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.

Matrimonial Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Dismissal of Appeal – Husband sought dissolution of marriage alleging mental cruelty and desertion by wife – Allegation that wife compelled husband to live separately from parents and left matrimonial home since 15-03-2018 – Trial Court dismissed divorce petition – Affirmed by High Court [Paras 2, 16].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Standard of Proof – Cruelty not defined under the Act – Reliance placed on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur – Mental cruelty to be assessed from entire matrimonial life and gravity of conduct – Mere inconvenience, employment-related constraints, or normal wear and tear of married life do not amount to cruelty [Paras 12–14].

Wife’s Employment – Compulsion to Stay at Parental Home – No Cruelty – Wife employed as Government Teacher prior to marriage – School located approximately 75 km from matrimonial home – Daily commuting impracticable – Staying at parental home held to be a matter of compulsion, not reluctance or cruelty – Wife regularly transferred substantial portion of her salary to husband – Demonstrates willingness to continue marital relationship [Paras 14–15].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Not Established – Desertion requires willful abandonment without reasonable cause – Wife’s stay at parental home for attending duties cannot be termed willful abandonment – Efforts made by wife for transfer nearer to matrimonial home – Expressed readiness to live with husband – Ingredients of desertion not proved [Paras 15].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Prior Settlement – Effect – Earlier proceedings under Section 9 HMA ended in compromise – Subsequent non-resumption of cohabitation, in facts of case, insufficient to establish cruelty or desertion – Conduct of parties assessed holistically [Paras 4, 15].

Finding of Fact – Appreciation of Evidence – No Interference – Trial Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law found – Appellate Court declined interference under First Appeal jurisdiction [Paras 14–16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Family Court affirmed – No decree of divorce – Pending interlocutory applications closed.

Land Revenue – Mutation – Will – Disputed Will – Maintainability – Respondents obtained mutation order based on a Will allegedly executed by Smt. Ramkunwar Bai – Petitioners objected to mutation citing dispute over genuineness of Will – Tehsildar allowed mutation – SDO entertained appeal but did not decide on merits – Revision by respondents under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code allowed by Additional Collector, dismissing the appeal for non-joinder of necessary parties – Held: Defect of non-joinder is curable and appeal ought not to have been dismissed without affording opportunity to implead necessary parties – Impugned revisional order quashed – Appeal restored for adjudication on merits [Paras 2, 10–12]

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Curable Defect – Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar Dubey and Prem Lala Nahata held that non-joinder is not a ground for outright dismissal and cannot justify rejection of appeal/suit – Petitioners ought to have been given opportunity to implead parties – Additional Collector erred in dismissing appeal instead of remanding or allowing impleadment [Paras 8–10]

Administrative Law – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – High Court refrained from examining the validity of mutation based on disputed Will, limiting interference to procedural illegality in revisional order – Appeal to proceed before SDO on merits after rectification of defect [Paras 3, 7]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Revisional order dated 26.03.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Ashoknagar quashed – First appeal restored before SDO, Mungawali – Petitioners permitted to file application for impleadment of remaining parties – SDO directed to decide appeal on merits after hearing all concerned parties.

Criminal Law - Bail – Cancellation of Bail by Supreme Court – Fresh Bail Application – Maintainability – Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC after bail earlier granted by Supreme Court was cancelled for violation of bail conditions – Held: Where bail granted by the Apex Court is cancelled by the Apex Court itself for breach of conditions and without reserving liberty, subordinate courts cannot reconsider or grant bail – Accused must re-approach the Supreme Court for reconsideration [Paras 20–28, 38].

Bail Jurisprudence – Distinction Between Setting Aside Bail and Cancellation of Bail – Clear distinction drawn between (i) setting aside of a bail order by a superior court on merits, and (ii) cancellation of bail for violation of conditions – In latter case, accused disentitles himself from seeking fresh indulgence before subordinate courts – Judicial propriety mandates restraint [Paras 26–27, 35–37].

Change in Circumstances – Inapplicability After Cancellation of Bail – Completion of examination of material witnesses or alleged absence of possibility of tampering cannot constitute “change in circumstances” once bail is cancelled for breach of conditions – Doctrine applicable only where bail is rejected, not where liberty earlier granted is misused [Paras 24, 27, 39].

