Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Confirmed – Prosecution established motive, preparation, recovery of the dead body, and medical/scientific evidence forming a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against the accused for the murder of a 3.5-year-old child – The accused harbored hatred towards the child's mother and grandmother for scolding him over his misconduct and stealing habits – This motive was consistently proved by multiple prosecution witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5, PW11, PW15) – The Court found the motive for committing murder duly proved by the prosecution [Paras 56-66, 68].

Criminal Law – Preparation to Commit Murder – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Proved – Accused's preparation for the murder was established by evidence of purchasing Clonazepam 0.5 mg tablets from a medical shop (PW9) based on a prescription – The seizure of these tablets (MO3) from the accused's suitcase, as documented in the mahazar (Ex.P22), was supported by panch witnesses (PW7, PW8) and the medical shop owner (PW9) – The Court concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the accused's preparation for the offence [Paras 69-71].

Criminal Law – Discovery of Fact – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Applicable – The dead body of the child was recovered at the instance of the accused from an isolated stream, a fact disclosed in his voluntary statement (Ex.P46(a)) – This recovery was corroborated by panch witness (PW3) and the Investigating Officer (PW21) – The location of recovery was an isolated area, surrounded by trees, not visible from the Mutt, and not an open public space as contended by the defense – The Court held that the conditions for applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled, and the recovery evidence was trustworthy [Paras 72-81, 84-85, 91].

Criminal Law – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Cause of Death Established – Medical Officer (PW14) conducted the post-mortem and concluded death was due to Clonazepam poisoning and asphyxia from drowning, based on chemical analysis report (Ex.P38) – Scientific Officer (PW18, FSL) confirmed Clonazepam in the deceased child's body (organs) and in the seized sambar – Deputy Director (PW19, FSL) found diatoms in the child's organs, indicating drowning while unconscious – The Court found the medical and scientific evidence consistent and conclusive, establishing the homicidal nature of death [Paras 25, 29-30, 45-48, 52-54, 75-78, 86-89].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Conviction Not Confirmed – The Trial Court did not convict the accused for kidnapping due to insufficient material evidence in this regard – The High Court upheld this finding, stating there was no ground to interfere [Para 94].

Criminal Law – Sentence – Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Modification of Sentence – The Trial Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment until natural death – The High Court, relying on Apex Court precedents, held that Sessions Courts are not competent to impose life imprisonment without remission or until natural death, as this power is reserved for Constitutional Courts (Supreme Court and High Courts) – The sentence was modified from life imprisonment until natural death to simple life imprisonment [Paras 96-98].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified from life imprisonment until natural death to life imprisonment – Conviction under Section 364 IPC not confirmed [Paras 94, 99].

Service Law – Assistant Teacher – Appointment Obtained by Fraud – Cancellation After 15 Years of Service – Petitioner appointed as Assistant Teacher in 2010 and continued in service for nearly 15 years – Appointment cancelled by District Basic Education Officer on verification of records and STF enquiry finding educational and domicile certificates forged and belonging to another person – Held: Length of service does not sanctify an appointment obtained by fraud – Fraud vitiates everything [Paras 2–5].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Fraudulent Appointment – Plea of violation of principles of natural justice rejected – Where appointment is secured on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, no detailed enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required – Beneficiary of fraud cannot invoke protections of Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 [Paras 5, 7].

Judicial Review – Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Though alternative remedy of appeal was available, writ petition not pressed on that ground at final stage – Court held that availability of alternative remedy is not a bar where plea of denial of opportunity of hearing is raised – Nevertheless, on merits, no interference warranted [Paras 6–7].

Precedents – Fraudulent Appointments – Consistent View of High Court – Reliance placed on earlier decisions holding that appointments obtained by fraud are void ab initio and can be cancelled without departmental enquiry – Fraud unravels all acts and confers no enforceable right [Para 5].

Public Employment – Education System – Systemic Fraud – Court expressed serious concern over large-scale appointments of Assistant Teachers on forged certificates with collusion or connivance of officials – Such illegal appointments undermine purity of education system and prejudice students’ interest, which is paramount [Paras 8–9].

