Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Wife’s abusive conduct, repeated complaints, abandonment of child and refusal to cohabit proved – Custody of minor child with father upheld – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month justified – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17–24].

Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Mental Cruelty – Evidence established that wife used abusive and derogatory language towards husband and his parents, filed multiple complaints before various forums, disrupted panchayaths and conciliation proceedings, and consistently expressed unwillingness to continue marital life – Conduct not ordinary wear and tear of marriage but grave and weighty – Finding of cruelty by Family Court affirmed [Paras 13–17, 19].

Desertion – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Animus Deserendi – Wife admitted living separately since 30.04.2014 – Continuous separation for more than two years preceding filing of petition established – No bona fide effort to resume cohabitation – Ingredients of desertion satisfied – Decree of divorce rightly granted [Paras 13.8, 18, 20].

Child Custody – Guardians and Wards Act – Welfare of Child – Minor daughter abandoned by mother in 2014 and remained continuously in custody of father and paternal grandparents – Child cared for by father since infancy – Mother sought custody only after matrimonial dispute escalated – No evidence of incapacity of father or grandparents – Custody with father held to be legal and in the best interest of the child – Only visitation rights to mother upheld [Paras 17–18.1].

Conduct of Mother – Abandonment of Child – Evidence including Ex.P6 showed wife voluntarily relinquished custody of minor child during conciliation proceedings – Lack of emotional attachment and unwillingness to care for child established – Subsequent custody proceedings held not bona fide [Paras 13.2–13.6, 17].

Maintenance – Interim and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Husband earning Rs.2,14,398/- per month and wife earning Rs.38,200/- per month – Husband bearing responsibility of minor child and aged parents – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month reasonable and proportionate – No material change in circumstances shown – Maintenance order upheld [Paras 21–22].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Appellate court declined to reappreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 14–16, 24].

Decision: MFA No. 645 of 2024, MFA No. 546 of 2024 and MFA No. 1681 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04/12/2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Custody of minor child with father confirmed – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month sustained – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based Solely on Section 313 CrPC Statement – Appellant convicted for dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 IPC solely on the basis of admission recorded under Section 313 CrPC – No prosecution witness of fact examined – Only formal witness (P.W.1) proved FIR and charge-sheet – Held: Statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 12–13, 16–23, 28]

Confession – Voluntariness and Validity – Appellant moved multiple applications expressing fear for life and desire to remain in jail – No legal representation provided – Confession influenced by fear – Held: Admission not free from fear or voluntary in the legal sense – Cannot be relied upon for conviction [Paras 24–26]

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – No legal aid provided to appellant at trial – No evidence that he was informed of his rights or defended by a lawyer – Held: Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 304 CrPC – Trial vitiated [Paras 26–27]

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Not on oath – Cannot be equated with testimony – Cannot substitute prosecution evidence – Must be read in conjunction with legally admissible evidence – Held: Conviction without prosecution evidence and based solely on 313 CrPC statement is unsustainable [Paras 18–21]

Precedents – Relied on decisions of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, Pramod @ Bhoka v. State of Chhattisgarh, Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam – Held: Consistent judicial view that Section 313 CrPC statement alone cannot support conviction [Paras 18–21]

Long Incarceration – Appellant spent nearly 24 years in custody despite absence of incriminating evidence – Held: Continuing detention would be miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released forthwith unless wanted in other case [Paras 27–30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Appellant Azad Khan acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant to execute personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

Criminal Law - Excise Offences – Illegal Possession and Transport of Liquor – Acquittal – Appellant convicted for transporting illicit liquor containing ethyl alcohol unfit for human consumption – Trial Court convicted under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – High Court finds prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 53 and 54 of the Act and Section 102 CrPC – No search warrant, no timely production of seizure report or witness statements – Held: Violation of statutory safeguards renders search and seizure illegal – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-20].

Criminal Procedure – Seizure and FIR – Prosecution failed to submit seizure mahazar along with FIR or show compliance with Section 102 CrPC – Delay in submission of witness statements and non-production of search report before Magistrate undermines prosecution case – Trial court failed to consider these procedural lapses [Paras 17-18].

Evidence – Hostile Witness – Independent panch witness (PW4) turned hostile and denied signing seizure mahazar at the spot – Official witnesses’ testimony not corroborated by any independent witness – Held: Conviction cannot rest solely on interested testimony of official witnesses in absence of reliable independent corroboration [Paras 15, 19-20].

Precedent – Reliance on Apex Court Ruling – Court followed K.L. Subbaiah v. State of Karnataka, (1979) 2 SCC 115 – Held: Non-compliance of Section 54 of Karnataka Excise Act renders search without jurisdiction – Acquittal justified [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 32 and 34 of Karnataka Excise Act – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 21].

