Election Petition – Maintainability – Requirement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and arbitral awards by the returned candidate and sought invalidation of the election – The Court held that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and failed to show how the alleged omissions materially affected the election result – As per law, pleadings must establish cause of action and fully disclose factual foundation for challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – In absence of such foundation, the petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Non-disclosure of Loan and Property – Allegation of Suppression – Not Sustainable – The allegation regarding Rs.90 lakh housing loan taken jointly with daughter was held to be devoid of merit – Respondent No.1 was merely a co-applicant; property was solely owned and loan serviced by his daughter – No obligation arose for the Respondent to disclose such loan in Form No.26 – Accordingly, this ground of challenge was rejected [Paras 8.1, 10].

Arbitral Award – Pending Litigation – Non-Disclosure – Not Material – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – Dismissal Upheld - The award of Rs.2.72 crore against the Respondent had been stayed by the Court and was under challenge – Court held that liability under a stayed award is not a "government due" requiring disclosure – Suppression not established – Petition failed to show how this affected electoral outcome [Paras 8.2, 9.3, 10, 16].

Form No.26 Disclosure – Loans, Guarantees, Financial Liabilities – CRIF/CIBIL Reports Not Originally Filed – Deficiency in Pleading – Petition Dismissed – Documents relied upon by petitioner, such as CRIF and CIBIL reports, were not annexed with petition but produced later – Court found this impermissible and held that pleadings cannot be improved through replies – Material facts must be stated in the petition itself [Paras 8.4, 9.5, 12, 15-17].

Cause of Action – Materially Affected Result – Mandatory Requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition failed to plead and demonstrate how the result was materially affected by alleged omissions – Mere allegation of non-disclosure is insufficient – Petition does not disclose cause of action – Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition dismissed in limine for want of cause of action and failure to plead material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act – No triable issue made out under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act [Para 31].

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].

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – CrPC S.164(5-A); Evidence Act Ss.118–119 – Interpreter was prosecution witness; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated – Conviction set aside without remand; guidelines issued for vulnerable witnesses.

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – Section 376(2)(l) IPC; Section 164(5-A) CrPC – Conviction Set Aside – Statement under S.164 recorded using PW2 (first informant/prosecution witness) as interpreter; held impermissible under law; violation of principles in Alavi and Darshan Singh; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated; conviction and sentence set aside without remand [Paras 8, 11-16].

Evidence – Competency of Witness – Section 118 Evidence Act – Magistrate must ascertain competence of deaf and dumb witness to depose before recording statement; failure to assess capacity and reliance on PW2 (interested witness) to interpret renders statement inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Interpreter – Legal Requirement – Section 119 Evidence Act – Services of trained interpreter/special educator mandatory; if interpreter unable, court may use familiar person, but not one who is an interested or prosecution witness; safeguards emphasized [Paras 12-13].

Cross-examination – Effective Right Denied – Victim’s deposition treated as examination-in-chief under S.164(5-A)(b) CrPC; absence of proper interpretation and inability of defence to cross-examine vitiates trial [Para 16].

Guidelines – Vulnerable Witnesses – High Court issues mandatory directions supplementing 2024 Notification; courts must record satisfaction on competence of witness and interpreter, ensure videography, avoid use of interested witnesses, and mandatorily record demeanour under S.315 BNSS [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence in S.C. No.184/2021 set aside – No remand directed due to incurable defects – Appellant released forthwith [Paras 16-18].

Matrimonial Law – Title over Joint Property – Claim of Exclusive Ownership – Allowed – Husband sought declaration of exclusive ownership over 85 cents purchased jointly with wife – Evidence including Ext.B1 Sale Deed, bank withdrawals, and father’s loan established that consideration flowed from husband – Wife’s claim of contribution by sale of trees and loan unsupported by evidence – Family Court erred in overlooking documentary proof – Held: Sale consideration proceeded from husband – Husband declared exclusive owner – Family Court judgment set aside [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Appeals – Claim for Damages – Defamation and Mental Agony – Rs.5,00,000 Award Upheld – Wife alleged persistent false accusations of illicit relationships by husband with colleagues, doctor, students, and others – Evidence showed husband made baseless allegations causing wife to quit employment and suffer mental trauma – Husband failed to substantiate charges – Family Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 damages for mental agony – Held: Findings justified and decree warrants no interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12].

Decision – Mat.Appeal No.674/2018 allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside and O.P. No.5/2014 allowed – Husband declared absolute owner of property – Mat.Appeal No.675/2018 dismissed – Award of Rs.5,00,000 damages to wife affirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 11-12].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Sexual Offences – Testimony of Victim Not Reliable – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 452/354/323/34 IPC for allegedly assaulting and molesting a woman – Trial Court acquitted them under Section 376(D) IPC – High Court found the victim’s testimony riddled with material improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions with police and medical evidence – Held: Victim's version failed to meet the standard of a "sterling witness" – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Material Improvements and Contradictions – Testimony Discredited – Allegation of sexual assault (finger insertion) was introduced only in the third supplementary statement after delay of several days – Testimony inconsistent with initial FIR and police statements – Tenant witness found to be untrustworthy and not corroborated by record – Court found witness to be planted and testimony unreliable – Resulted in total discrediting of prosecution's version [Paras 14–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Delay in Disclosure – No Corroboration – Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt – Though delay in naming assailants can be explained in sexual assault cases, such explanation must be reasonable and consistent – In present case, delay of 10 hours in naming known neighbours without plausible reason – Absence of medical injuries or forensic support further weakens case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 12–14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Standard of 'Sterling Witness' – Not Met in Present Case – Court reiterated that uncorroborated testimony can lead to conviction only if it is cogent, consistent and natural – Victim’s evidence failed on this test – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Held: Inconsistencies in victim’s statements, and contradictions with police and tenant evidence made her testimony unreliable – Acquittal justified [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted – All four appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2016 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Judgment to be uploaded and communicated to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 19–21].

