Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Victim’s Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Trial Court acquitted all accused in case of fatal assault arising out of prior enmity – High Court held that though acquittal of A3 to A11 justified for want of proof of common object and corroboration, acquittal of A1 and A2 perverse in light of consistent eyewitness and medical evidence – Appellate Court can interfere where findings are contrary to evidence on record [Paras 25–27, 32–33].

Unlawful Assembly – Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Mere presence and omnibus allegations insufficient – No reliable evidence establishing common object of A3 to A11 to commit murder – Benefit of doubt rightly extended – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed [Paras 23–25, 33].

Culpable Homicide – Conversion from Murder – Sudden Quarrel – Deceased intervened in dispute between A1 and P.Ws.1 & 2 – No prior enmity between deceased and A2 – Assault occurred in heat of moment without premeditation – Though injury inflicted on vital part, circumstances indicate absence of intention to commit murder – Offence falls under Section 304 Part I IPC and not Section 302 IPC [Paras 27, 31].

Individual Overt Acts – Appreciation of Evidence – Consistent testimony of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10 corroborated by medical evidence – Post-mortem confirms head injury consistent with eyewitness account – Minor lapses in investigation and non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal when core prosecution case proved – A1 liable under Section 324 IPC for assault with broken glass and under Section 342 IPC – A2 liable under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 22, 26–31, 32].

Delay in FIR – Explained – Incident occurred at 8.00 p.m. – Complaint lodged at 12.30 a.m. after shifting injured to hospital – Delay natural in circumstances of securing medical treatment – Not fatal to prosecution case [Para 30].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Evidence of hostile witnesses not to be rejected in toto – Conviction can be based on reliable portion of testimony corroborated by other evidence – Conviction sustained on basis of trustworthy eyewitnesses despite some witnesses turning hostile [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Acquittal of A1 and A2 set aside – A1 convicted under Sections 324 and 342 IPC – A2 convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC – Matter posted for hearing on sentence – Acquittal of A3 to A11 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Political Rivalry – Conviction Set Aside – Deceased, a CPI(M) local leader, allegedly murdered by members of rival political organisation (NDF) – Trial Court convicted accused under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC and allied offences – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Conviction unsustainable [Paras 9, 48].

Evidence – Injured Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW1 and PW2 projected as injured eye-witnesses – Serious doubt regarding their presence at scene of crime – Wound certificates prepared more than one month after incident and produced in court after inordinate delay – Hospital controlled by same political party as deceased – Nature of injuries trivial and possibly self-inflicted – Conduct of witnesses unnatural – Held: Unsafe to rely on testimony of PW1 and PW2 [Paras 14–21].

Medical Evidence – Delay and Suspicion – Wound Certificates – Delay in preparation, issuance and production of Exts.P27 and P28 – Absence of treating doctor as witness – Lack of description of injuries – Medical evidence found unreliable and incapable of corroborating ocular testimony [Paras 17–21, 47].

Witness Testimony – Conduct Inconsistent with Normal Human Behaviour – PW1 and PW2 allegedly fled scene without attempting to rescue grievously injured deceased – Did not seek help from PW3 or others – Conduct held unnatural – Reliance placed on Nimai Ghosh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) [Para 31].

Interested and Partisan Witnesses – Political Affiliation – All material witnesses belonged to CPI(M), the party of the deceased – In politically charged cases, evidence of partisan witnesses requires strict scrutiny – Absence of independent corroboration fatal to prosecution case [Paras 45–46].

Contradictions and Improvements – Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. – PW1 and PW2 made several material improvements before Court regarding overt acts, weapons, and roles of accused – Omissions proved through Investigating Officers – Held: Improvements go to root of prosecution case when presence itself is doubtful [Paras 37–39].

FIR – Naming of Accused – Suspicion of Prior Consultation – FIR contained names and parentage of all 16 accused – PW1 admitted some names were supplied by others in hospital – Possibility of deliberation and false implication due to political rivalry cannot be ruled out [Paras 34–35].

Investigation – Serious Lapses – Non-examination of Material Witnesses – Alleged escape of assailants in a jeep – Owner and related witnesses not examined – Registration particulars not collected – Delay in recovery of weapons – Recovery witnesses politically affiliated – Held: Investigation lacked fairness and credibility [Paras 40–44].

Recovery Evidence – Doubtful – Delay of Several Months – Weapons allegedly recovered on disclosure after long delay – Attestors were partisan and residing far from place of recovery – Recovery evidence held unreliable [Paras 43–44].

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – While defective investigation alone not a ground for acquittal, where evidence itself is weak and unreliable, lapses assume significance – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 48–49].