Directions – State-wide Scrutiny – Mandamus Issued – Principal Secretary, Basic Education directed to conduct comprehensive and time-bound scrutiny of appointments of Assistant Teachers across the State – Action to include cancellation of fraudulent appointments, recovery of salary wherever permissible, and disciplinary/penal action against erring officials – Exercise to be completed preferably within six months [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Cancellation order upheld – Mandatory directions issued to State authorities for State-wide verification and action against fraudulent appointments – Registrar (Compliance) directed to communicate order for immediate compliance [Paras 7, 10–12].

Civil Law – Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Application under Section 151 CPC to strike down commissioner’s report – Held: Commissioner’s report is only a piece of evidence and an aid to the Court – It cannot be struck down merely on allegations of collusion or misconduct unless proved by cogent evidence – Objections to report must be examined during trial through evidence and cross-examination [Paras 8, 27–34].

Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Commissioner’s report forms part of record and is non-adjudicatory in nature – Court may accept, reject, vary or order further inquiry – Report does not bind the Court and is subject to scrutiny along with other evidence – Law reiterated [Paras 27–30].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference with Interlocutory Orders – High Court will not interfere unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order refusing to strike down commissioner’s report based on settled principles does not warrant interference [Paras 34–36].

Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Process – Use of AI-Generated Citations – Trial Court relied on non-existent rulings generated by AI tools – Judicial Officer candidly reported bona fide mistake and lack of intent – Held: Mere reference to non-existent citations does not vitiate an order if the correct principles of law are applied and conclusions are otherwise legally sound [Paras 13–15, 25–26, 35–36].

Artificial Intelligence – Cautionary Guidelines – AI may assist in research and organization but lacks judicial reasoning – Courts and advocates must independently verify citations and authorities from authentic sources – Reliance on unverified AI-generated material may undermine integrity of judicial process – Emphasised [Paras 15–24].

Commissioner’s Report – Allegations of Collusion – Burden of Proof – Mere assertions of collusion or deviation from High Court directions insufficient – Such allegations must be established by clear evidence – Appropriate stage for examination is during trial, not at interlocutory stage [Paras 8, 33–34].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 19.08.2025 upheld – No illegality or jurisdictional error found – No order as to costs – Pending interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36–37].

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate court can interfere only when discretion exercised by trial court is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled principles – If the view taken by trial court is a possible view, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 66–68, 75].

Contract – Memorandum of Understanding for Development of Immovable Property – MOU not signed by all co-owners – No power of attorney in favour of signatory co-owner – Held: MOU not binding or enforceable against non-signatory owners – No prima facie enforceable right created in favour of builder [Paras 16–17, 26–27, 69].

Stamp Act & Registration Act – Unstamped and Unregistered MOU – Clauses creating ownership rights in immovable property – MOU providing for transfer of 42% ownership in land and superstructure – Held: Document compulsorily registrable and chargeable with stamp duty – Unstamped and unregistered MOU inadmissible in evidence and incapable of conferring legal rights unless defect cured [Paras 18–19, 39–46, 70].

Specific Relief – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Absence of Prayer for Specific Performance or Declaration – Plaintiff seeking to restrain true owners from dealing with property – Held: Suit for injunction simpliciter not maintainable when equally efficacious remedy of specific performance available – Bar under Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act attracted [Paras 47–51, 72].

Possession – Builder Claiming Possession under MOU – Clause showing possession as mere licence for construction – No transfer of possession or interest – Held: Builder not in settled or lawful possession – Injunction cannot be granted against true owners [Paras 19, 52–54, 71].

Arbitration Clause – Effect on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Mere existence of arbitration clause does not bar civil suit – No application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed – Parties waived arbitration – Trial court’s finding on lack of jurisdiction held erroneous but not affecting final outcome [Paras 55–61, 74].

Equitable Relief – Injunction – Discretionary Nature – Plaintiff capable of being compensated by damages – MOU containing penal clauses for monetary compensation – Held: No irreparable injury made out – Balance of convenience not in favour of plaintiffs [Paras 64–65, 75].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Order rejecting ad-interim injunction affirmed – Interim status quo order vacated – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously – Observations confined to appeal and not to prejudice trial [Paras 76–79].

Pre-emption – Tenant’s Right – Municipal Area – Extinguishment of Right – Sale of co-sharer’s land effected after inclusion of village within municipal limits – Held: Right of pre-emption stood extinguished – Suit for pre-emption not maintainable [Paras 8].