Look Out Circulars – Quashing by Single Judge – Letters Patent Appeals by Public Sector Bank – Directors/Partners of borrower entities declared wilful defaulters – No criminal proceedings pending – Held: Mere civil default in repayment of loans cannot justify issuance of LOCs infringing fundamental right to travel under Article 21 [Paras 1, 6, 15].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – LOCs – Restrictions on movement – Held: Though right to travel is not absolute, any restriction must withstand judicial scrutiny and be backed by compelling reasons such as threat to sovereignty, security or economic interest of India – Absence of such foundational facts renders LOC unsustainable [Paras 14–15, 17].

Banking Law – Wilful Defaulters – SARFAESI Proceedings – Declaration as NPA – Civil Recovery Proceedings Pending before DRT – Held: Pendency of SARFAESI measures and recovery proceedings, without criminality, does not by itself warrant coercive restriction on personal liberty through LOCs [Paras 3–6, 15].

Administrative Law – Look Out Circular Regime – Authority to Issue Guidelines – Ministry of Home Affairs as Nodal Ministry – Office Memorandum of Ministry of Finance dated 22.11.2018 – Nature and Effect – Held: OM of Ministry of Finance is at best advisory and cannot override or expand the LOC framework prescribed by MHA [Paras 7, 13].

Economic Interest of India – Interpretation – “Detrimental to Economic Interest” – Reliance on Prateek Chitkara v. Union of India – Held: LOCs cannot be issued in every case of bank default – Circumstances must disclose higher gravity and larger impact on national economy – Routine business failures or inability to repay loans insufficient [Paras 8–9, 14].

Precedent – Bombay High Court – Viraj Chetan Shah v. Union of India – Power of Public Sector Banks to Seek LOCs – Clause empowering CMD/CEOs quashed – Held: With authority of banks to request LOCs having been divested, reliance on Finance Ministry OM becomes untenable [Para 16].

Appellate Review – Interference with Reasoned Judgment – Single Judge’s Order Quashing LOCs – Held: No perversity or legal infirmity shown – Appeals dismissed at admission stage [Paras 12, 18].

Decision: All Letters Patent Appeals dismissed – Judgments of learned Single Judge quashing Look Out Circulars upheld – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Conviction under Section 498A IPC – Evidence of physical and mental abuse – Prosecution proved that husband repeatedly abused, assaulted, and neglected his wife – Evidence of illicit relationship and alcohol addiction corroborated by multiple witnesses including son of deceased – Complaint by deceased wife prior to suicide revealed consistent ill-treatment – Held: Conviction under Section 498A IPC upheld as prosecution established cruelty [Paras 10–15, 24–28, 29–31].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Acquittal under Section 306 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish mens rea or specific instigation by accused to commit suicide – No direct act or provocation proved to have led to suicide – Mere cruelty not sufficient to convict under Section 306 IPC – Evidence lacked proximate link between accused’s conduct and suicide – Held: Conviction under Section 306 IPC unsustainable in absence of evidence of abetment [Paras 32–40].

Evidence Law – Inconsistencies and Hearsay – Prosecution witnesses largely family members – Some statements hearsay or general in nature – Complaint regarding dowry demand found inconsistent and unsupported by documentation – Dowry Prohibition Act charges not framed – Held: Conviction under Section 498A not affected as cruelty proved, but higher threshold for abetment to suicide not met [Paras 4–6, 29–31, 36–38].

Criminal Procedure – Sentence – Appellant already undergone over 2 years in custody – Sentence for 498A IPC (2 years) covered by time served – Directed to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Appellant not required to undergo further imprisonment [Para 41].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 306 IPC set aside – Sentence adjusted to time already served – No further imprisonment required.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted for murdering his wife with the help of others and mutilating the body to destroy evidence – Trial Court relied on last seen theory, motive of extramarital affair, and recovery of knife – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Last seen witnesses were unreliable and examined after unexplained delay of 3 months – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but not linked to the accused – Recovery of knife unsupported by independent seizure witnesses – Identification of body solely based on a tattoo, no DNA testing done – Section 106 Evidence Act could not be invoked as foundational facts were not proved [Paras 11, 17-38].

Criminal Procedure – Additional Charge – Trial Court framed charge under Section 498A IPC despite absence of specific allegations and opportunity for cross-examination – Held to be contrary to Section 212 Cr.P.C. – Conviction on that ground unsustainable [Paras 12(iii), 12(iv)].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Majority of material and independent witnesses turned hostile – Delay in recording last seen witnesses’ statements unexplained – Statements found contradictory and inconsistent – Held: Their testimonies failed to inspire confidence [Paras 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Court clarified that burden under Section 106 arises only after prosecution proves foundational facts – Since place of offence was not linked to accused and no discovery at his instance, burden does not shift to accused [Para 35].

Criminal Trial – Standard of Proof – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – Chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete – Missing links and inconsistencies fatal to prosecution case – Accused acquitted [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine refunded – Matter referred to District Legal Services Authority for compensation to victim’s mother [Para 38-39].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.