Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Evidence of Child Witness – The child victim (aged 10 years) consistently deposed about inappropriate touch by her uncle – Her version remained intact despite cross-examination – Court held child’s testimony trustworthy for offence under Section 10 POCSO though not sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 [Paras 7–10, 16–18].

POCSO Act – Sections 5(l), 5(m), and 6 – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Inconsistencies between victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and deposition at trial – Medical evidence (MLC) recorded hymen intact, no injury to private parts, and FSL report negative – Held: Prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 6 set aside [Paras 16–17].

POCSO Act – Section 10 read with Section 9(m) – Sexual Assault (Non-penetrative) – Victim’s version corroborated by tuition teacher’s statement about accused touching her inappropriately – Conduct consistent with sexual intent – Conviction under Section 10 sustained [Paras 10, 17–18].

Evidence – Corroboration – Absence of injuries or biological evidence not fatal when non-penetrative assault proved through credible testimony – Victim’s statement sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 10 POCSO [Paras 17–18].

Defence – Motive of False Implication – Alleged financial dispute between accused and victim’s father found unsubstantiated – Father (examined as DW-2) denied existence of such dispute – Plea rejected [Paras 14–15].

Sentence – Modification – Appellant sentenced to RI 12 years (Section 6), 5 years (Section 10), and 1 year (Section 506 IPC) by trial court – Having undergone more than six and a half years, sentence under Section 10 deemed served – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Conviction under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) & (m) POCSO set aside – Conviction under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) POCSO upheld – Appellant released as sentence already undergone – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 18–20].

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]

Motor Accident – Head-on Collision – Negligence – Apportionment of Liability – Accident on 28.11.2017 between WagonR (DL-03CR-6768) and Truck (AS-14C-0806) resulting in death of Om Prakash Sah – Tribunal held WagonR driver negligent based on MVI reports and directed United India Insurance Co. (insurer of WagonR) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,150/- – Held: Tribunal erred in relying solely on unproved MVI reports and hearsay evidence without examining MVI or investigator – Charge sheet filed against Truck driver and eye-witness (CW-2) supported negligence of Truck – Liability to be apportioned between both insurers [Paras 8–16, 28].

Evidence – Proof of Negligence – Standard of Proof – Tribunal misread evidence and ignored charge sheet and eye-witness testimony – Strict rules of evidence not applicable in motor accident cases – Negligence to be determined on preponderance of probabilities – Reference made to Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corp., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699 [Paras 12–14].

Procedure – Remand – Power under Order XLI Rules 23 & 23A CPC – Appellant sought remand to Tribunal – Court held no condition for remand satisfied; relied on P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) SC – Decided matter on merits to avoid prolonging litigation [Paras 17–18].

Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – Deceased aged 48 years, income ₹7,950/- per month (minimum wage) – Tribunal failed to add future prospects – High Court recalculated applying Pranay Sethi (25% addition for self-employed aged 40–50) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 13, ¼ deduction) – Also applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 to award ₹48,000/- each for five dependants as filial consortium, ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate (10% enhancement twice) – Total compensation ₹14,56,216/- with 9% interest p.a. [Paras 20–26, 29].

Interest and Deposit Directions – Respondents directed to deposit respective shares of compensation before Tribunal within 30 days – ₹10,00,000/- to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years in claimant’s name; withdrawal only with leave of Tribunal – Interest @9% per annum from date of filing claim till realization, following Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Appeal dismissed on merits but award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹10,00,150/- to ₹14,56,216/- with interest @9% p.a. – Liability apportioned between both insurers (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) equally – No costs [Paras 27–32].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Hindu Law – Inheritance – Applicability of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Married Daughter’s Right – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and partition of ancestral property inherited by her brother after their father's death – Both Courts below found that father died in 1950-51, prior to enactment of 1956 Act – Held: Succession opened under pre-1956 Mitakshara law which excluded daughters when a male heir existed – Plaintiff had no enforceable right under prevailing law at the time – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 19-21, 26, 30-31]

Hindu Law – Mitakshara Succession – Male Lineal Descent – Property inherited from paternal ancestors treated as coparcenary property under Mitakshara law – Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire rights by birth – Female heirs could inherit only in absence of male issue – Defendant’s succession to entire estate held valid – Plaintiff’s claim without merit [Paras 19, 26-30]

Statutory Interpretation – Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 – Limited Scope – Act merely ranked certain female heirs in succession after paternal grandfather and before paternal uncle – Did not override Mitakshara principles or grant equal rights to daughters where male heirs existed – Plaintiff not entitled under 1929 Act either [Paras 23-25, 27-28]

Widow’s Possession – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – No evidence led to show possession of property by widow after husband’s death – In absence of possession, limited estate could not convert into absolute right – Plaintiff failed to establish succession through mother – Mutation in favour of defendants upheld [Para 14, 30]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No right of inheritance accrued to plaintiff under Mitakshara law – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not applicable due to ancestor’s death prior to its commencement – Property validly devolved upon male heir – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – No costs awarded.