Tenancy – Proof – Gair Maurusi Entry – Absence of Rent – Revenue records consistently showed plaintiff in possession as gair maurusi with entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan” – No entry of rent, no lease deed, no pleadings or proof regarding creation of tenancy – Held: Possession simpliciter or gair maurusi entry without rent does not establish tenancy – Tenancy being bilateral relationship cannot be inferred merely from possession [Paras 10.1–10.2, 13].

Pleadings and Evidence – Beyond Pleadings – Plaintiff attempted to improve case during evidence by alleging tenancy under Gram Panchayat at nominal rent – Such plea neither pleaded nor supported by documents – Held: Evidence beyond pleadings cannot be considered – No amount of evidence can substitute absence of pleadings [Paras 10.2].

Earlier Judgments – Binding Effect – Parties Not Same – Earlier civil judgment relied upon by plaintiff did not bind defendants who were not parties thereto – Subsequent suit dismissal did not adjudicate nature of possession – Held: Earlier judgments do not conclusively prove tenancy [Paras 10.3, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope – Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court being final court of facts reversed trial court’s finding on tenancy after detailed re-appreciation of evidence – Findings neither perverse nor illegal – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Interference declined [Paras 13–14].

Possession – Protection – Due Process of Law – Though tenancy not proved, plaintiff found to be in settled possession – Held: Plaintiff cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law [Paras 8, 15].

Contempt Petition – Not Pressed – COCP dismissed as not pressed [Para 16].

Decision: RSA dismissed – Finding affirmed that plaintiff is not proved to be tenant though in possession – Protection against dispossession except by due process upheld – COCP No. 3975 of 2018 disposed of as not pressed.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Statutory Embargo – Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act against rejection of bail – Accused alleged to be member of proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State – Involvement in radicalisation, conspiracy, reconnaissance, arson and terror funding through cryptocurrency – Held: When Court finds reasonable grounds for believing that accusations are prima facie true, statutory bar under Section 43D(5) squarely applies – Bail cannot be granted [Paras 9–11].

Terrorist Activities – Prima Facie Case – Evidentiary Material at Bail Stage – Material on record including voluntary statement, seizure of mobile phone, digital evidence, FSL report and cryptocurrency transactions considered – Images of sensitive locations, arson-related material and news clippings recovered – Evidence showing receipt and transfer of terror funds through crypto wallets – Held: Cumulative material establishes prima facie involvement in terrorist activities and conspiracy – Trial Court justified in rejecting bail [Paras 3–5, 9–11].

Criminal Conspiracy and Support to Terrorist Organisation – Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 UAPA – Appellant alleged to have facilitated terror funding, shared crypto wallet details, converted funds into cash and assisted co-accused – Participation in reconnaissance and arson held to be acts furthering objectives of terrorist organisation – Contentions that ingredients of Section 15 UAPA not made out rejected – Prima facie satisfaction sufficient at bail stage [Paras 6, 9–11].

Bail Jurisdiction – Scope of Appellate Interference – Appellate Court to examine whether Trial Court’s view is perverse or ignores material on record – Trial Court discussed evidence in detail and recorded reasons for prima facie satisfaction – No ground made out for interference with bail rejection order [Paras 11–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Arrest and Procedural Safeguards – Reliance placed on Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement – Held: Observations regarding procedural safeguards do not dilute statutory bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA in presence of prima facie material – Bail rightly declined [Para 12].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Order dated 20.05.2025 rejecting bail upheld – Appellant not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Departmental Inquiry – Appointment of Inquiry Officer – Retired Public Servant – Inquiry conducted by retired Deputy Secretary appointed as Inquiry Authority – Challenge based on Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contending that only serving public servant can be appointed – Held: Expression “public servant” in Rule 11(2) includes retired public servant – No express or implied exclusion in Rules – Appointment valid [Paras 33–55].

Service Law – Interpretation of Disciplinary Rules – Doctrine of Exclusion – Exclusion of retired officers must be expressly provided or flow by necessary implication – Rule 11(2) of EIA Rules contains no such exclusion – Applying principles laid down in Union of India v. Alok Kumar – Retired officer remunerated for inquiry falls within ambit of “public servant” under Section 21 IPC [Paras 43–54].

