POCSO Act – Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction – Prosecutrix kidnapped while going for nature’s call during marriage ceremony – Confined in accused’s house and subjected to repeated sexual intercourse – Victim recovered from accused’s house on third day – Trial Court convicted accused under IPC and POCSO provisions – High Court upheld conviction – Held: Prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25–35].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – School Records vs. Ossification Test – Prosecutrix and parents consistently stated age to be 13–14 years – School admission register from first attended school showed date of birth as 04.07.2006 – Defence relied on doubtful scholar register showing different date of birth – Register found unauthenticated and unreliable – Held: As per Rule 12 of JJ Rules and Section 94 JJ Act, school record has precedence – Victim held to be minor on date of incident [Paras 11–18, 24].

Medical Evidence – Ossification Test – Not Mandatory – Doctor advised X-ray for age determination but ossification test not conducted – Held: Ossification test required only in absence of reliable documentary evidence – Non-conduct does not vitiate prosecution case when school records are available – Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and State of M.P. v. Anoop Singh [Paras 19–24].

Evidence Appreciation – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Credibility – Prosecutrix gave consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual intercourse – Supported by testimony of mother, father, friend and grandfather – No material contradiction elicited in cross-examination – Sole testimony of prosecutrix sufficient when found trustworthy [Paras 25–29].

Scientific Evidence – DNA Report – Corroboration – DNA analysis confirmed match between accused and biological samples of prosecutrix – Strong corroborative evidence establishing sexual intercourse by accused – Defence plea of false implication rejected [Paras 33–34].

Consent – Minor Victim – Irrelevant – Defence plea of consensual relationship rejected – Victim below 18 years of age – Consent, even if assumed, legally inconsequential under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34–35].

Sentence – Confirmation – Multiple offences including aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Sentence of up to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment upheld – No mitigating circumstance warranting interference [Paras 1, 35].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Trial Court affirmed – Records directed to be sent back to Trial Court forthwith [Paras 35–36].

Partition Suit – Grandchild’s Claim – Oral Family Settlement – Proof and Effect – Plaintiff, granddaughter of original owner, sought partition of residential property alleging joint ownership and illegal exclusion – Defendants pleaded oral family arrangement whereby suit property fell to their share and another property to plaintiff’s branch – Evidence showed execution of reciprocal release deeds and receipt of consideration – Conduct of parties, including sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch, corroborated family settlement – Held: Oral partition/family arrangement duly proved – Suit property ceased to be joint [Paras 29–33, 38–39].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 8 – Transaction by Guardian Without Court Permission – Void or Voidable – Plaintiff contended that oral partition effected during her minority was void for want of court permission – Held: Section 8(3) HMGA renders such transactions voidable, not void – Transaction remains valid unless set aside by minor within limitation – Reliance placed on Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan – Plaintiff failed to seek setting aside within prescribed period [Paras 34–37].

Limitation – Declaration – Article 58 Limitation Act – Plaintiff sought declaration that mutation and conveyance deed were null and void – Documentary evidence showed plaintiff had knowledge of impugned mutation much prior to alleged date – Limitation of three years under Article 58 runs from date when right to sue first accrues – Held: Prayer for declaration barred by limitation [Paras 21–25, 27].

Limitation – Partition – No Prescribed Period – While declaration relief was time-barred, suit for partition per se not barred by limitation – Partition is a continuing right of co-sharers – However, once oral partition proved and not set aside, no subsisting jointness survives – Reliance placed on Vidya Devi v. Prem Prakash [Paras 26–27, 38].

Registration Act – Unregistered Release Deeds – Collateral Purpose – Objection raised that unregistered release deed could not be read in evidence – Held: Under proviso to Section 49 of Registration Act, such document admissible to prove collateral transaction, namely existence of oral partition – Document not relied upon to effect transfer but to evidence family arrangement [Para 30].

Evidence – Admission by Conduct – Silence and Subsequent Acts – Signature of plaintiff’s mother on release deed not denied – Sale of property allotted to plaintiff’s branch pursuant to oral partition remained undisputed – Held: Conduct amounts to admission supporting defendants’ case – Plaintiff failed to rebut inference of prior partition [Paras 32–33, 39].

Cause of Action – Partition After Valid Family Settlement – Once oral partition stood proved and not avoided within limitation, plaintiff had no subsisting right, title or interest in suit property – Held: Suit for partition devoid of cause of action [Paras 38–40].

Decision: Suit dismissed – Prayer for declaration barred by limitation – Oral family settlement upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to partition or any other relief – No order as to costs.