Motor Accident Claim – Driver Identity Dispute – Insurer contended that Aman Chauhan, a deceased without a valid driving license, was driving the Alto car at time of accident, rendering policy coverage void – Tribunal and High Court rejected insurer’s claim based on consistent eyewitness testimony and admission of Anil Kumar, who confessed to being the driver and fleeing the scene – FIR and police final report found unreliable as no investigating officer was examined and discrepancies existed in factual narration [Paras 5.4, 6, 9-13, 16]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurer – Defence of breach of policy failed – Insurer failed to prove that Aman Chauhan was driver – Testimony of surviving occupant (Prince Chauhan) and six independent eyewitnesses supported that Anil Kumar was driving – Police's reliance on ASI’s second-hand report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly fastened liability on insurer [Paras 10.1 to 10.9, 14-17]

Compensation – Quantum Determination – Aman Chauhan’s income estimated at ₹15,000/month by Tribunal, though not supported by documentary proof – Court reduced monthly income to ₹10,000 based on skilled worker’s minimum wage – Total compensation modified to ₹20,53,932 from ₹30,06,000 [Paras 20-20.2]

Compensation – Quantum Re-assessment – In Jasvinder’s case, Tribunal assumed ₹12,000/month income; Court revised it to ₹10,000 based on minimum wage – After 50% deduction and 40% future prospects, compensation recalculated as ₹14,14,000 instead of ₹16,82,800 [Paras 21-21.1]

Personal Injury – Compensation – In Prince Chauhan’s claim (injury case), award of ₹50,000 upheld – Court found it reasonable and not excessive – No interference warranted [Para 22]

Evidence – FIR and Police Report – FIR based on ASI’s inference from hearsay and not supported by direct evidence – Final report filed months later without timely recording of survivor’s version – Held: FIR and police report untrustworthy, especially in absence of testimony of investigating officer [Paras 12-13, 15-16]

Appellate Interference – FAO No. 31 (Prince Chauhan) dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 and 33 (Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder) partially allowed to modify compensation quantum – Awards modified but insurer held liable [Paras 24-25]

Decision: FAO No. 31 of 2023 dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 & 33 of 2023 partially allowed – Compensation in MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 and MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 reduced – Tribunal’s finding on liability upheld – Interest to remain as awarded [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC as mother-in-law of deceased who allegedly committed suicide nine years after marriage – Trial Court convicted appellant based on vague allegations of harassment – Held: No proximate or direct act of instigation or abetment proved against appellant – Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC not fulfilled – Mere allegations of harassment not sufficient to constitute abetment – Mens rea absent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–20]

Evidence – Inconsistencies and Omissions – Witnesses Contradicted Their Earlier Statements – PW-4 contradicted prior statement where he had stated that deceased was under depression due to childlessness and that relations with in-laws were cordial – Medical evidence incomplete as doctor who conducted post-mortem not examined – Held: Prosecution failed to prove active role of appellant in causing suicide – No cogent or corroborative evidence led – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 17–19]

Judicial Precedents – Standard of Proof Under Section 306 IPC – Court relies on Supreme Court rulings including Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan – Held: Proximity and direct link between accused’s conduct and suicide necessary – Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of instigation or intentional aid, mere harassment insufficient [Paras 15–16]

Abuse of Process – No Prima Facie Case – Harassment Not Proved to Be of Such Nature As to Drive Deceased to Suicide – Held: Criminal proceedings against appellant in absence of proximate cause and intent would amount to abuse of process – Acquittal warranted [Paras 20–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Pension – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Moral Turpitude – Petitioner, a retired police official, was convicted under Section 138 of NI Act and his pension was stopped invoking Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act arises from a contractual dispute and cannot be considered an offence involving moral turpitude – Such conviction does not, by itself, reflect absence of good conduct warranting denial of pension – Impugned order quashed – Pension directed to be restored with arrears [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Service Law – Natural Justice – Denial of Pension – Pension was stopped without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice – Action unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 5].

Binding Precedent – Madras High Court Ruling – Reliance placed on earlier Madras High Court decision in W.P.(MD) No. 5002 of 2024 dated 05.09.2024, holding that conviction under Section 138 NI Act does not amount to misconduct involving moral turpitude – Court finds no reason to differ from settled position [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 07.07.2025 quashed – Respondents directed to release monthly pension and pay arrears within 12 weeks – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – No Direct Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Accused was convicted by Trial and Appellate Courts for rash and negligent driving causing injuries – Revisional Court held that prosecution failed to prove rashness or negligence – Injury location inconsistent with prosecution's version of accident – Conviction under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside [Paras 18–24, 29–37, 40].

Evidence – Contradictions – Prosecution version that victim was hit from behind contradicted by injury on her left leg – Witnesses’ testimony regarding “high speed” insufficient without specific elaboration – Statements of negligence by witnesses held inadmissible as opinion, not fact – Witnesses’ conclusions disregarded [Paras 19–26, 34–36].

High Speed – Not Per Se Negligent – Speed alone not determinative of rashness – No evidence of reckless driving or breach of duty – Court cited State of Karnataka v. Satish and Mohanta Lal v. State of W.B. to reaffirm that “high speed” must be contextualised – Mere speed cannot establish guilt [Paras 24–26].

Licensing – Driving Without License – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted to not holding a valid driving license – Held: Though not evidence of negligence, driving without license validly attracts Section 181 of M.V. Act – Sentence of ₹500 fine upheld as reasonable [Paras 31–33, 38].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Revisional Court reiterated that it cannot act as a second appellate court – Interference only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence – Court relied on Malkeet Singh Gill, Dilipsinh Rao, Kishan Rao and others to set out settled law on revisional powers [Paras 13–17].

Decision: Revision Petition Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 279 and 338 IPC set aside – Conviction and fine of ₹500 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act upheld [Paras 40–42].