Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Fratricide – Sudden Quarrel – Single Stab Injury – Accused convicted under Sections 324 and 302 IPC by Sessions Court – Evidence showed cordial relationship between accused and deceased brothers – Incident arose out of trivial dispute over tying a goat – Held: No premeditation or prior animosity – Act committed in heat of passion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable – Altered to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 23–31].

Evidence Act – Related Witnesses – Credibility – Wife (PW1) and Minor Son (PW4) of Deceased as Eyewitnesses – Defence contended they were interested witnesses – Court held that close relatives are natural witnesses – Their evidence consistent, cogent and corroborated by medical and surrounding evidence – Mere relationship not a ground for rejection – Conviction can be based on such testimony if reliable [Paras 16–22].

Medical Jurisprudence – Proof of Cause of Death – Stab Injury to Chest Penetrating Heart – Doctor did not expressly state injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Held: Not fatal to prosecution case – Court can independently infer from nature, location and severity of injury – Death conclusively homicidal [Paras 10–15].

Criminal Law – Section 300 IPC – Applicability of Exceptions – Heat of Passion – No Intention to Cause Death – Knowledge Attributable – Accused inflicted single knife blow during sudden quarrel – Held: Case falls under Section 299 IPC, third limb – Conviction appropriate under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 25–31].

Sentencing – Alteration of Conviction – Sentence of Life Imprisonment Set Aside – Accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence under Section 324 IPC confirmed – Sentences to run concurrently – Compensation to victim’s wife under Section 357(1) CrPC – Recommendation under Section 357-A CrPC upheld [Paras 31–Final Order].

Decision: Criminal Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC confirmed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside and altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed – Compensation directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased – Remaining directions of the Sessions Court affirmed.

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.

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].

Criminal Law – Murder of Minor – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Appellant convicted for murder of 10-year-old boy and for causing disappearance of evidence – Child last seen alive in company of appellant who took him on cycle on pretext of showing exhibition – Deceased later found dead near canal in another district – Medical evidence proved death by strangulation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of appellant – Conviction upheld [Paras 27–33].

Evidence – Child Witness – Credibility – Deceased last seen with appellant by his younger brother aged about 7 years at time of deposition – Trial Court satisfied about child’s competency – Testimony corroborated by independent witnesses from neighbourhood and other places – Held: Evidence of child witness reliable and admissible when corroborated [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Last Seen Together – Independent Witnesses – Appellant seen with deceased by neighbour tailor, at railway station and later at village in Sultanpur late night – Witnesses independent and having no animus – Absence of Test Identification Parade immaterial as accused well known to witnesses – Held: Last seen circumstance firmly established [Paras 16–19].

Circumstantial Evidence – Motive – Importance – Appellant had monetary dispute with mother of deceased – Though motive alone not decisive, existence of motive lends support to prosecution case – Absence of recovery not fatal when medical and circumstantial evidence conclusive [Paras 15, 29–31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Strangulation – Post-mortem proved death due to asphyxia caused by compression of neck – Injuries consistent with manual strangulation – Time of death matching prosecution timeline – Medical evidence corroborated ocular and circumstantial evidence [Paras 7, 25–26].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Five Golden Principles – Prosecution proved complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – No perversity or illegality in findings of Trial Court – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 27–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Section 528 BNSS – Scope of Interference at Investigation Stage – Petitioner sought quashing of FIRs registered for offences under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3), 353(2) and 56 of BNS arising out of a single incident – FIRs registered within days of incident and investigation yet to commence in earnest – Held: FIR is not an encyclopedia and High Court cannot assess correctness or sustainability of invoked sections at threshold – Investigation must be permitted to proceed [Paras 9, 14–16].

Public Servant – Obstruction and Abuse – Section 132 BNS – Prima Facie Disclosure of Cognizable Offence – Contention that Section 132 BNS not attracted as no criminal force used – Court held that whether correct provision is invoked or alteration is required is a matter for investigation and not for quashing at inception – Police entitled to add or alter offences during investigation with leave of Court [Paras 9, 14].

Offences Against Women – Insult to Modesty – Section 79 BNS (Section 509 IPC) – Telephonic conversation attributed to petitioner contained abusive and offensive language directed at a woman public servant – Prima facie material discloses words and expressions capable of outraging modesty of a woman – Failure of prosecution to invoke Section 79 BNS at initial stage not fatal – Investigation warranted into offence of insulting modesty of woman [Paras 10, 13].

Elected Representative / Public Figure – Standard of Conduct – Petitioner, a former electoral contestant, expected to exercise restraint in speech – Abusive language against a woman public servant performing statutory duty held impermissible and beyond tolerance in civilised society – Such conduct requires investigation in public interest [Paras 10, 12].

Unauthorised Banners and Flexes – Civic Nuisance – Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 – Court took judicial notice of rampant erection of unauthorised banners for film promotion and political publicity – Such acts cause public nuisance and disfigurement of public spaces – State directed in principle to enforce provisions of the Disfigurement Act more stringently [Para 11].

FIR – Not an Encyclopedia – Limits of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC Jurisdiction – Reiterated that High Court should not conduct a mini-trial or scrutinise evidence at quashing stage – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions emphasising restraint and sparing exercise of inherent powers – Criminal proceedings not to be scuttled at nascent stage [Paras 12, 14].

