1–5.4, 10–12, 15–16, 25–26].

Tenancy Law – Representative Capacity – Claim of Joint Family Cultivation – No Evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that Krishnabai’s protected tenancy was in representative capacity for entire family – No evidence of joint cultivation, sharing of produce, or admission by tenant/landlord as required under Ramakant Ganesh Naik precedent – On contrary, evidence and revenue records (Exhs. 41–50) show exclusive cultivation by Krishnabai for decades – Held: Property not proved to be joint family property – Ratio of Ramakant Ganesh Naik inapplicable; reliance misconceived [Paras 12–15, 22–23].

Limitation – Partition Suit – Articles 65-B & 110 – Plaintiff silent from 1957 to 2002 – No steps to challenge mutation, 32G order, or 32M sale certificate despite public notices and statutory proceedings – First challenge raised only via suit in 2002, nearly 41 years after vesting of title – Held: Suit hopelessly barred; plea of exclusion within 12 years unproved – Mere assertion of proposal for partition unsupported by evidence – Plaintiff’s witness admitted complete absence of proof of joint possession – Limitation bars the suit [Paras 16–17, 19–24, 26].

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Sections 85 & 85-A, BT&AL Act – When Bar Applies – Findings of tenancy authorities under 32G/32M are binding – Civil Court cannot reopen or disregard statutory vesting – Trial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction or referred matter appropriately – Failure to consider statutory bar constitutes legal infirmity warranting interference in second appeal [Paras 6.4–6.6, 25–26].

Statutory Proceedings – Public Notice – Non-challenge – Plaintiff’s long silence – Sale certificate shows public notices, individual notices, and participation of interested persons – Plaintiff neither objected nor appealed under tenancy law – Challenge before SDO in 2002 stood rejected – Held: Plaintiff estopped from disputing statutory vesting of title in 1961 [Paras 18–21, 23].

Substantial Questions of Law – Answered in Appellant’s Favour – Courts below ignored binding statutory orders under 32G/32M and misapplied principles of joint family property and limitation – High Court sets aside both judgments [Paras 26–30].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments dated 08.02.2006 and 21.01.2017 set aside – Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2002 dismissed – Record to be returned to Trial Court after appeal period – Parties may act on server copy [Paras 27–30].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Concurrent Findings – Appellant (Defendant) challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell land for ₹2,00,000/- – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹1,80,000/- earnest money and execution of agreement via marginal witness and scribe – Defendant admitted signatures but claimed they were obtained on blank papers as security for a loan which was repaid – Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit – High Court upheld the findings – Held: No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC [Paras 1, 8, 15].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Defense of Blank Papers – Defendant admitted signatures on the agreement (Ex. P3/PW1) but alleged misuse of blank papers given as security – Plaintiff adduced credible evidence through PW-2 (marginal witness) and PW-3 (scribe) proving due execution and payment of earnest money – Defendant’s claim remained a self-serving assertion without corroborative evidence – Court observed it is improbable for a person of ordinary prudence to repay a loan without retrieving signed blank papers – Adverse inference drawn against the Defendant – Execution of agreement held proved [Paras 12-13].

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff attended the Tehsil Complex on the stipulated date with balance consideration and swore an affidavit regarding his presence – Defendant failed to appear – Plaintiff sent legal notice requiring performance – Held: Plaintiff successfully established readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract – Defendant found to be in breach [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the courts below affirmed.