Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Gang Rape and Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted by Trial Court for offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – High Court reappreciating entire evidence finds prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances – Motive, last seen together, recoveries and forensic evidence found unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1, 12, 60].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Throttling – Proof of Homicidal Death but Insufficient Nexus with Accused – Autopsy evidence established death due to throttling and not drowning – However, proof of homicidal death alone held insufficient to sustain conviction in absence of reliable evidence connecting accused to crime [Paras 18–25].

Rape – Medical and Forensic Evidence – Vaginal Tear – CA and DNA Evidence – Though perineal tear and inverted clothes indicated sexual assault – DNA evidence did not connect appellants – Semen on condoms matched deceased co-accused (A-4) only – Held: Evidence insufficient to conclusively prove gang rape by present appellants beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25.1–25.3, 52–56].

Motive – Alleged Love Affair – Failure of Proof – Prosecution alleged victim was pressuring Accused No.1 to marry her – Evidence of father (PW-11), brother (PW-1) and alleged confidant (PW-8) found inconsistent and unnatural – Love affair not disclosed initially to police – Call Detail Records inconclusive – Held: Motive not proved [Paras 28–36.7].

Last Seen Together – Reliability – Interested Witness – Delay and Unnatural Conduct – Evidence of PW-8 claiming last seen of victim with accused found unreliable due to unexplained silence, delay in disclosure and contradictions – Mere last seen without proximity and corroboration held insufficient – Section 106 Evidence Act not attracted [Paras 40–42.4].

Call Detail Records – Evidentiary Value – Section 65-B Compliance – Limitations – CDRs showing inter se calls between accused and alleged calls by victim held inconclusive – Ownership and use of mobile phones not proved – Location evidence not established – Mere surge in calls insufficient to infer guilt [Paras 33–36.6, 57–57.1].

Recoveries – Section 27 Evidence Act – Spot Recovery and Discovery – Serious Doubts – Alleged recovery of condoms, nicker and other articles at instance of Accused No.1 disbelieved – Police had already searched area earlier – Muddemal register tampering noticed – Panch witness found interested – Recovery held unreliable [Paras 48–49.8].

Recovery by Co-Accused – Purse and Mobile – Non-Proof of Disclosure – Investigating Officer failed to narrate actual disclosure statement – Mere exhibition of memorandum insufficient – Recovery at instance of Accused No.3 discarded [Paras 51–51.5].

Identification Evidence – Purchase of Liquor, Condoms and Water – Failure of Test Identification Parade – Shop witnesses unable to reliably identify accused – Identification in police station held illegal – Evidence rejected [Paras 43–46].

Forensic Evidence – Blood and Semen on Clothes – Probative Value – Blood group common and semen results inconclusive – Improbable that accused retained same clothes – Forensic evidence held insufficient to establish guilt [Paras 52–56].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Circumstantial Evidence – Panchsheel Test – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish motive, last seen, reliable recoveries and conclusive forensic linkage – Chain of circumstances incomplete – Two views possible – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 59–60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence dated 16/07/2019 in Sessions Case No.29/2013 quashed and set aside – Appellants acquitted of offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellants to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine refunded – PR bonds directed under Section 481 BNSS, 2023.

Service Law – Conveyance Allowance – Orthopaedically Disabled Government Employee – Discriminatory Threshold – Petitioner challenged Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) of the 2016 Rules prescribing 50% disability for orthopaedically handicapped persons with both upper and lower limb impairment to claim conveyance allowance – Court held that the classification lacked intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus with the object of the Act – Once benchmark disability of 40% is certified, no further sub-classification is permissible – Clause held to be ultra vires the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 8-20].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Hostile Discrimination – Benchmark Disability – Persons with 40% or more disability constitute a homogeneous class under the 2016 Act – State cannot create arbitrary distinctions within this group – Rejection of conveyance allowance to petitioner despite 40% certified disability held discriminatory and unconstitutional – Court read down the Rule to make all benchmark disabled employees eligible for the allowance [Paras 13, 15-20, 23].

Disability Rights – Rule Inconsistent with Central Legislation – Rule Subordinate to Statute – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) was found to be inconsistent with the definition of “person with benchmark disability” under the 2016 Act – No rationale shown by the State to fix a 50% threshold for grant of benefits – Rule read down to harmonize with Central enactment [Paras 13-20, 23].

