Property Law – Joint Hindu Family Property – Succession Rights under Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 – Applicability to Agricultural Land -  High Court examined the applicability of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, to the agricultural land. Upon the death of Kanhaiya in 1941, the Court found that his wife, Kala Bai, acquired the same rights in the joint family property under the Act, despite her husband’s death prior to the extension of the Act to agricultural lands in 1942. This extension was applied retrospectively, granting Kala Bai a half share in the property which she held in her own right until her death in 1960. Consequently, the plaintiffs, being the daughters of Kanhaiya and Kala Bai, inherited the property upon the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affirming their right to partition and possession. [Paras 2, 11-12]

Property Acquisition – The High Court held that the land area of 1.14 acres, acquired by Harlal through a registered sale deed in 1954, was his self-acquired property and not part of the joint family estate. The trial court's finding of the sale deed as bogus was reversed by the first appellate court and upheld by the High Court, determining that this land should not be included in the decree for partition. The Court modified the trial court’s decree accordingly, excluding this specific land from the plaintiffs' share. [Paras 5, 14-15]

Decision – Appeal Partially Allowed – Held – The appeal is allowed to the extent of excluding the self-acquired property of Harlal (1.14 acres) from the partition decree. The judgment and decree of the lower courts are modified to this extent, confirming the plaintiffs’ entitlement to half of the remaining joint family property. No order as to costs. [Paras 15-17]

Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – Appeal – Appellants sought enhancement of compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal for death in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal had awarded Rs. 9,40,000 with interest – Appellants claimed deceased’s income was Rs. 30,000 per month as a transporter and contractor, not Rs. 6,000 as assessed by Tribunal – Tribunal’s assessment based on lack of documentary evidence and unproven ownership of truck – High Court considered deceased a skilled labourer and adjusted monthly income to Rs. 10,000 – Recalculated total compensation to Rs. 17,15,500 with interest. [Paras 1-20]

Assessment of Income – Evidence – Tribunal’s income assessment – Held – Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income as Rs. 6,000 based on insufficient evidence – High Court adjusted income to Rs. 10,000, recognizing deceased as a skilled labourer based on driving license for heavy transport vehicle. [Paras 11-12]

Dependency and Multipliers – Personal Expenses – Held – Tribunal incorrectly deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses – High Court corrected deduction to 1/4th considering number of dependents – Multiplier of 13 applied correctly. [Paras 13-14]

Conventional Heads – Consortium and Funeral Expenses – Held – Tribunal awarded consortium and funeral expenses lower than statutory guidelines – High Court enhanced awards under these heads per Supreme Court guidelines. [Paras 16-18]

Decision – Enhancement of Compensation – High Court enhanced total compensation from Rs. 9,40,000 to Rs. 17,15,500 – Directed equitable distribution among dependents and specified terms for fixed deposits for minor dependents – Interest on enhanced amount at 6% per annum from claim petition filing date to actual payment. [Paras 19-22]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Conviction and Sentence – Appeal – Non-compliance with Section 52A – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the preparation of an inventory, and drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate – Held that the failure to comply with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution’s case – Appeal allowed, appellant acquitted. [Paras 1-15]

Compliance with Section 52A of NDPS Act – Requirement – Analysis – Held – Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates that an inventory of the seized narcotic substance must be prepared and certified by a Magistrate, and samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate – Non-compliance results in the samples not being treated as primary evidence – Reference made to Union of India v. Mohanlal and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana. [Paras 8-13]

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Court found significant procedural lapses in the investigation, particularly the non-compliance with Section 52A, resulting in the acquittal of the appellant – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court set aside. [Para 15]

Passport Law – Renewal of Passport – Special Criminal Application seeking renewal of passport – Applicant’s passport renewal denied by passport authority due to pending criminal case and untraceable court records – Court held that the pendency of a criminal complaint which culminated into a criminal case does not justify refusal of passport renewal under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – Direction issued to passport authority to process renewal application within a month. [Paras 1-9]

Untraceable Court Records – Impact on Administrative Decisions – Analysis – Held – Applicant’s criminal case records untraceable despite multiple efforts – Court found that such administrative lapses should not impede the renewal process – Authorities directed to base their decision on available documents rather than pending criminal case. [Para 5-9]

Decision – Renewal of Passport Directed – Court directed the passport authority to renew the petitioner’s passport within one month – Emphasized that mere registration of an FIR, which culminated into a criminal case, cannot be grounds for denial of passport renewal – Authorities instructed to consider documents provided by the petitioner. [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Conviction and Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the Sessions Court – Appeal in High Court – Examination of circumstantial evidence and recovery of weapons – High Court found no substantive link between appellants and crime – No credible last seen evidence – Absence of disclosure statements for recovery of weapons – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 1-5, 33-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – High Court emphasized strict adherence to guidelines for circumstantial evidence cases – Cited Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra for criteria – Evidence must conclusively indicate guilt and exclude all other hypotheses – Prosecution's evidence failed to meet these standards – No coherent chain of evidence established [Paras 26-27, 33-34].

