Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Probate Application – Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Judge, Tinsukia allowing condonation of delay for 1443 days in filing a probate application – Petitioner argued that the delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained – Respondent claimed the limitation period should be counted from the date of discovering the will – Held, the right to apply for probate is a continuous right exercisable at any time as long as the right survives and the object of the trust exists – Application for condonation of delay was unnecessary under the circumstances – Court observed that probate applications are actions in rem and not actions in law. Application allowed. [Paras 1-13]

Right to Apply for Probate – Analysis – The right to seek probate of a will is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the testator – Applications for grant of probate are not barred by limitation if made within three years from the date of knowledge of the will’s existence. [Para 7-11]

Decision – The impugned order by the District Judge allowing the condonation of delay was unnecessary as the application for probate itself was within the permissible period – Directions issued for further proceedings in the probate case without considering the delay condonation application. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 302, IPC – Sessions Court convicted accused for murder of his wife – Prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Prosecution failed to establish motive or conclusively link the accused to the crime – Lack of direct evidence – Held that evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of trial court set aside – Accused acquitted. [Paras 1-34]

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Prosecution witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5) declared hostile – Testimonies did not substantiate the prosecution’s case – No direct evidence of accused committing the crime – Previous inconsistent statements not adequately confronted – Held that testimonies of hostile witnesses not wholly disregarded but did not provide sufficient corroboration to convict – Benefit of doubt given to accused. [Paras 21-23, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Standards – Principles – Case based on circumstantial evidence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Entire chain of circumstances must be complete – Gaps in the chain of evidence can lead to acquittal – Application of the principle in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Inference of guilt must exclude any other hypothesis – Held that the prosecution failed to meet these standards. [Para 32]

Decision – Acquittal – Appeal allowed – Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence set aside – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Remuneration for Amicus Curiae as per rules. [Paras 34-36]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses –  Appeal against the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court convicted appellant for the murder of his wife – Prosecution witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5 declared hostile – Hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution case during trial – Trial Court relied on the remaining testimonies and circumstantial evidence to convict appellant – High Court held that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were not properly confronted with their previous statements – Lack of direct evidence or witness to the act of murder – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

Hostile Witnesses – Role and Evidentiary Value – Analysis: Hostile witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5) did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial. The prosecution failed to confront these witnesses with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC to prove contradictions. The High Court emphasized that without proper confrontation and proof, previous inconsistent statements cannot be used to contradict the witnesses. [Paras 21-23]

Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Principles – Application: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of events leading to the accused’s guilt. The evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude any possibility of innocence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 32]

Evaluation of Evidence – Lack of Direct Witnesses: None of the prosecution witnesses directly witnessed the murder or the assault. The evidence primarily consisted of post-occurrence witnesses who arrived after the incident. The explanation provided by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC was deemed plausible. [Paras 28-31]

Decision – Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt: The High Court found that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt. The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of innocence. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to the acquittal. [Paras 33-34]

Criminal Law – Zimma of Seized Cattle – Revision petition against order refusing zimma – Seizure made under Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 – Magistrate refused zimma on grounds of necessity for further investigation – Petitioner argued cattle were legally purchased, presented purchase receipt to Investigating Officer (I.O.) – Court held provisions of Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C. applicable for disposal of property during enquiry and trial – Principles of zimma as laid down in Sunderbhai Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat applied – Held Magistrate erred in refusing zimma without proper consideration of legal purchase and lack of investigation need for custody – Order dated 27.03.2024 set aside – Zimma of seized cattle granted to petitioner under specified conditions. [Paras 1-29]

Power of Magistrate – Seizure and Custody – Analysis – Held – Power under Section 11 of Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 relates to search and seizure, not disposal of property during trial – Disposal of property during enquiry/trial governed by Chapter XXXIV of Cr.P.C. – Subsection 5 of Section 11 of Act, 2021 only applicable to initial seizure stage – No specific disposal provision in Act, 2021 – Cr.P.C. provisions for property disposal applicable. [Paras 10-20]

Decision – Grant of Zimma – Court orders zimma of seized cattle to petitioner – Conditions include preparation of proper panchnama, bond execution, prohibition of cattle sale or cruelty, and production of cattle as required for investigation or trial. [Para 28]