Administrative Law – Medical Non-Recommendation Not Sustainable – Certificate Based on Invalid Rule – Medical authority’s rejection of claim was based solely on Rule 22(1)(iii), which has been declared unconstitutional – Thus, rejection of petitioner’s claim for allowance on its basis is unsustainable – Memo dated 30.04.2024 set aside [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Clause (iii) of Rule 22(1) read down – Petitioner held entitled to conveyance allowance under Rule 22 – Rejection Memo dated 30.04.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to pay allowance along with 8% interest within three months – Arrears restricted to 38 months prior to filing of petition [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Disproportionate Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Article 14 – Petitioner, a Head Constable in CID, was punished with permanent forfeiture of two annual increments for not informing seniors promptly about the loss of a service animal – Inquiry established that petitioner was not responsible for the animal's disappearance – Held: There was only a minor lapse in timing of communication – The punishment was disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct – Modified from permanent to temporary forfeiture of two increments [Paras 6, 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Arbitrary and Excessive Penalty – Violation of Equality Clause – Citing Om Kumar v. Union of India and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that excessive or mechanical punishment without commensurate misconduct is violative of Article 14 – Court observed that State authorities acted mechanically and without justification in inflicting harsh penalty [Paras 7-8].

Administrative Law – Avoidance of Remand – Delay and Lapse of Time – Judicial Economy – Though normally the matter would be remanded to reconsider the quantum of punishment, the Court exercised discretion to modify punishment directly given the lapse of over two decades – Remand would only prolong litigation unnecessarily [Para 10].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect modified to temporary effect – Respondents directed to pay arrears arising from modified punishment within six months, failing which interest @7.5% p.a. will apply – Petition disposed of [Paras 10, 12-13].

Civil Law - Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Partition suit based on plea of acquisition from joint family funds – Defendants sought rejection of plaint for no cause of action and limitation – Held: plaint pleaded foundational facts and limitation was a mixed question – rejection refused – appeal dismissed [Paras 20-39].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC – “Cause of action” test – Court to undertake meaningful reading of plaint as a whole and documents relied upon – Truthfulness of allegations not to be examined – Only whether averments disclose right to sue – Plaint cannot be dissected sentence-wise and read in isolation – Defence in written statement/application irrelevant [Paras 20-23, 25, 27-28].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit barred by law – Bar must be evident from plaint statements – Where limitation/statutory bar not ex facie apparent and requires evidence, plaint not rejectable – Continuation termed abuse only when bar is apparent on face of plaint [Paras 22, 25, 36-38].

Partition – Pleadings – Joint family / hotchpotch plea – Requirement of material particulars – Distinguishing prior Delhi High Court precedents – Where plaint specifically pleads source of acquisition as joint family funds and sale proceeds of पिता’s properties, foundational facts sufficient – Sagar Gambhir and Sunny (Minor) distinguished as plaint there lacked essential particulars like creation of HUF, succession chain etc. [Paras 30-33].

Limitation – Partition suit – Article 113 Limitation Act – Right to sue accrues upon refusal of demand for partition – Cause of action recurring so long as joint status subsists – Plaint averred partition discussions in 2018 and refusal thereafter – At Order VII Rule 11 stage, such averments to be accepted – Suit not barred on face of plaint [Paras 35-37].

Partition v. Challenge to title documents – Defendants argued suit indirectly challenges old registered documents – Held: plaint did not seek to set aside title deeds – Plaintiff asserted share on basis of joint family funds – Relief remains partition, not cancellation – Limitation objection therefore not determinable at threshold [Paras 34-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned order declining rejection of plaint upheld – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rightly dismissed [Paras 38-39].

Service Law – Medical Officers – Higher Studies – Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) – Refusal of NOC – Discrimination – Article 14 – In-service Medical Officer of OMHS cadre denied NOC solely on ground of opting for Sponsored DNB – State policy dated 02.09.2022 distinguishing between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB found arbitrary – No intelligible differentia established – Held: Denial of NOC violative of equality clause under Article 14 [Paras 19–24, 32–33, 39].

Education Law – Post Graduate Medical Admission – DNB (Post MBBS) – Sponsored Category – NBEMS Regulations – No distinction under NMC or NBEMS between Sponsored and Non-Sponsored DNB – State cannot create artificial classification inconsistent with central regulatory framework – Differential treatment of similarly situated in-service doctors impermissible [Paras 20–22, 31–33].