Rule 11(4), EIA Rules – Personal Hearing – Scope and Stage – Requirement to ask delinquent employee whether he desires to be heard in person operates at stage immediately after service of charge-sheet – Personal hearing contemplated during inquiry proceedings, not post submission of inquiry report – No requirement of separate personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority after inquiry report if findings accepted – Learned Single Judge erred in contrary interpretation [Paras 59–73].

Principles of Natural Justice – Compliance – Charged officer participated in inquiry proceedings – Supplied with inquiry report and afforded opportunity to submit representation – Full compliance with procedural safeguards under EIA Rules – No violation of natural justice established [Paras 68–70, 78].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope – Court cannot reappreciate evidence or interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence – Findings of guilt recorded after consideration of evidence – Not a case of “no evidence” – Reliance on Bhupenderpal Singh Gill held misconceived [Paras 74–77].

Distinguishing Precedents – Kunj Behari Misra and Yoginath D. Bagde – Requirement of opportunity arises only when Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Inquiry Authority – No such disagreement in present case – Said judgments inapplicable [Para 79].

Decision – Letters Patent Appeals – Appeal by employer (LPA 1045/2024) allowed – Appeal by employee (LPA 313/2024) dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Punishment order and appellate order restored – No order as to costs [Paras 80–82].

Tenancy Rights – Heritability – Death of Tenant – Punjab Village Common Lands Act – Tenant Kulwant Rai held to be in cultivating possession as gair maurusi for decades – Upon his death, tenancy rights devolved upon legal heirs – Gram Panchayat failed to show any statutory provision extinguishing tenancy on death – Held: Tenancy rights are heritable and plaintiffs lawfully stepped into shoes of deceased tenant [Paras 12].

Village Common Land – Dispossession by Gram Panchayat – Requirement of Due Process – Earlier civil decree recognised tenant’s possession and restrained dispossession except in accordance with law – Panchayat initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 7 but resorted to auction during pendency – Held: Panchayat could not dispossess tenants or their heirs without completing statutory ejectment proceedings [Paras 11, 14].

Auction of Panchayat Land – Validity – Auction conducted during pendency of injunction and ejectment proceedings – Found to be a short-cut method to oust tenants – Held: Auction dated 06.04.1985 illegal, null and void and incapable of conferring lawful possession on auction vendees [Paras 7.1, 11].

Injunction – Dispossession During Pendency of Suit – Mandatory Injunction – Plaintiffs dispossessed despite interim injunction order – Civil court competent to restore possession and grant mandatory injunction to restore status quo ante – First Appellate Court rightly ordered restoration of possession [Paras 7.2, 13].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Findings of Fact – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellate Court’s findings based on revenue record, prior judgments and evidence – No perversity or misapplication of law shown – Held: Interference in second appeal not warranted [Paras 15, 16].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.11.1997 passed by First Appellate Court affirmed – Plaintiffs entitled to declaration of tenancy and restoration of possession.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – Interim Compensation – Section 143-A – Trial court directed accused to pay 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation – Accused denied issuance of cheque, denied signature and existence of bank account – Held: Power under Section 143-A is discretionary and can be exercised only upon prima facie satisfaction of ingredients of Section 138 NI Act [Paras 16–18].

Cheque Dishonour – Prima Facie Case – Burden of Proof – Though statutory presumption arises once execution of cheque is admitted – In present case accused specifically denied issuance and signature on cheque – Bank Manager (PW2) testified that cheque account belonged to a third person and not to accused – Defence found prima facie plausible – Interim compensation not warranted at this stage [Paras 22–25].

Evidence – Bank Testimony – Account Not of Accused – PW2, Branch Manager of concerned bank, stated that cheque account was in name of another individual – Supports defence that accused had no account in concerned bank – Serious disputed questions of fact requiring full trial – Grant of interim compensation held imprudent [Paras 23–25].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – While revisional powers are limited – Interference permissible where trial court fails to properly apply statutory parameters under Section 143-A – Impugned order granting interim compensation set aside as not based on correct prima facie evaluation [Paras 20, 25–26].

Criminal Proceedings – Expeditious Trial – Cheque bounce case pending since 2021 – Trial court requested to endeavour to complete trial expeditiously considering pendency and nature of dispute [Para 27].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Order dated 26/09/2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari directing payment of interim compensation of 20% of cheque amount quashed and set aside – Trial to proceed on merits expeditiously [Paras 26–28].