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].

Civil Law - Declaration of Title – Assignment Deeds in Name of Minor – Burden of Proof – Father–Son Property Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that properties purchased in 1983 under two assignment deeds stood in his name when he was 6 months old, though deeds recorded age as 6 years – Father contended plaintiff was born in 1983 and not in existence when deeds were executed – Held: Burden of proving title lies on plaintiff, but evidence established that “minor Basheer” was indeed the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s mother (PW2) categorically testified that plaintiff was born in October 1982, and her testimony went unchallenged – Birth certificate showing 1983 rebutted by oral evidence – Presumption of correctness of birth register is rebuttable – Oral evidence of mother preferred [Paras 7–13].

Property Purchased in Minor’s Name – Ceiling Law Justification Rejected – Defendant’s claim that land was purchased in fictitious name of non-existent minor to avoid ceiling law not supported by evidence – Assignment deeds themselves showed defendant purchased property on behalf of minor son Basheer – Defendant admitted no other son named Basheer – No third-party claim was raised – Thus plaintiff proved absolute ownership [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Trial Court rightly decreed declaration and injunction in favour of plaintiff – Appellate Court upheld decree – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs considering close relationship [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - POCSO Act – Gender Neutrality – Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 POCSO – Held Gender Neutral – The Court held that the POCSO Act, as evident from its objects and reasons (2012 and 2019 amendments), is intended to protect all children (male or female) below 18 years from sexual offences – Section 2(2) POCSO read with Section 8 IPC clarifies that pronoun “he” includes male and female – Delhi High Court judgment in Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi relied upon – Thus, POCSO is gender neutral [Paras 9-11].

POCSO – Offence by Woman – Sections 4 & 6 – Applicable – Held that offences of penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3–4 and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5–6 can be alleged against a woman also – Clause (a) to (d) of Section 3 uses “a person” as subject, with phrases “makes the child to do so with him or any other person” widening scope beyond male-only penetration – Hence, a woman compelling or manipulating a male child to penetrate her falls within the statutory ingredients – The contention that a woman cannot be prosecuted under Sections 4 & 6 rejected [Paras 12-13].

Ingredients of Offence – Sections 4 & 6 POCSO – Met – Complaint, victim’s statement, statement of mother, Child Protection Officer’s report, and charge sheet narrate detailed acts of manipulation and coerced penetration by petitioner – Allegations fit squarely within statutory phrases “makes the child do so with her” – Held that ingredients of Sections 4 and 6 are satisfied – Narrow interpretation excluding women would defeat legislative intent to protect children – Hence, case fit for trial [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR – Effect – Four-year delay between incident (2020) and complaint (2024) – Held: In cases of child sexual abuse, delay cannot be treated as fatal – Trauma, silence, and stigma explain delay – Victim disclosed only after therapy – Supported by precedents (Shreekant Sharma v. State of W.B., Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana) – Delay held to be matter of trial and not ground to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 18].

Potency Test – Non-Conduct – Not Fatal – Contention that no potency test of victim was conducted rejected – At 13 years, issue of puberty or erection irrelevant for offence under POCSO, which punishes inducement or manipulation of child to perform penetration regardless of physiological maturity – Held: Non-conduct of potency test does not vitiate proceedings [Implied Paras 16-17].

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – The Court held that POCSO is gender neutral; offences under Sections 4 and 6 can be alleged against a woman; ingredients of the offence were prima facie met; delay in FIR not fatal – Hence, petition for quashing dismissed – Proceedings to continue before trial court [Paras 9-18].

Bail  – Illegal Quarrying – Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act, Sections 21(1), 21(4) MMDR Act, Sections 120-B, 109, 290, 506 IPC, Sections 3 & 5 Explosive Substances Act, and SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act – Bail Granted with Conditions – The appellant, former Minister and MLA, was implicated in large-scale illegal extraction of quartz and feldspar minerals based primarily on co-accused confessions and statements of political opponents – Investigation revealed alleged conspiracy, use of explosives, and loss of Rs.138 crores to the exchequer – However, initial FIR and reports did not name the appellant, and no direct overt acts or caste-based intent under SCs & STs (PoA) Act were established – Court held that co-accused confessions are weak evidence, no prima facie role was shown under Atrocities Act, and investigation was substantially complete – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including restriction from entering Nellore district, surrender of passport, weekly attendance before IO, and prohibition on media statements – Held: Bail is the rule, jail the exception; continued custody not justified [Paras 21–28, 41–49, 53–55].