Service Rules – Study Leave – Odisha Service Code – Rule 179 – Applicability to Medical Officers – Rule 179 binding on State Government – State cannot deny benefit of study leave/NOC contrary to statutory service rules framed under Article 309 – Policy decision inconsistent with statutory rules unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 34–36].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Limits – While State has discretion in service policy, such discretion subject to constitutional limitations – Policy dated 02.09.2022 lacked reasons for excluding Sponsored DNB – Reasons cannot be supplemented by affidavits – Decision must stand on reasons contained therein – Held: Policy clause refusing NOC for Sponsored DNB arbitrary and unreasonable [Paras 30–38].

Constitution of India – Equality before Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Differential treatment of OMHS doctors opting for Sponsored DNB versus Non-Sponsored DNB – Both governed by same service conditions – No rational nexus with object sought to be achieved – Policy struck down as violative of Article 14 [Paras 22–24, 39].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – State directed to grant No Objection Certificate to petitioner to enable participation in Centralized Merit Based Counselling for Sponsored DNB (Post MBBS) 2025 – NOC to be issued by 02.01.2026 – Consequential participation in counselling permitted – No order as to costs [Para 40].

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Post Framing of Charge – Power of Magistrate – Magistrate ordered further investigation on complainant’s application after framing of charge in a private complaint alleging cheating and forgery – Accused challenged maintainability and legality of such order – Issue: Whether Magistrate can direct further investigation at complainant’s instance after charges are framed [Paras 1, 6, 10–11].

Section 173(8) CrPC – Scope and Interpretation – Section 173(8) preserves power of police to conduct further investigation after filing of charge-sheet – Provision does not expressly confer unfettered power on Magistrate to direct further investigation at all stages – Further investigation distinct from reinvestigation or de novo investigation – Investigation remains domain of police though Magistrate has supervisory role [Paras 8–9, 35–36].

Stage of Criminal Trial – Relevance – Trial commences upon framing of charge – Application for further investigation in present case filed after charge but before recording of evidence – Court analysed pre-charge, post-charge, and post-commencement-of-trial stages with reference to Supreme Court jurisprudence [Paras 9–11].

Precedents – Amrutbhai, Vinubhai and Rampal Gautam – Harmonious Reading – Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel held that Magistrate cannot order further investigation at fag end of trial at complainant’s instance – Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya clarified Magistrate’s power up to pre-trial stage but reaffirmed that after framing of charge, investigation stage ends – Rampal Gautam reiterated that further investigation may be permissible to arrive at truth, but facts of each case decisive – Held: Ratio of Rampal Gautam not attracted on facts [Paras 15–25, 32–34].

Faulty Investigation – Threshold for Interference – Mere dissatisfaction of complainant or allegation of defective investigation insufficient – Two investigating agencies (Vakola Police Station and EOW) had already submitted negative reports – Magistrate had earlier disagreed and issued process – No compelling material shown to justify reopening investigation again [Paras 39–44].

Fair Trial – Balance of Rights – Fair investigation integral to Article 21 but does not permit endless investigation – If evidence during trial discloses involvement of additional accused or fresh material, remedies under Sections 216 and 319 CrPC available – Trial should proceed without undue delay [Paras 37–38, 45].

Decision – Order directing further investigation set aside – Application for further investigation dismissed – Trial Court directed to proceed with trial from appropriate stage – Criminal Application allowed [Paras 45–Order].

Education Law – Admission to Professional Courses – B.Sc. Nursing – SEBC/OBC Category – Eligibility Relaxation – Cut-Off Date – Petitioners sought benefit of reduced qualifying marks (40th percentile) in view of Indian Nursing Council guidelines – Court held that the benefit was rightly granted to those who applied within the extended admission deadline (30.11.2024) – Petitioners did not apply or take admission before the final cut-off – Held: No relief can be granted as admission beyond notified date is impermissible [Paras 2–14, 18–21]

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Petitioners challenged denial of admission after missing the last date notified by the statutory authority – Court observed that it cannot override the statutory timelines fixed by Indian Nursing Council or re-open concluded admission process – Coordinate Bench decision dated 26.11.2024 attained finality and did not extend last date – Held: Writ court cannot grant relief contrary to finalised judicial and statutory framework [Paras 13–14, 24]