Evidence Law – Recovery of Weapons – Application of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – High Court scrutinized applicability of Section 27 for recovery of weapons – Prosecution did not produce any disclosure statements – Recovery evidence treated under Section 8 as conduct evidence, insufficient for conviction – References to Supreme Court precedents Bodhraj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Shahaja alias Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 28-32, 35-39].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Appeals are allowed, and appellants acquitted – Sessions Court’s judgment set aside – Prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Appellants to be released unless wanted in any other case – Instructions for transmission of judgment to lower court [Paras 40-45].

Service Law – Departmental Proceedings vs. Criminal Acquittal – Petition against dismissal – Petitioner, a constable driver in CRPF, dismissed on allegations of misappropriating and selling fuel, was acquitted by criminal court on similar charges. Discharge by criminal court due to lack of evidence – Held, departmental proceedings on identical charges without sanction from Inspector General per Rule 27(2)(ccc) of CRPF Rules, 1955 is unsustainable – Departmental proceedings quashed, and petitioner reinstated with 50% back wages. [Paras 1-29]

Role of Evidence – Discrepancy between Criminal and Departmental Proceedings – Analysis reveals no substantial evidence in departmental proceedings that was not considered in criminal court – Criminal court’s acquittal due to lack of evidence on key allegations should influence departmental findings. [Paras 7-17]

Application of Rule 27(2)(ccc) of CRPF Rules, 1955 – Requirement for sanction from Inspector General for departmental proceedings on similar charges post acquittal – Non-adherence to rule constitutes grounds for setting aside dismissal order. [Paras 21-25]

Decision – Dismissal order set aside – Petitioner reinstated with 50% back wages – Relief limited due to lack of plea or evidence on non-gainful employment post-dismissal. [Paras 26-29]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction of CJM and Police Station – Writ petition challenging FIR for offenses under Sections 304(II), 420, 409, 467, 468 RPC – Complaint initiated by respondent No.3 before CJM Jammu, alleging insurance fraud and failure to process claim leading to the death of the insured in Switzerland – CJM directed SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to register and investigate the case – Held that no part of the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of CJM Jammu or the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu – Order directing registration of FIR and subsequent investigation deemed without jurisdiction – FIR and proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Insufficient Evidence of Criminal Offense – Analysis of contractual disputes between insurer and insured – Held that non-payment of insurance claim and cancellation of policy is a civil dispute – No criminal intent or act of forgery by the petitioner-company established – Allegations of forgery based on cancellation letter processed through travel agent – Supreme Court precedents discourage criminalizing civil disputes – FIR and investigation declared abuse of process of law – FIR quashed. [Paras 14-21]

Decision:

The Court quashes FIR No. 79/2013 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the dispute is purely civil in nature, with no criminal intent or act established by the petitioner-company. The proceedings are deemed an abuse of the process of law. [Para 22]

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC – Informant, Sonmuni Baskey, provided direct eyewitness testimony – Conviction upheld despite the lack of motive and the non-submission of the weapon to forensic analysis – Court found no discrepancy in the identification of the accused despite poor lighting conditions – Importance of direct evidence highlighted [Paras 2-25].

Eyewitness Identification in Low Light – Reliability – Eyewitness testimony of Sonmuni Baskey considered reliable even in low-light conditions due to prior acquaintance with the accused – Court refers to precedent affirming the reliability of identification by familiar individuals in poor visibility [Para 17.2].

Hearsay Evidence – Corroboration – Testimonies of P.W.2 (Deblal Kisku) and P.W.3 (Churki Hembrom) accepted as corroborative evidence – Court emphasized the admissibility of hearsay evidence that corroborates direct eyewitness accounts [Paras 21.1-21.2].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence provided by P.W.12 (Dr. Shailendra Kumar) confirmed cause of death consistent with the injuries described by the eyewitness, further corroborating the prosecution’s case [Para 22].

Defect in Investigation – Non-fatal – Failure to send the recovered dagger for forensic examination considered a minor lapse – Court ruled that the defect did not undermine the direct evidence provided by the eyewitness [Para 20.1].

Motive – Relevance in Direct Evidence Cases – Court reiterated that motive is not crucial in cases supported by direct evidence – Conviction based on the unequivocal testimony of the eyewitness [Para 18.1].

Defense’s Alternate Theory – Rejected – Defense’s suggestion that the informant conspired to kill the deceased or committed the murder herself was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence – Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not support the alternate theory [Paras 23.2-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant to serve the remainder of the sentence as ordered by the trial court. Lower court records to be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Appellants convicted based on dying declarations of deceased – Two dying declarations recorded, first by police in presence of doctor, second under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate – Court scrutinized consistency and voluntariness of statements – Found statements reliable and made in fit state of mind – Deceased consistently named Amir Mallick in both declarations but omitted Gudia @ Guria in second statement before Magistrate – Conviction of Amir Mallick upheld, Gudia @ Guria acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-33].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – P.W. 1 (husband of deceased) declared hostile, did not support prosecution’s case – Defense witnesses attempted to challenge credibility of dying declarations – Court emphasized consistency of deceased’s statements and presence of doctors during recording – Minor discrepancies in witness statements deemed immaterial [Paras 10-22].

Motive – Property Dispute – Evidence showed consistent motive related to property dispute between deceased and in-laws – Deceased demanded joint ownership in property registered solely in husband’s name – Step-relationship among family members contributed to motive [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Amir Mallick for life imprisonment affirmed – Gudia @ Guria acquitted and ordered to be released [Paras 34-36].