Execution of Decree – Prohibitory Injunction – Restoration of Possession Permissible – The petitioner challenged execution of a 1999 injunction decree, arguing that it did not include delivery of possession – Held: Where injunction decree is violated and decree-holder is forcibly dispossessed, executing court can direct restoration of possession under Order 21 Rule 32(5) CPC – Power to enforce decree includes all measures necessary to ensure compliance [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Executing Court – Power Not Limited to Text of Decree – The petitioner argued that decree merely restrained interference with possession and did not mandate possession delivery – Held: Executing court can act beyond literal words if required to neutralize unlawful disobedience and uphold judicial process – Contempt alone not sufficient in such cases – Civil court must ensure that its judgments are not rendered nugatory [Paras 11-13].

Delay in Execution – No Bar Where Decree Breached by Force – Execution petition filed nearly a decade after final appellate order – Petitioner alleged delay – Held: Decree-holder’s right revived upon unlawful dispossession – Forceful dispossession reopens right to seek enforcement – Delay does not defeat execution where breach frustrates decree [Para 5, 13].

Decision – Civil Revision Dismissed – Decree Executable by Restoration of Possession – Court upheld the executing court’s rejection of objections and affirmed its authority to restore possession to decree-holders under Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC – Revision petition found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Bail – Section 302 IPC – Delay in Trial – Bail Granted - The petitioner was accused of murdering the deceased Devinder Kumar with bamboo sticks and had been in custody since 11.04.2023 – Despite filing of the chargesheet on 03.07.2023, only 12 out of 52 witnesses had been examined – Held: Given prolonged incarceration, constitutional guarantee under Article 21 for speedy trial justified grant of bail – Court found no reason to believe petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-9, 16].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Pre-trial Incarceration Unjustified – The Court relied on precedents including Umarmia Alias Mamumia vs. State of Gujarat and Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, to emphasize the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial – Reiterated that personal liberty should not be curtailed unless absolutely imperative – The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty [Paras 9-13].

Bail Conditions – Ensuring Presence and Non-interference – Stringent conditions imposed to ensure that the petitioner attends all hearings, does not influence witnesses, and does not flee jurisdiction – Violation of any condition may result in cancellation of bail – Bail granted upon furnishing of personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- and one surety of like amount [Paras 14-17].

Nature of Bail – Not Punitive – Held: Object of bail is to secure presence of accused during trial, not to punish – Detention during trial causes psychological and social trauma to the accused and burden to their family – Unless necessary, incarceration before conviction must be avoided [Paras 12-13].

NDPS Act – Interim Bail on Humanitarian Grounds – Bail Denied – The petitioner sought interim bail for six weeks under Section 22 NDPS Act on the ground that his widowed mother required urgent medical intervention for cardiac issues – Medical certificate indicated surgery was advised but not undertaken – Status report revealed availability of petitioner’s wife and three brothers in joint family setup – Held: No ground made out to justify interim bail – Request rejected [Paras 1-5].

Medical Certification – Improper Recommendation by Treating Doctor – The treating doctor’s request to jail authorities for release of the petitioner to be beside his mother was criticized – Held: Such recommendations are beyond the professional scope of a medical practitioner – Court emphasized that objective medical opinion must not contain personal appeals or administrative suggestions [Para 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Case for Interim Bail – The Court found that alternate caretakers were available in petitioner’s joint family and medical urgency did not justify release – Held: Mere emotional or sentimental grounds not sufficient for bail under stringent NDPS Act – Petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer Misconduct – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant, a Senior Division Civil Judge, was compulsorily retired based on charges of threatening police officials to influence investigation involving his sister – Enquiry Officer held charges proved and recommended penalty – Held: No infirmity in enquiry or penalty process – Principles of natural justice not violated – Penalty not shockingly disproportionate – Appeal dismissed [Paras 3–7, 10–11].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Interference – High Court reiterates that punishment imposed in domestic enquiry cannot be interfered with unless enquiry or penalty is shown to be contrary to law, vitiated by mala fides, or perverse – None of these grounds established by appellant – Interference declined [Para 10].

Findings of Misconduct – Sufficiency of Evidence – Allegations of abuse and threats by judicial officer substantiated through testimony of complainant and police officer – Explanation by appellant not accepted as credible – Held: Findings not perverse – Penalty justified [Paras 6–7].

Civil Law - Easementary Right – Use of Pathway – Right to Access through Cart Track – Decree Restored – Appellant purchased land through registered sale deed in 1963 which described cart track as boundary – Evidence including Advocate Commissioner’s report confirmed existence of 15-feet wide cart track used for men, cattle, and carts – Held: Right to use the cart track forms part of legal incidents of property transferred under Section 8 of Transfer of Property Act – Appellants entitled to such easementary right – Decree for declaration and injunction granted [Paras 34–36, 41–44].

Alternate Access – Whether Availability Bars Easement – Alternate Pathway Only 1.5 Feet Wide – Held: Not Suitable for Cattle or Carts – Mere existence of narrow footpath not equivalent to reasonable alternate access – Trial Court rightly held plaintiffs entitled to use existing cart track – Appellate Court misconstrued Commissioner’s report – Judgment set aside [Paras 35–36, 44–45].

Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – Appellate Court Erred – Advocate Commissioner confirmed existence of well-used cart track with sufficient width – Appellate Court overlooked critical observations in Exs. C1–C4 – Held: Misreading of evidence led to erroneous reversal – Second Appeal allowed [Paras 34–36].

Transfer of Property – Easement Included – Section 8, Transfer of Property Act – Where easement is apparent and in use at time of sale, and mentioned in the deed, right to its use transfers with property – Held: Pathway existed prior to sale and was mentioned in sale deed – Right to use same vested in transferee – Appellate Court ignored settled law – Judgment reversed [Paras 38–44].

Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Existence of Easement, Interpretation of Commissioner’s Report – All substantial questions answered in favour of appellants – Trial Court decree restored – Second Appeals allowed with costs [Paras 27, 36, 44–46].

Criminal Law - Murder  – Circumstantial Evidence – Incomplete Chain – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecution’s case against the appellant for murdering his wife was based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Key circumstances including alleged motive due to frequent quarrels, last seen together, and recovery of blood-stained clothes were not proved beyond reasonable doubt – The time gap between last seen and recovery of body, absence of forensic confirmation, and unreliable recovery witnesses rendered the circumstantial chain incomplete – High Court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – Conviction set aside – Appellant acquitted. Acquittal. [Paras 1, 3, 11-13, 17-29, 36-37].

Last Seen Theory – Time Gap Between Last Seen and Death – Not Sufficient to Establish Guilt – Witness claimed to have last seen deceased with the accused at 5:30 p.m., but the body was recovered the next morning – High Court held that such a long unexplained interval weakened the inference of guilt – In absence of other corroborative links, the “last seen” theory could not form sole basis of conviction [Paras 13-17].

Motive – Marital Discord – Not Conclusive – No Strong Evidence of Intention to Kill – Alleged motive rested on prior quarrels and suspicion of infidelity – Court held that general domestic discord, without any credible proof of direct threats or violent conduct, was insufficient to establish strong motive – Weak motive contributed to break in chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 11-12].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Procedural Defects – No Forensic Link – Recovery was based on alleged disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – No independent witness supported recovery process reliably – Clothes were not properly sealed or sent for forensic matching – Court held recovery inadmissible due to procedural lapses and lack of evidentiary value [Paras 18-22].

False Explanation under Section 313 CrPC – Cannot Fill Gaps in Prosecution – Though the accused gave a vague explanation during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the Court reiterated that a false or evasive explanation cannot substitute for legal proof – Unless the prosecution proves its case conclusively, the burden does not shift to the accused [Para 23].

Decision – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Bail bond cancelled and fine, if paid, ordered to be refunded [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law – Section 326 IPC – Stabbing with Knife – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for causing grievous hurt by stabbing neighbour in drunken state – Defence argued that witnesses were related and contradictory, no independent witnesses or recovery of weapon – Held: Evidence of injured witness (PW2) and his son (PW1), corroborated by medical officer (PW3), consistent and trustworthy – Relationship of witnesses does not render testimony unreliable – Conviction sustained [Paras 14–18].

Evidence – Related Witnesses – Credibility – Testimony of injured witness carries greater weight – Father and son’s version consistent on material points and corroborated by medical records – Minor contradictions and delay in lodging FIR immaterial in light of established facts – Non-examination of wife of victim not fatal – Non-recovery of weapon also not fatal when ocular and medical evidence are credible [Paras 17–20].

Contradictions – Insignificant Variations – Minor discrepancies about place of occurrence and sequence of events do not negate core prosecution case – Witnesses not expected to recall details with photographic memory after years – Law recognises minor variations as natural [Paras 19–20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment with fine under Section 326 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within 30 days, failing which trial court to issue warrant [Paras 21–22].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction Restored – The trial court had convicted the accused for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹30 lakhs, finding that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Sessions Judge reversed the conviction on the ground of absence of documentary proof of loan and by considering unrelated case records – Held: Sessions Judge committed perversity by relying on extraneous material and inventing a defence not raised by the accused – Since execution of cheque was admitted and there was no rebuttal evidence or cross-examination disputing the debt, the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted – Conviction restored against respondent no.2 only [Paras 1-25].

Cross-examination – Effect of Omission – Section 138, Evidence Act – Defence Not Put to Witness – The accused failed to put any suggestion during cross-examination that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt – Held: In absence of cross-examination, testimony remains unimpeached and must be accepted – Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving such evidence without challenge or contradiction [Paras 17-20].

Personal Knowledge by Judge – Illegality – Judgment Based on Facts from Another Case – Reversal Set Aside – Sessions Judge erred in taking judicial notice of findings from another complaint case between the parties without placing it on record or giving opportunity to the complainant to rebut – Such reliance amounts to grave violation of fair trial principles and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Para 21].

Money Lending without Licence – Presumption Not Rebutted – Accused’s Defence Absent – Though complainant admitted money lending without licence, no question was put to link that the cheque was issued in such context – Held: Without specific plea or cross-examination, court cannot assume cheque was issued in course of illegal money lending – Presumption under Section 139 not rebutted [Para 23].

Final Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Restored Against Respondent No.2 – As the other two accused had died and Respondent No.3 was not party to the original trial or appeal, conviction restored only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 24-26].