Regulatory Interpretation – Indian Nursing Council Notification – Interpretation of ‘Irregular Batch’ – Court held that INC’s Notification dated 28.10.2024 applied only to students admitted through valid counselling process before 30.11.2024 – Petitioners who neither applied nor were admitted before this date cannot claim benefit as part of ‘irregular batch’ – Held: Notification cannot be stretched to cover post-deadline admissions [Para 18]

Procedural Fairness – No Violation – Petitioners claimed lack of awareness of advertisement – Court held that advertisement was duly published online and 283 candidates availed the benefit within deadline – Petitioners failed to justify their inaction – Also did not seek impleadment in prior successful writ petitions or challenge admission deadline – Held: No procedural irregularity or denial of opportunity [Paras 16, 22–23]

Administrative Law – No Power to Extend Deadlines – High Court reaffirmed that neither the court nor the counselling authority has jurisdiction to extend the last date of admission in absence of statutory provisions or express judicial direction – Held: Authority acted in accordance with law – Relief denied [Paras 12, 24]

Decision:

Writ Petitions dismissed – Court holds that petitioners were not entitled to admission as they failed to apply or secure admission within the final cut-off date (30.11.2024) – No power to reopen admission process or extend deadlines – No merit found in claims for relaxation post-deadline.

Tenancy Law - Lease Agreement – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Lease agreement (Ext-1) produced by plaintiff was alleged to be forged by defendants – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found Ext-1 to be genuine, notarized, and bearing signatures of defendants – Defendants failed to depose or challenge their signatures and withheld best evidence – Held: Agreement validly executed and trustworthy – Alternative version (Ext-B) filed before GST authority held to be inadmissible being self-serving admission under Section 21 of Evidence Act [Paras 10–11].

Arrear Rent – Quantum and Interest – Once Ext-1 held genuine, monthly rent of ₹4,00,000/- (excluding GST) accepted – Arrears correctly calculated from April 2020 to February 2021 – However, as lease agreement did not specify rate of interest for default, interest of 12% awarded by Trial Court reduced to 7.5% per annum by High Court as per prevailing bank rate [Paras 12–13, 19].

Damages – Unauthorized Occupation – Penal Clause in Lease – Clause 25 of lease allowed damages at double the rent upon breach – Trial Court awarded ₹27,000/- per day as damages relying on this clause – High Court held such penal clauses are subject to Section 74 of Indian Contract Act – Courts must award reasonable compensation, not necessarily the penalty – Damages revised to 10% of monthly rent per month from March 2021 to September 2024 [Paras 14–18].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Defendants challenged that additional documents filed in appeal were not considered – High Court noted that documents (Ext-B and Ext-C) were formally admitted during second appeal by separate order dated 05.12.2025 – Hence, substantial question of law on this count became academic [Paras 8–9].

Appeal Outcome – Second Appeal partly allowed – Eviction decree and arrear rent upheld – Interest rate modified to 7.5% per annum – Damages reduced to 10% of monthly rent per month for unauthorized occupation – No order as to costs [Paras 19–20].

Civil Law – Appeal by Non-Party – Grant of Leave to Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Locus Standi – Application by a person who was not a party to the suit seeking leave to file first appeal against an ex parte decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession – Held: Mere non-joinder as a party is not an absolute bar, but the applicant must establish that she is bound by or prejudicially affected by the decree – Non-party must show semblance of subsisting right over the suit property [Paras 5–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference with Discretionary Order – District Judge granted leave to appeal by a cryptic and non-speaking order without proper reasoning – High Court held that supervisory jurisdiction can be exercised where the subordinate court fails to consider relevant legal parameters while granting leave to appeal to a non-party [Paras 3, 6].

Ex Parte Decree – Declaration of Title and Possession – Encroacher’s Claim – First Appellate Court relied on Amin’s report showing encroachment by the applicant prior to filing of suit – Held: Encroachment or assertion of an independent claim does not ipso facto make such person “adversely affected” by the decree – Such person had remedy either to seek impleadment in the suit or to file an independent suit [Paras 6–8].

Fraud Allegation – Knowledge of Suit – Effect – Applicant seeking leave to appeal did not plead lack of knowledge of pendency of suit – Allegation of fraud simpliciter insufficient to confer right to appeal against decree – Held: Absence of pleading showing binding effect of decree disentitles non-party from maintaining appeal [Para 8].

Decision: CMP allowed – Order dated 28.01.2020 granting leave to appeal set aside – Non-party cannot challenge the decree by way of appeal – Liberty reserved to seek appropriate independent legal remedy, if so advised.