NDPS Act – Bail – Intermediate Quantity – Applicability of Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused No.2 found in possession of 10.188 kg ganja while co-accused possessed commercial quantity – Held, rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act not attracted when quantity recovered from the applicant alone is intermediate and no material to establish conspiracy – Bail granted [Paras 6–7].

Narcotic Offences – Joint Possession – Conspiracy – Mere presence together insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish conspiracy between accused No.1 and accused No.2 – No corroborative material such as CDR details or supplier identification available – Held, joint standing at railway station by itself does not attract liability for commercial quantity [Paras 6–7].

Bail Jurisprudence – Length of Custody – Completion of Investigation – Applicant in custody since 07.08.2025 – Investigation almost over – Continued detention held unnecessary – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Antecedents – NDPS Cases – Effect on Bail – Applicant involved in four prior NDPS cases, mostly for consumption and small quantity – Antecedents alone not a ground to deny bail when statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act is inapplicable [Para 7].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Applicant directed to be released on bail on execution of bond with conditions including cooperation with investigation, weekly appearance before Investigating Officer, non-tampering of evidence, and restriction on leaving the State of Kerala.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Reference to Arbitration – Pendency of Arbitration Prior to Suit – Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant from claiming his share of profits and losses in partnership firm – Admitted position that arbitration proceedings between parties were pending since 2007 under partnership deed containing arbitration clause – Suit instituted in 2011 during pendency of arbitration – Held: Civil court cannot assume jurisdiction when dispute is already seized of by arbitral tribunal – Reference to arbitration justified – Parallel adjudication by civil court impermissible [Paras 20, 26, 29–34] .

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Proper Course under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Trial Court rejected plaint – First Appellate Court modified order directing reference to arbitration – Held: Where arbitration clause exists, plaint need not be rejected; appropriate course is reference to arbitration – First Appellate Court correct in modifying decree [Paras 11, 32] .

Section 100 CPC – Second Appeal – Scope and Limitations – Interference permissible only when findings of First Appellate Court are contrary to mandatory law or settled legal principles – Findings based on admitted facts regarding arbitration clause and pending arbitral proceedings – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – No substantial question of law arises – Second Appeal not maintainable [Paras 14, 35] .

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Deed – Effect – Defendant pleaded original partnership deed was in possession of plaintiff – Plaintiff did not deny existence of arbitration clause and admitted pendency of arbitration – Held: Non-filing of original arbitration agreement not fatal where existence of arbitration clause and arbitral proceedings is admitted by both parties [Paras 16–18, 26] .

Arbitrability – Rights in Personam – Dispute concerning enforcement of partner’s share of profits and losses – Contractual dispute arising out of partnership deed – Held: Dispute is in personam and arbitrable – Suit seeking injunction to restrain contractual rights barred in view of arbitration clause [Paras 18–21] .

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Plaintiff alleged fabrication of documents and issues beyond scope of arbitration – Held: Allegations of fraud simpliciter or statutory violations do not oust jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal – Arbitral tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 – Civil court’s jurisdiction excluded [Paras 25–27, 31–33] .

Effect of Order under Section 8 – Once parties are referred to arbitration, nothing survives for adjudication in civil suit – Remedies governed exclusively by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Continuation of suit barred [Paras 30, 34] .

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference to arbitration confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 – Rigours of Statute – Petitioner sought regular bail in FIR involving recovery of 195 intoxicant tablets (Etizolam) amounting to commercial quantity – Court held that once commercial quantity is involved, bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act – Mere completion of investigation or prolonged custody not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 1, 8].

NDPS Act – Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Satisfaction – Recovery allegedly effected from polythene bag thrown by petitioner at the spot – Contentions of false implication, planted recovery and lack of conscious possession held to be matters of trial – At bail stage, Court not required to conduct meticulous examination of evidence – Prima facie material sufficient to attract statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 2, 4, 8–9].

NDPS Act – Non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 – Effect at Bail Stage – Plea of violation of mandatory provisions raised by petitioner – Held: Alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 NDPS Act is a mixed question of law and fact – Cannot be conclusively adjudicated at stage of regular bail – Such issues to be examined during trial [Paras 3, 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail – Petitioner found involved in other NDPS cases – Criminal antecedents weighed against grant of bail – Court held that antecedents coupled with nature of recovery indicate prima facie involvement and disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief [Paras 4, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Discretion of Court – NDPS Offences – Court reiterated that discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously keeping in view gravity of offence, severity of punishment and societal interest – In serious NDPS offences, liberty of individual must be balanced against societal interest and statutory mandate [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Petition for regular bail dismissed – Court held that no reasonable grounds exist to believe that petitioner is not guilty or that he would not commit offence while on bail – Observations made confined to bail proceedings and not to influence trial [Paras 10–11].