Criminal Law – Acquittal under Sections 395 and 397 IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act upheld by the High Court - Burden of Proof and Standard of Evidence – The appeal challenged the acquittal of respondents accused of robbery and causing hurt with deadly weapons. The prosecution relied heavily on a test identification parade (TIP) conducted eight months post-incident and the recovery of stolen goods in melted form. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's judgment found the TIP unreliable due to procedural lapses and previous exposure of the accused's photographs in the media, resulting in identification bias. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen goods as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision. [Paras 1-13]

Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Reliability – The TIP was conducted after an inordinate delay of eight months, during which the accused's photographs were published in newspapers. The court held that such exposure undermines the TIP's credibility, and with no other substantive evidence corroborating the identification, the trial court rightly dismissed this evidence as unreliable. [Para 9.1]

Recovery of Stolen Property – The prosecution's claim of recovering stolen property was flawed as the items were found in melted form, making identification impossible. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the prosecution failed to follow proper procedures under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the recovery did not link the accused to the crime convincingly. [Para 9.4]

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of Innocence – Reaffirming the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the court noted that any doubt must favor the accused. The appellate court highlighted the need for compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's acquittal, which was absent in this case. [Para 8.1, 8.2]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of the respondents due to lack of credible evidence linking them to the crime. The prosecution failed to meet the high burden of proof required in criminal cases, resulting in the confirmation of the acquittal. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Section 378 of Cr.P.C. – Appeal by the State challenging acquittal by the trial court. The trial court acquitted the accused for offences under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, finding no perversity or misappreciation of evidence that would warrant interference. – Held: Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Scope of “Public View” – Interpretation – Interpretation of “public view” within the meaning of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act. The trial court erred by narrowly interpreting “public view” as requiring a public place. The High Court clarified that “public view” can include incidents witnessed by members of the public, even if occurring on private property. – Held: The term “public view” must be broadly interpreted to include the presence of public witnesses. [Paras 8-10]

Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictions in Testimonies – The prosecution’s case was undermined by contradictions between the FIR and the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses. The complainant’s statements about the assault differed from her medical records and other witnesses’ testimonies. The trial court’s assessment of these contradictions was found to be reasonable and supported by the evidence. – Held: No fault in trial court’s appreciation of evidence. [Paras 4-7]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal by the trial court are upheld. The evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused in the alleged offences. The trial court’s view was found to be a plausible and reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

Evidence Law - Admissibility of Secondary Evidence - Civil Writ Petition challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the Trial Court - The compromise document dated 27.01.2014, relied upon by the petitioner, was unregistered and unstamped - Held, since the document created rights in immovable property, it required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - Consequently, an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence, and its photocopy cannot be allowed as secondary evidence - Writ Petition dismissed. [Paras 15-23]

Family Settlement - Requirement of Registration - Analysis - The compromise document, which partitioned the disputed property and conferred rights upon the parties, was required to be registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - A family settlement that creates new rights in immovable property must be registered - Cited case law confirms the necessity of registration for enforceability and admissibility in evidence. [Paras 16-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Writ Petition - The Trial Court's order dismissing the petitioner's application for admitting the photocopy of the unregistered compromise document as secondary evidence upheld - No interference warranted - Writ petition dismissed with ancillary applications. [Para 23]

Affiliation Withdrawal – Natural Justice – School’s Affiliation Withdrawn by CBSE – Surprise Inspection Revealed Violations – Petitioner Contested Withdrawal Citing Lack of Pre-Decisional Hearing – High Court Referred to Mount Columbus School Judgment Emphasizing Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice Including Audi Alteram Partem – CBSE’s Order Quashed and Affiliation Restored [Paras 1-31].

Show Cause Notice – Adequacy and Specificity – Show Cause Notice Issued to School Lacked Specific Indication of Proposed Penalty – High Court Highlighted Need for Clear Communication of Potential Withdrawal of Affiliation and Ensuring Opportunity for School to Respond [Paras 3-4, 10-11].

Procedural Fairness – Necessity of Personal Hearing – Court Criticized Absence of Personal Hearing Before Affiliation Withdrawal – Emphasized Fair Play and Adherence to Natural Justice Principles [Paras 48-54, 28-31].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – The orders by the CBSE withdrawing the school’s affiliation and rejecting the appeal were quashed. The provisional affiliation of the petitioner was restored. The CBSE retained the right to proceed against the school, provided due process and principles of natural justice were followed [Paras 29-31].

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.