Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Eyewitness Credibility – Testimony of Relatives – Caution Required - Conviction Based Solely on Eyewitnesses Set Aside - The prosecution relied mainly on two eyewitnesses (PW11 and PW12), both children of the deceased – PW11 admitted to being tutored by police, while PW12’s presence at the scene and injury claims lacked corroborative evidence – Held: Evidence inconsistent, uncorroborated and mutually destructive, not reliable for conviction [Paras 26-38].

Investigation Lapses – Failure to Recover Weapons or Looted Articles – Serious Deficiency – The IO did not attempt recovery of the alleged murder weapons or looted items despite early arrest of accused – Such perfunctory investigation undermined the prosecution case – Held: Failure to collect best evidence significantly weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 33-34].

Framing of Charges – Improper Clubbing of Two Incidents – Procedural Error – FIR disclosed two separate incidents (murders of Ashok Das and Arati Das) involving different sets of accused – Trial court framed joint charges without segregating events or accused – Held: Such charge framing was erroneous and prejudicial to the accused [Para 35].

Identification of Accused – Absence of Proper Court Identification – Identification of accused in court not established against many appellants – Named accused in FIR were not consistently identified during trial – Held: Identification evidence unreliable, entitling appellants to benefit of doubt [Paras 14, 28-30].

Child Witness – Requirement for Corroboration – Lack of Supporting Evidence – PW11 was aged 13 during deposition, claimed to have witnessed mother’s murder – Her testimony lacked corroboration and contradicted her brother’s – Held: Sole testimony of child witness insufficient in absence of supporting material [Paras 15, 30-32].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered - The Court found serious lapses in investigation, contradictions in witness testimonies, and procedural irregularities – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Convictions under Sections 302/149 IPC set aside – All appellants acquitted [Paras 39, 42].
 

Criminal Law - Possession of Muddamal – Income Tax Proceedings vs. Criminal Jurisdiction – I-T Department Authorized to Retain Seized Cash – The department sought custody of ₹35,28,000 seized in a theft case, invoking Section 132A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act – Trial court initially directed fixed deposit in complainant’s name, but later denied department’s application – Held: Income Tax Department entitled to custody and to deposit the cash in PD Account for proceedings under tax law [Paras 1-3, 10, 15].

Jurisdiction – Power of Magistrate under CrPC vs. Powers under Income Tax Act – Distinguished – The court clarified that the powers under Section 132A override general CrPC provisions on muddamal – Income Tax authority has jurisdiction to requisition unaccounted assets under statutory mandate; Magistrate cannot override this by directing deposit in complainant’s name [Paras 10-12].

Unexplained Cash – Prima Facie Grounds for Requisition – The complainant failed to explain the source of ₹35,28,000 satisfactorily during Income Tax inquiry, triggering legal requisition – Held: Department has legitimate basis to retain and investigate under the Income Tax Act [Paras 3.7, 13].

Final Decision – Magistrate's Orders Quashed – Petitioner Permitted to Act Under Income Tax Law – High Court quashed both lower court orders and allowed the department to take possession of the cash and deposit it in PD Account within four weeks, with procedural safeguards like panchnama and videography [Para 15].
 

Civil Law - Auction Sale – Stamp Duty on Sale Certificate – Auction Value Prevails – Demand on Market Value Held Illegal - Petitioners purchased immovable property in public auction conducted by SBI – Sub-Registrar refused to register Sale Certificates unless stamp duty was paid on market value instead of bid amount – Held: Registration authorities must assess duty based on auction price, not market rate [Paras 3-6, 9-10].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Auction Sales – Registration to Follow Auction Price - Court reiterated settled legal position from multiple precedents including V.N. Devadoss, Marvel Financial Services Ltd., and recent Supreme Court decision in Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd. – Held: No deviation permissible by registration authorities from binding precedent [Paras 7-8].

Sale Certificate – Not Compulsorily Registrable Unless Used Otherwise – Supreme Court Clarification - A sale certificate issued by an authorised officer under auction need not be compulsorily registered unless used to transfer title or for other purposes – Held: Stamp duty arises only if voluntary registration is sought and must be calculated based on auction value [Para 7].

Direction to Registering Authority – Duty to Act on Auction Price – Mandamus Issued - Sub-Registrar directed to assess and collect stamp duty based on auction bid of ₹55,10,000 and process registration accordingly within two weeks – Held: Executive action contrary to judicial precedent not sustainable [Para 10].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Disproportionate Punishment – No Parity Violation – Dismissal Upheld – Respondent-doctor dismissed for drug misappropriation during a common enquiry – Tribunal had set aside dismissal citing discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis co-delinquents – High Court held doctors held higher responsibility than compounder/nurse and both doctors were similarly dismissed – Hence, parity was maintained and Tribunal’s review order exceeded its scope [Paras 3–11].

Review Jurisdiction – Tribunal's Scope – Improper Exercise – Review Order Quashed – Tribunal allowed review without adequately analyzing comparative roles and punishments of co-delinquents – High Court held review based on oversimplified reasoning and lacking material justification – Tribunal exceeded permissible scope of review under law [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Matters – Interference Limited – Held – Punishment not found “shockingly disproportionate” – Reliance placed on Supreme Court's ruling in P.C. Kakkar – No error in dismissal of doctor for serious misconduct – Writ petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Tribunal's Order Set Aside – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal's review order dated 29.04.2011 quashed – Original dismissal of respondent reinstated – Rule made absolute with no costs [Paras 14–15].
 