Decision: Criminal Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentences in S.C. No. 3 of 2012 set aside – Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14 acquitted – Direction to release appellants forthwith

Trade Marks – Rectification of Register – Prior Adoption and Continuous Use – Petitioner established adoption and use of trademark “ARUN” since 1962 through predecessors-in-interest – Multiple registrations obtained in Class-7 (1976, 1984), Class-20 (2001) and copyright registration of label (1999) – Extensive evidence of uninterrupted use, advertisements, caution notices, decrees and sales figures placed on record – Held: Petitioner proved prior adoption, continuous use, goodwill and reputation attached to mark “ARUN” [Paras 26–31].

Deceptive Similarity – Dominant and Essential Feature of Mark – Respondent’s mark “AiC ARUN” incorporates the entirety of petitioner’s registered mark “ARUN” – Addition of prefix “AiC” does not create sufficient distinction – “ARUN” constitutes the dominant and essential feature – Marks phonetically, visually and structurally similar – Held: Impugned mark deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion to an average consumer with imperfect recollection [Paras 33, 36].

Same Class of Goods – Common Trade Channel and Consumer Base – Both parties manufacture sewing machines and parts falling under Class-7 – Same trade circles, consumer base and geographical proximity (Jalandhar–Ludhiana) – Likelihood of confusion enhanced due to identical nature of goods and common trade channels – Held: Triple test of deceptive similarity, identical goods and common consumer base satisfied [Paras 12, 32, 36].

Generic / Publici Juris Defence – Rejection – Respondent contended that “ARUN” is generic and common to trade – Failed to place any substantive evidence showing widespread common usage – Petitioner’s long, exclusive and continuous use coupled with registrations rebut plea of genericity – Held: “ARUN” acquired distinctiveness and exclusivity in relation to petitioner’s goods [Paras 33–34].

Effect of Non-Opposition under Sections 21 & 23 – No Bar to Rectification – Failure of petitioner to oppose application at advertisement stage does not bar rectification proceedings – Sections 47 and 57 independently confer statutory right to seek cancellation/variation – Interpretation barring rectification would lead to anomalous and incongruous results – Held: Rectification petition maintainable notwithstanding absence of opposition [Paras 37].

Comparison of Marks, Labels and Packaging – Court undertook visual comparison of trademarks, labels, colour schemes and trade dress – Similar overall impression likely to mislead ordinary purchaser – Prefix “AiC” insufficient to obviate confusion – Held: Impugned mark infringes petitioner’s statutory and proprietary rights [Paras 35–36].

Relief – Partial Rectification by Variation – Considering respondent’s limited sales, subsequent adoption and equities – Court exercised power under Section 57 to direct variation instead of complete removal – Directed deletion of word “ARUN” from respondent’s trademark “AiC ARUN” – Respondent permitted to continue business using “AiC” with liberty to add other distinctive matter – Held: Balance of equities achieved while protecting petitioner’s prior rights [Paras 41–42].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trademark “AiC ARUN” directed to be varied by deletion of word “ARUN” – Registrar of Trade Marks directed to rectify Register within six weeks – Respondent restrained from using “ARUN” as part of its mark – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Suit – Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession – Permissive Possession – Plaintiffs established title under registered sale deed (Ex.A1) and construction agreement (Ex.A2) – 2nd defendant admitted possession only by permission either from plaintiffs or 1st defendant – Held: Person in permissive possession cannot dispute title of true owner – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration and recovery of possession [Paras 14–18].

Title – Registered Sale Deed – Challenge by Third Party – Property purchased by plaintiffs under Ex.A1 in 2003 – Construction completed in 2005 – 1st defendant did not set up any independent title and remained ex parte – Contention that Managing Director purchased property in individual capacity not substantiated – No evidence to show valid transfer of possessory or proprietary rights in favour of 2nd defendant [Paras 15–17].

Possession – Claim as Security for Loan – 2nd defendant contended that she was inducted into possession as security for loan advanced by her father to 1st defendant – Alleged loan and permissive occupation not proved – Evidence in earlier suit (Ex.B18) shows 1st defendant denied borrowing loan or permitting occupation as security – Defence rejected [Para 17].

Limitation – Suit for Possession Based on Title – 2nd defendant admitted occupation from 2006 – Suit filed within 12 years – Within period prescribed under Limitation Act – Decree not barred by limitation [Para 18].

Mesne Profits / Interim Deposit – During pendency of appeal, appellant directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- per month – Respondents permitted to withdraw amount on proper application before trial Court [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 28.04.2022 in O.S.No.4226 of 2020 confirming declaration of title and recovery of possession upheld – Eight weeks’ time granted to appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Partition Suit – Execution of Final Decree – Stamp Duty on Instrument of Partition – Objection by Judgment Debtor that final decree was insufficiently stamped as stamp duty was paid only in respect of one share – Contention that decree could not be executed unless stamp duty for entire property was paid – Executing Court held that stamp duty paid by decree-holder was sufficient as all parties had equal shares and one equal share could be treated as separated share under Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act – Challenge thereto in revision [Paras 7–11].