Parity – Co-accused Granted Bail – No Automatic Right – Principle of parity cannot be invoked where petitioner’s bail was granted and cancelled by the Supreme Court itself – Bail granted to co-accused by High Court on separate considerations does not enure to petitioner’s benefit [Paras 10, 15, 39].

Elected Representative – Serious Offences – Bail Considerations – Status of petitioner as elected representative or absence of antecedents held to be irrelevant when allegations are grave and bail earlier cancelled for influencing witnesses – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing seriousness of offences [Paras 9, 14].

Vipin Kumar v. State of U.P. – Scope Explained – Observations in Vipin Kumar permitting fresh bail application apply to cases where bail granted by High Court is set aside by Supreme Court – Said principle not extendable to cases where bail is cancelled by Supreme Court for violation of conditions – Contextual interpretation mandated [Paras 29–36].

Judicial Discipline – Subordinate Courts Bound by Apex Court Orders – When Supreme Court cancels bail and directs expeditious trial, it reflects intent to balance liberty with societal interest – Subordinate courts must refrain from granting bail in absence of express liberty [Paras 23–28].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to approach the Supreme Court for reconsideration of bail – All contentions on merits kept open – No opinion expressed on guilt or merits of prosecution case

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].

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].

Tenancy Law - West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 7(2) & 7(3) – Striking out of Defence – Non-compliance with order directing deposit of arrears and current rent – Tenant directed to deposit arrears for specific months and current rent within stipulated time – Tenant failed to deposit arrears within one month and did not seek extension within prescribed period – Held: Provisions of Section 7 are mandatory and require strict compliance – Failure attracts consequences under Section 7(3) – Defence against delivery of possession rightly struck off [Paras 9, 12, 13, 18].

Deposit of Rent – Extension of Time – Proviso to Section 7(2) – Extension can be granted only once and only if application is made within original period fixed by court – No application for extension filed within time – Subsequent deposit beyond stipulated period cannot cure default – Liberal interpretation impermissible in view of statutory mandate [Paras 6, 13, 16, 17].

Deposit before Rent Controller – Payment in Name of Deceased Landlord – Validity – Alleged deposit of rent for long period made in name of dead landlord – No documentary proof produced – RTI response confirmed absence of records – Held: Deposit, even if made, is invalid under Section 22(2) – Tenant failed to withdraw and redeposit as directed – Wilful and negligent default established [Paras 5, 9, 18].

Refusal to Grant Rent Receipt – Statutory Remedies – Sections 21 & 32 – Tenant alleged payment without receipt – No steps taken under Sections 21 or 32 within statutory period – Tenant cannot rely on such plea to avoid consequences of default under Section 7 [Paras 10, 11].

Arrears of Rent – Mandatory Deposit on Service of Summons – Supreme Court Precedent – Law laid down in Bijay Kumar Singh v. Amit Kumar Chamariya reiterated – Deposit of admitted arrears is a condition precedent to protection against eviction – Tenant cannot invoke equitable considerations or Limitation Act – No estoppel against law declared by Supreme Court – Law operates retrospectively [Paras 11, 12].

Single Default – Effect – Even a single violation in deposit of arrears or current rent attracts Section 7(3) – Delay in payment of current rent also sufficient to strike out defence [Paras 9, 14, 15].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – High Court will not interfere with well-reasoned orders unless there is perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error – Trial Court acted within jurisdiction and followed settled law – No ground for interference made out [Para 19].

Decision: Civil Revisional Application dismissed – Order striking out defence against delivery of possession upheld – No interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

NDPS Act – Regular Bail – Recovery of Heroin – Section 37 Rigours – Petition under Section 483 BNSS seeking regular bail in FIR for offences under Sections 21, 22, 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Recovery of 258 grams of heroin attributed to petitioner, which is more than non-commercial quantity – Held: Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act squarely attracted and bail can be granted only on satisfaction of twin conditions [Paras 1, 8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Scope of Consideration at Bail Stage – Court not required to conduct mini trial or detailed appreciation of evidence – Reasonable grounds to believe accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offence while on bail must coexist – Held: Such satisfaction could not be recorded on facts of present case [Paras 7–8].

Conscious Possession – Recovery from Polythene Thrown by Accused – Effect – Argument that contraband was not recovered from physical possession but from polythene allegedly thrown on seeing police – Held: Does not negate prima facie case of conscious possession at bail stage, particularly when apprehension was preceded by specific secret information [Para 8].