Criminal Law - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Reclassification to Section 304 Part II IPC – Intent to Kill Not Established – The appellant was convicted for murder under Section 302 for stabbing a police constable during a raid – However, the injury was on the wrist, not a vital part, and occurred during a scuffle when the appellant was trying to escape arrest – Held: No clear intention to kill was established – Conviction under Section 302 altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 18-19].

Police Testimony – Sole Reliance – Credibility Upheld – All eyewitnesses to the incident were police officers – Court relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies from multiple officers, citing legal precedent that police evidence can be the basis of conviction if found credible – No independent civilian witnesses were available due to the nature of the raid [Paras 11-12].

Medical Evidence – Non-Vital Injury Led to Death – Injury on the deceased’s left arm ruptured brachial vessels and caused death due to shock – PM doctor confirmed the wound could cause death, but not necessarily inflicted with intent to kill – Held: Injury sufficient in ordinary course to cause death, but intent not proven [Para 10].

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine – Ordered release if not required in any other offence [Para 20].

Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The accused was convicted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the First Appellate Court for allegedly causing death by rash and negligent driving – Held: Prosecution failed to establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Sole eyewitness PW-1 found to be unreliable, with contradictory testimony and no corroboration from other witnesses – Postmortem report indicated presence of alcohol in deceased’s body – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction and sentence quashed [Paras 12–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-1's Presence at Scene Disbelieved – PW-1 claimed to be eyewitness but admitted visiting hospital on call from accused and signing documents at police station – Held: Testimony found doubtful and inconsistent – No other eyewitness supported the prosecution version – Spot mahazar not supported by credible firsthand account – Conviction cannot rest solely on untrustworthy evidence [Paras 13–14].

Speed and Rashness – Mere High Speed Not Equivalent to Rash Driving – Reference to Supreme Court Judgment in State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 – Held: No material on record showing actual speed or driving behaviour of accused to infer rashness – High speed, without context, not enough to establish offence under Section 279 IPC [Paras 15–17].

Foreseeability and Contributory Negligence – Influence of Alcohol on Deceased – Postmortem showed strong traces of alcohol in deceased – Held: Prosecution failed to show foreseeability or breach of duty by accused – In absence of clear proximate cause linking accused’s conduct to the fatal accident, conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–19].

Final Decision – Acquittal Ordered – Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence by Trial and Appellate Courts set aside – Fine, if paid, to be refunded [Para 20].

Quashing Proclamation Proceedings – Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Declaration of Proclaimed Person Quashed – The petitioner was declared proclaimed person in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act and consequent FIR under Section 174-A IPC was registered – Held: Trial Court erred in straightaway issuing proclamation without prior steps of summons or bailable warrants, and without recording satisfaction regarding absconding – Proclamation proceedings vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. – Impugned order and FIR quashed [Paras 1-3, 12].

Cognizance under Section 174-A IPC – Bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Prosecution Unsustainable – The Court held that offences under Section 174-A IPC are governed by the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. – Cognizance requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant and cannot be initiated by police report – Registration of FIR without a complaint violates mandatory procedural law – Proceedings under Section 174-A IPC quashed [Paras 7-10].

Mandatory Procedure under Law – Adherence to Article 21 – Due Process Violated – The Court emphasized adherence to fair procedure as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – When law prescribes a manner for action, deviation renders subsequent proceedings void – Directing initiation of criminal action without following the statutorily prescribed complaint procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is illegal [Paras 11].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Order declaring petitioner proclaimed person, consequential FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law, ensuring procedural compliance under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 195 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14].

Bail – Jurisdiction of Magistrate – Offences under SC/ST Act and IPC Section 409 – Bail Order Set Aside - The learned Magistrate rejected remand of accused but also granted bail in offences triable by Sessions/Special Court including under SC/ST Act and Section 409 IPC – Held: Though rejection of remand was within discretion of Magistrate, granting bail was beyond jurisdiction – Victim not heard as required under Section 15A(3) SC/ST Act – High Court held Magistrate’s order granting bail without jurisdiction was legally unsustainable – Appeal partly allowed; remand rejection upheld, bail order set aside [Paras 6-13].

Bail - NDPS Offense – Commercial Quantity – Application of Section 37 – Bail Granted – Petitioner accused of possessing 71 Buprenorphine injections, constituting commercial quantity under FSL report – Despite applicability of statutory bar under Section 37, prolonged incarceration of 1 year and 5 months invoked constitutional protection under Article 21 – Held: Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 6-11].

Clean Antecedents – No Prior Criminal Record – Considered Favorably – Petitioner had no criminal history and undertook not to indulge in any future NDPS Act offense – Assurance accepted as mitigating factor justifying conditional release [Paras 2, 4].

Prolonged Pre-trial Custody – Grounds for Bail – Article 21 Consideration – Noted by Court that trial had not commenced and petitioner was in custody for over 1.5 years – Delay in trial held to be unjustified restraint on liberty – Conditional liberty granted to ensure fairness and avoid irreversible injustice [Paras 10-13].

Comparative Precedents – Supreme Court Bail Orders Followed – Cited series of SC judgments including Chitta Biswas, Rajib Dey, and Tajmul SK cases granting bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases with long incarceration – Held: Constitutional guarantee of liberty prevails over statutory embargo when trial delay is substantial [Paras 9, 11, 12].

Firearm Restrictions – Bail Condition – Court imposed prohibition on possession of arms post-release, citing need to protect society and deter intimidation of witnesses – This measure based on preponderance of probability rather than certainty [Para 20].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Bail Granted – Regular bail granted to petitioner under strict compliance terms including personal bond, prohibition on weapon possession, and cooperation with trial – State at liberty to seek cancellation of bail upon any future NDPS offense by petitioner [Paras 15-26].