Execution Proceedings – Order XXI CPC – Issuance of Writ of Delivery of Possession – Filing of application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Rejection of recall and stay applications under Section 151 CPC – Revisional challenge confined to executability of decree on ground of stamp duty [Paras 2–4, 9–10].

Stamp Duty – Instrument of Partition – Article 45, Schedule IA, Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal) – Meaning of “largest share remaining” – Where all co-sharers have equal shares, stamp duty equivalent to one such equal share may be treated as separated share – However, final decree in partition must ultimately be duly stamped to be fully executable [Paras 10, 16].

Final Decree – Nature and Executability – Reliance on Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande – Held, until a final decree is drawn up and engrossed on proper stamp papers, there is no executable decree – Mere direction to draw up final decree or partial stamping does not render decree executable in full [Paras 18–19].

Partition Proceedings – Preliminary and Final Decrees – Reference to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan – Duty of courts to ensure drawing up of final decree after preliminary decree – Decree in partition suit may be partly preliminary and partly final – Suit concludes only upon drawing of final decree [Paras 14–15].

Equitable Relief – Undertaking by Decree Holder – Decree holder undertook before High Court to pay total stamp duty in respect of entire suit property with liberty to recover proportionate shares from other co-sharers – Held, such course would cure defect of executability – Revisional application disposed of granting such liberty [Paras 12–13, 17, 19].

Decision – Civil Revision disposed of – Liberty granted to decree holders to deposit total stamp duty for entire property – On such payment, executing court directed to proceed with execution and ensure full satisfaction of decree within one month – Interim orders vacated [Paras 19–24].

Family Law – Stridhan – Recovery of Gold Ornaments – Marriage Register as Evidence – Entry in SNDP Yogam Marriage Register showing quantity of gold worn by bride – Correction duly countersigned and supported by testimony of Secretary – Genuineness of register not challenged by respondents – Photographic evidence corroborating entry – Held: Bride possessed 800 grams (100 sovereigns) of gold at the time of marriage – Finding of Family Court limiting gold to 600 grams erroneous [Paras 7–9].

Stridhan – Possession and Misappropriation – Appellant admittedly retained about 15 sovereigns – Respondents already directed to return 60 sovereigns – On evidence, respondents likely retained 85 sovereigns – Held: Respondents liable to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments [Para 10].

Recovery of Gold – Mode of Relief – Market Value – When court directs return of gold or its value, prevailing market value at time of realisation to be awarded – However, no enhancement warranted for 60 sovereigns already settled – For remaining 25 sovereigns, market value at time of recovery payable if gold not returned in specie [Para 11].

Recovery of Money – Burden of Proof – Alleged Entrustment by Parents – Claims for Rs.11 lakhs, chit fund amounts, fixed deposit withdrawal, and partnership contribution – Parents not examined – No documentary proof of availability or withdrawal of funds – Bank statements inconsistent with pleaded payments – Amendment raising FD claim introduced belatedly – Held: Monetary claims not proved – Dismissal by Family Court upheld [Paras 12–15].

Chit Fund Amounts – Locus Standi – Claim relating to chits subscribed by petitioner’s mother – Mother neither examined nor claimant – No proof of entrustment for petitioner’s benefit – Held: Petitioner not entitled to decree for amounts allegedly due to mother [Para 16].

Minor Child – Gold Ornaments – Proper Proceedings – Claim for recovery of gold belonging to minor daughter cannot be sought by mother in her personal petition – Remedy lies in instituting proceedings on behalf of minor – Clarified: Dismissal does not bar such future proceedings [Para 17].

Appeal – Remand – Filling Lacunae Impermissible – Prayer for remand to adduce further evidence rejected – Appeal cannot be remanded merely to fill evidentiary gaps or enable production of additional material – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Respondents directed to return additional 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month, failing which to pay market value at time of recovery – Rest of decree of Family Court upheld – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Adhoc / Work-Charged Service – Counting for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Respondents appointed as Clerks on ad-hoc basis by an authority not competent under the service rules – Posts not advertised and appointments made dehors the rules – Termination later held illegal by Industrial Tribunal with direction of reinstatement and full back wages – Held: Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Effect of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Continuity of Service – Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages but did not grant continuity of service – Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages – Held: In absence of lawful initial appointment and express grant of continuity, pre-regularisation service cannot be counted for service benefits [Paras 2, 6, 11].