Non-Compliance of Mandatory Provisions – Plea at Bail Stage – Contention regarding violation of NDPS procedural safeguards – Held: Mixed question of law and fact to be adjudicated during trial and not determinative at stage of consideration of regular bail [Para 8].

Criminal Antecedents – Relevance in NDPS Bail – Petitioner involved in other NDPS and criminal cases – Held: Criminal antecedents are relevant factor while considering likelihood of re-offending and weigh against grant of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act [Paras 4, 8].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Effect under NDPS Act – Custody of about nine months – Held: Mere completion of investigation or likelihood of delay in trial is not sufficient ground to override statutory bar under Section 37 NDPS Act in absence of exceptional circumstances [Paras 4, 8–9].

Section 27-A NDPS Act – Challenge at Bail Stage – Argument that provision wrongly invoked – Held: Such contention cannot be examined conclusively at bail stage when prima facie material indicates involvement in narcotics trade [Para 8].

Decision – Regular Bail – Refusal – Seriousness of offence, quantity of contraband, manner of recovery, and statutory embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act disentitle petitioner from discretionary relief – Petition dismissed [Paras 9–11].

Execution Proceedings – Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limits – Objections raised by judgment-debtors questioning executability of decree – Held: Executing Court cannot go behind decree but can examine whether decree is a nullity, vague, or incapable of execution – Executability of decree itself falls within ambit of Section 47 CPC [Paras 52–55, 69–74].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 115 CPC – Narrow Compass – High Court can interfere only where subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted with material irregularity – Revisional court not an appellate forum for reappreciation of evidence [Paras 51, 63].

Execution of Injunction Decree – Vagueness – Inexecutability – Decree of permanent injunction restraining disclosure of design without specifying design particulars, dimensions, drawings or identifying features – Held: Prohibitory decree lacking precision and certainty is incapable of execution – Vague decree cannot be enforced by attachment of property [Paras 72–77].

Attachment of Property – Beyond Decree – Impermissible – Decree restrained disclosure of design by Defendant No.1 only – No direction for attachment, seizure or restraint on use of machines – Executing Court exceeded jurisdiction by attaching machines not identified or declared infringing in decree – Held: Executing Court travelled beyond decree [Paras 65–66, 80–84].

Secondary Evidence – Indian Evidence Act – Strict Compliance Required – Photocopy of agreement dated 29.01.2015 relied upon by Executing Court – Application under Section 65 Evidence Act neither allowed nor adjudicated – Document not exhibited or proved – Held: Unproved and inadmissible document cannot form basis of adjudication in execution proceedings [Paras 67–68].

Cross-examination – Reference to Unproved Document – No Cure of Inadmissibility – Mere confrontation of witness with inadmissible document does not render it proved or admissible – Evidentiary status cannot be conferred indirectly [Para 68].

Execution Proceedings – Recording of Evidence – Permissibility – Executing Court permitted to record evidence in exceptional cases when necessary for effective execution – Decree-holders having invited remand and participated in evidence cannot later object – Principle of approbate and reprobate applied [Paras 61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Objection at Belated Stage – Waiver – Judgment-debtors participated in execution proceedings without protest – Order of transfer and attachment not challenged earlier – Held: Objection as to territorial jurisdiction barred by acquiescence and waiver [Para 62].

Order XXI Rule 32 CPC – Injunction Decree – Preconditions – Execution for breach of injunction presupposes clearly identifiable prohibited act – Where subject matter of restraint is indeterminate, execution by coercive measures impermissible [Paras 75–76].

Attachment Based on Subsequent Agreement – Jurisdictional Error – Executing Court maintained attachment of one machine on basis of agreement dated 20.06.2020 – Said agreement not subject matter of decree – Held: Execution cannot be founded on subsequent transactions requiring independent adjudication [Paras 78–84].

Additional Evidence at Revisional Stage – Not Maintainable – Applications to place additional documents on record during revision dismissed – Revisional court confined to material before executing court – Allowing fresh material would convert revision into appeal [Paras 15–18].

Decision: S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 12/2023 (by Decree-holders) dismissed – S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 273/2022 (by Objectors/Judgment-debtors) allowed – Impugned order dated 11.11.2022 set aside to extent it maintained attachment of one machine – Executing Court directed to release both machines forthwith – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 85–88].