Connected Petitions – Common Incident – Similar Relief – Both FIRs arose out of same transaction with different complainants – For reasons applicable to Crl.P. No.716 of 2026, companion petition also held devoid of merit – Both petitions dismissed [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Petition Nos. 716 of 2026 and 721 of 2026 dismissed – Investigation permitted to continue – Observations confined only to consideration under Section 528 BNSS and not to influence investigation or trial.

Specific Performance – Proof of Agreement to Sell – Suspicious Circumstances – Plaintiff relied upon two Agreements to Sell dated 21.11.2005 and 16.12.2005 for same property, same parties, same consideration – No plausible explanation for execution of two agreements – Explanation that first was handwritten and second typed found unconvincing – Held: Multiple unexplained agreements for same transaction cast serious doubt on genuineness of contract [Paras 12].

Agreement on Pre-Signed / Blank Papers – Evidentiary Inference – Typed Agreement dated 16.12.2005 showed abnormal narrow gaps in last lines – Thumb impressions only on last page – Admissions by plaintiff that signatures were obtained at village Nihalpura, Rajasthan and attestation done later at Gurgaon – Stamp papers purchased by plaintiff – Held: Strong inference that thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and agreement typed subsequently – Agreement surrounded by suspicious circumstances [Paras 13–15].

Admissions in Evidence Contradicting Pleadings – Plaintiff denied in replication that agreement was executed at Nihalpura – In cross-examination admitted execution/signatures obtained at Nihalpura and attestation elsewhere – Held: Plaintiff took false stand in pleadings – Such inconsistencies materially affect credibility and proof of contract [Paras 14, 17].

Sale Consideration – Contradictions between Agreement and Sale Deed – Agreement mentioned total consideration of ₹2,00,000/- – Sale Deed prepared by plaintiff mentioned ₹1,50,000/- as full consideration – No pleading or proof as to payment of balance ₹50,000/- – Stamp papers purchased and Sale Deed prepared prior to target date without explanation – Held: Serious discrepancies go to root of transaction and render agreement unreliable [Paras 15, 18].

Readiness and Willingness – Section 16(c) Specific Relief Act – Mere affidavits of attendance before Sub-Registrar insufficient – Plaintiff failed to prove availability of balance consideration – Failed to plead or prove when and how remaining amount was paid – Held: Mandatory requirement of readiness and willingness not satisfied [Para 18].

Burden of Proof – Fraud and Execution – Onus lies first on plaintiff to prove execution of agreement beyond doubt – Only thereafter burden shifts to defendant to prove fraud – Trial Court correctly applied burden of proof – First Appellate Court wrongly shifted burden on defendant merely on admission of thumb impressions [Paras 17, 19].

First Appellate Court – Duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Judgment of First Appellate Court reversed detailed trial court findings without framing points for determination or discussing evidence – Cryptic reasoning ignoring material discrepancies and trial court analysis – Held: Judgment suffers from patent illegality and non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC [Paras 19–21].

Specific Performance – Discretionary Relief – Relief cannot be granted on shaky, inconsistent and suspicious evidence – Courts must examine intention of vendor from attendant circumstances – Grant of specific performance by First Appellate Court held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 15, 22–23].

Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Interference Justified – Though scope is limited, interference warranted where findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or ignore mandatory legal requirements – Present case falls within exception – High Court entitled to restore trial court decree [Para 23].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 of First Appellate Court set aside – Judgment and decree dated 03.12.2010 of Trial Court restored – Suit for specific performance dismissed, decree for recovery of ₹50,000/- upheld.

Hindu Law – Partition – Finality of Registered Partition – Reopening of Partition – Suit by widow and children of deceased coparcener – Challenge to registered partition deed and settlement deed executed during lifetime of deceased – Held: Partition once effected by free will and acted upon cannot be reopened unless fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or prejudice to minors is strictly pleaded and proved [Paras 30–33, 70–72].

Fraud – Pleading and Proof – Order VI Rule 4 CPC – Allegations of fraud, sham and collusion against registered deeds – Plaintiffs failed to plead material particulars or establish deception, concealment or misrepresentation – Mere use of expressions “fraudulent” or “collusive” insufficient in law – Held: Registered deeds cannot be invalidated on vague allegations [Paras 42–47, 70].

Registered Documents – Presumption of Validity – Partition Deed and Settlement Deed – Documents executed by educated deceased coparcener during his lifetime – Evidence showed conscious execution, free consent and subsequent acting upon deeds including mutation and revenue entries – Held: Strong presumption in favour of validity of registered documents not rebutted by plaintiffs [Paras 51–60, 66–67].

Joint Family Property – Distribution – Cash Allotment in Partition – Deceased coparcener received joint family cash in lieu of land share for business purposes – Inequality of shares by itself not ground to reopen partition – Held: Voluntary arrangement binding on parties and their successors [Paras 52–55, 65].

Minor’s Interest – Reopening of Partition – Protection of Minors – Plaintiffs failed to establish any detriment or prejudice to minor children arising out of partition or settlement – Evidence showed subsequent benefits conferred on minors by defendants – Held: No ground made out to reopen partition on plea of minor’s interest [Paras 48–50, 63, 70].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Pattadar Passbooks, Adangal, Title Deeds – Statutory presumption under Section 6 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act – Plaintiffs failed to rebut presumption – Held: Revenue records corroborated defendants’ possession and enjoyment pursuant to partition [Paras 66–67].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Findings of Fact – Trial court findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Held: First appellate court should not interfere with well-reasoned factual findings of trial court [Paras 71–73].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.06.2019 in O.S. No.12 of 2013 confirmed – Registered partition deed and settlement deed upheld – No order as to costs – All pending applications closed [Paras 74].

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].

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].