Civil Procedure Code – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court, which is the final court on facts, unless such findings are perverse, contrary to mandatory provisions of law, settled legal position, based on inadmissible evidence or rendered without evidence – No substantial question of law arises merely because a different view is possible [Paras 14, 35].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Mandatory Reference to Arbitration – Partnership deed admittedly contained an arbitration clause – Arbitral proceedings were pending since 2007, much prior to institution of suit in 2011 – Civil court had no jurisdiction to continue the suit – Judicial authority bound to refer parties to arbitration once existence of arbitration agreement and arbitrable dispute is shown [Paras 20, 26, 28–30].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Arbitration Clause – Outright rejection of plaint improper where arbitration clause exists – Correct course is to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act – First Appellate Court rightly modified the trial court’s order rejecting plaint and directed reference to arbitration [Paras 10–11, 32].

Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of Original Partnership Deed – Effect – Existence of arbitration clause and pendency of arbitral proceedings admitted by both parties – Plaintiff, being Managing Partner and custodian of original deed, cannot take advantage of non-production – Requirement of filing original or certified copy not fatal in admitted circumstances [Paras 16–17, 20].

Arbitrability – Partnership Disputes – Rights in Personam – Dispute relating to partner’s share of profit and loss is a dispute in personam – Amenable to arbitration – Not a category of non-arbitrable disputes as explained in Booz Allen & Hamilton [Paras 18–21].

Allegations of Fraud – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Allegations of fabrication of documents or fraud simpliciter do not oust arbitral jurisdiction – Arbitral Tribunal competent to rule on its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Act – Civil court should not assume jurisdiction on such pleas [Paras 25–27, 31–33].

Parallel Proceedings – Civil Suit During Pending Arbitration – Discouraged – Institution of civil suit during pendency of arbitral proceedings amounts to forum shopping – Bifurcation of disputes between arbitral tribunal and civil court would delay proceedings, increase costs and risk conflicting decisions – Contrary to object of Arbitration Act [Paras 29, 34].

Limitation – Appointment of Arbitrator Already Made – Arbitrator appointed in 2007 and proceedings pending – No issue of limitation or failure to appoint arbitrator arises – Objection not raised before courts below – Cannot be agitated in second appeal [Para 22].

Cross Objections – No Independent Merit – Once reference to arbitration upheld and no substantial question of law found, cross objections filed by defendant do not survive – Liable to be dismissed [Para 35].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Cross Objections dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court directing reference of parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act affirmed – No substantial question of law involved – No order as to costs – Pending applications closed.

Tenancy Law – Surplus Land – Vesting in State – Proof of Tenancy – Plaintiff claimed tenancy through father under original landowners for over 30 years – Land declared surplus under Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act and vested in State under Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act – Allotment made in favour of defendant Jai Singh and possession delivered in 1980 – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove tenancy – No evidence of rent fixation or payment – Stray jamabandi entry insufficient to establish landlord-tenant relationship – Entries showing “Gair Marusi” without lagan negate tenancy – Plaintiff held to be trespasser [Paras 8, 16-18].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Stray Entries – Single jamabandi entry showing possession on batai without proof of rent or landlord consent – Subsequent revenue records showing no rent payable – Held: Relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be established by isolated revenue entry – Such entries liable to be ignored, especially when land had already vested in State [Paras 17-18].

Surplus Land – Allotment – Ownership Rights – Defendant Jai Singh proved allotment of surplus land by State through allotment letter, mutation, Form U.S. IV and delivery of possession – Plaintiff never claimed ownership, only tenancy and pre-emption – Held: Ownership of Jai Singh established beyond dispute – Subsequent sale to Jagdish valid [Paras 13-14].

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Failure to Prove Tenancy – Plaintiff sought pre-emption of sale claiming preferential right as tenant – Held: Since tenancy not proved, plaintiff has no superior right of pre-emption – Dismissal of pre-emption suit upheld [Paras 14, 21].

Injunction – Trespasser vs True Owner – Plaintiff sought protection of possession against defendants – Courts found plaintiff to be trespasser and not tenant – Held: Trespasser not entitled to injunction against true owner – Once rights adjudicated by competent court, requirement of “due process of law” stands satisfied – No further injunction can be granted restraining owner from taking possession in accordance with law [Paras 19-20].