Service Jurisprudence – Illegal Appointment – Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – Appointment made by incompetent authority without following recruitment rules treated as illegal – Such service cannot be equated with service rendered pursuant to regular appointment – Counting such service would amount to treating unequals equally, offending Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 12–13].

Precedent – Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association Case – Supreme Court reiterated – Only ad-hoc service rendered after appointment in accordance with rules or after consideration of eligible candidates can be counted for seniority – Ad-hoc service rendered through back-door entry excluded [Para 13].

Civil Suit – Declaration – Trial Court and First Appellate Court wrongly decreed suit holding ad-hoc service countable due to reinstatement with back wages – Judgments held contrary to settled law – Interference in second appeal justified [Paras 5–7, 14].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Suit of respondents dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Alleged Derogatory Remarks on Assamese Women – Statement in YouTube interview alleging existence of a village in Assam where girls practice black magic and convert men into animals – FIR registered under Sections 196(1), 197(1), 353(2) BNS read with Section 67 IT Act and Section 4 of Assam Witch Hunting Act – Investigation culminated in charge-sheet – Held: Taking the statement at face value, essential ingredients of the alleged offences not made out – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 18, 28-30].

Promoting Enmity – Requirement of Two Groups – Section 196 BNS – Mere controversial or objectionable remarks not sufficient – Prosecution must show promotion of enmity between two or more religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups – Statement did not refer to two distinct communities nor promote disharmony between them – Mens rea absent – No offence under Section 196 BNS made out [Paras 20-22].

Imputations Prejudicial to National Integration – Section 197 BNS – No allegation that any class of persons cannot bear allegiance to Constitution or be denied citizenship rights – No assertion affecting sovereignty, unity or integrity of India – Ingredients of Section 197 BNS not attracted [Paras 19-20].

Statements Conducing to Public Mischief – Section 353(2) BNS – Requirement of false information with intent to promote enmity or hatred between groups – Impugned statement, though controversial, did not satisfy statutory threshold – No material showing likelihood of promoting hatred between communities [Paras 20-22, 28].

Obscenity – Section 67 IT Act – Publishing obscene material in electronic form – Mere reference to alleged tantric practices and sexual conduct, in context of narration, does not ipso facto amount to obscenity – Ingredients of Section 67 not satisfied [Para 23].

Assam Witch Hunting Act – Identification or Stigmatization as Witch – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) – Offence requires identifying or defaming a person as “witch” implying power to harm society – Statement did not label any individual as witch nor attribute power to harm society at large – Essential element missing – Provision not attracted [Paras 24-27].

Inherent Powers – Scope After Filing of Charge-sheet – High Court empowered to examine FIR, charge-sheet and accompanying materials even after filing of charge-sheet – If allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence, proceedings liable to be quashed – Reliance placed on Bhajan Lal principles and subsequent precedents [Paras 15-17, 28-29].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 01/2025 and Charge-sheet No. 01/2025 dated 08.09.2025 (corresponding Sessions Case No. 180/2025) quashed – Proceedings set aside.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Final Report – Section 482 CrPC – Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Accused bus driver alleged to have overtaken and collided with the official vehicle of a judicial officer – Held: None of the charges are even prima facie sustainable as the essential ingredients of Sections 324, 353 IPC and Section 3(2)(e) of the Act of 1984 are absent – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 10, 19, 20].

Section 353 IPC – Assault or Criminal Force Against Public Servant – Ingredients – For an offence under Section 353 IPC, there must be actual assault or use of criminal force against a public servant on duty with the intention to prevent or deter discharge of duty – Mere obstruction is insufficient; there must be intentional physical force directed against the person – In the instant case, the incident was a brushing of the bus against the car during overtaking and the FIR discloses no criminal intent or mens rea to obstruct or deter any public servant – Section 353 IPC not attracted [Paras 11, 14, 15].

Section 324 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Means – Ingredients – An offence under Section 324 IPC requires that hurt must be caused by a dangerous weapon or dangerous means – Injury caused by shattering of car window glass as a consequence of a road incident does not constitute intentional use of a dangerous weapon or dangerous means by the accused – Section 324 IPC legally unsustainable [Para 16].

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – Section 3(2)(e) – "Public Property" – Scope – The category of public property covered by Section 3(2)(e) is a closed and specifically enumerated list – The provision cannot be extended by interpretative exercise to cover all forms of public property in a general sense – An official car of a judicial officer, though public property, is not a "means of public transportation or telecommunications" as contemplated under Section 3(2)(e) – The Act was not intended to govern isolated motor accidents lacking an element of assault and criminal force – Section 3(2)(e) not attracted [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Crl.M.C. allowed – Final Report in Crime No. 847/2018 and all further proceedings in CC No. 367/2018 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha quashed.