Due Process of Law – Meaning – Due process satisfied once court adjudicates rights of parties – It is immaterial who initiated proceedings – After adjudication, unsuccessful party cannot insist on separate eviction proceedings before possession is restored to true owner – Protection against forcible dispossession not available after judicial determination [Paras 19-20].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – Findings that plaintiff was not tenant but trespasser based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or substantial question of law involved – High Court declined interference [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Multiple Connected Appeals – Consolidated Decision – Three RSAs arising from suits for injunction and pre-emption concerning same property and parties – Held:

• RSA-1491-1988 (pre-emption) dismissed

• RSA-1168-1989 (injunction by plaintiff) dismissed

• RSA-2180-1988 (appeal by defendants) allowed – Suit of plaintiff dismissed [Para 21].

Judgments granting injunction to plaintiff set aside – Plaintiff held to be trespasser with no tenancy or pre-emption rights.

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted under Section 302 IPC based solely on circumstantial evidence – On appeal, High Court finds prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to guilt – Benefit of doubt granted – Conviction set aside [Paras 70–74].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Absence of Proof – Alleged motive that deceased decided to leave accused and return to native place – No witness proved strained relationship or immediate provocation – Evidence indicated cordial relationship between accused and deceased – Held, absence of motive assumes significance in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 54–59].

Last Seen Together Theory – Reliability of Witnesses – Evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 17 relied on by trial court – High Court found material contradictions, omissions and embellishments in their testimonies – Witnesses lacked close acquaintance and consistency – Held, last seen theory not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 63–66].

Recovery of Weapon – Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubtful Recovery – MO2 chopper allegedly recovered after two years from bushes near scene of occurrence – Weapon found without rust and at a place already inspected by police earlier – Held, recovery highly suspicious and unreliable, incapable of forming a vital link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 69].

Recovery of Mobile Phone – Inconsistent Evidence – Contradictions between PW5 and PW6 regarding sale or free transfer of mobile phone allegedly belonging to accused – Lack of clarity and reliability – Held, circumstance not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 67–68].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – Prosecution failed to first establish foundational facts – Mere failure of accused to explain circumstances cannot substitute proof of guilt – Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in prosecution case [Paras 62, 70–71].

Suspicion vs Proof – Criminal Jurisprudence – Strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt – Possibility of involvement of third parties not ruled out – Time gap between alleged last seen and death significant – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 71–74].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 324 and 326 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Service Law – Recruitment – Head Teacher (Class-III) – Interpretation of Eligibility Rule – Teaching Experience – Petitioners, having cleared Head Teacher Aptitude Test, were denied acceptance of application forms on the ground that they lacked five years’ teaching experience after acquiring B.Ed. degree – Rule 4(d) of Recruitment Rules, 2012 prescribes “at least five years separate or combined experience of teaching as a Teacher or Vidya Sahayak” – Rule silent on requirement that such experience must be post-B.Ed. – Held: State misread and misconstrued its own rules by adding a condition not provided therein – Five years’ experience cannot be restricted to post-B.Ed. period in absence of express stipulation [Paras 10–12].

Service Law – Statutory Rules – Interpretation – When recruitment rules do not link experience requirement with acquisition of higher educational qualification, employer cannot read such linkage into rules by administrative interpretation – Experience gained prior to obtaining B.Ed. is liable to be counted when rule itself includes experience as Vidya Sahayak, a post for which B.Ed. is not mandatory – Impugned action held arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 12.1–13.1].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits and Scope – Though State has prerogative to prescribe qualifications and experience under Article 309, Court can interfere where State acts contrary to its own statutory rules – Misinterpretation of recruitment rules resulting in exclusion of eligible candidates violates Articles 14 and 16 – Limited judicial review does not preclude correction of perverse or arbitrary administrative action [Paras 7–9, 14–15].

Public Employment – Right to Apply – Wrongful refusal to accept applications based on erroneous interpretation of eligibility criteria amounts to denial of opportunity to compete for public employment – Such action infringes fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Petitioners entitled to consideration of candidature on merits [Paras 14–17].

Relief – Directions – Respondents directed to accept application forms of petitioners and consider their candidature for appointment as Head Teachers if otherwise eligible – Appointments, if made, to be with notional seniority from date of appointment of last selected candidate under advertisement dated 22.03.2012 – No entitlement to back wages, but continuity of service and retiral benefits protected – Petition partly allowed [Paras 18–21].