Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Appeal Allowed – Acquittal - Appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC for killing victim Pratap Mondal—Prosecution case rested on prior enmity, recovery of tangi (axe) at instance of accused, and last-seen theory from PW-4—High Court found no eyewitnesses, last-seen evidence unreliable due to contradictions, hostile witnesses undermining prosecution, and no forensic link between seized weapon and crime—Motive not established—Chain of circumstances incomplete; benefit of doubt extended—Conviction and life sentence set aside; appellants acquitted [Paras 18-27, 40-42].

Last-Seen Theory – Court held that time gap between alleged sighting and discovery of body was significant; PW-4’s version contradicted by his own prior statement—Such evidence insufficient without corroboration [Paras 22-24].

Recovery of Weapon – Seizure of tangi from pond at instance of accused lacked evidentiary value; no blood or forensic proof linking weapon to offence [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeals allowed; judgment of conviction in Sessions Trial No. 1(4)/2016 dated 23.09.2021 set aside; appellants to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Para 42

RERA Appeal – Pre-deposit Requirement – Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Appeal Dismissed – The Appellant Welfare Society challenged the RERA Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of its appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit mandate, arguing that it was not a "promoter" under the Act – Held: Constitutional validity of Section 43(5) already upheld by the Supreme Court – Non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit justified dismissal of appeal [Paras 1-2, 26].

Definition of "Promoter" – Applicability to Welfare Societies – Section 2(zk) of RERA Act – Expansive Scope – The Court held that the definition of "promoter" is wide enough to include welfare societies, co-operative housing societies, and other juristic persons acquiring land for development of residential flats for members – Profit motive not essential – Legislative intent is to regulate construction and protect homebuyers, even where development is for members only [Paras 11-22].

Societies as Juristic Persons – Section 6 of Societies Registration Act – Welfare society is a "body corporate" capable of owning property, allotting land to members, and falling within the definition of "person" under Section 2(zg) of RERA Act – Thus, appellant society covered under "promoter" definition despite not yet constructing apartments [Paras 16-20, 23-24].

Precedent – Interim Orders – No Binding Effect – The appellant relied on an interim stay in a connected matter – Held: Interim orders do not have precedential value and cannot override statutory requirements [Para 25].

Decision – Appeal dismissed in limine for non-compliance with Section 43(5) and appellant held to be a "promoter" under RERA Act [Para 26].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Withdrawal by Plaintiff – Order 23 Rule 1 CPC – Memo to Withdraw Dismissed – In a family partition dispute, plaintiff sought withdrawal of suit after 11 years, citing settlement and acceptance of prior partition deed – Respondents 1 & 2, legal heirs of original defendants, objected, asserting right to seek share – Trial Court, relying on Division Bench ruling in Smt. Gowramma v. Nanjappa, held plaintiff and defendants in partition suits stand on equal footing and withdrawal cannot defeat defendants’ claim – Allowed objecting defendants to be transposed as plaintiffs – High Court upheld, reiterating settled law that any defendant in a partition suit claiming share is deemed a co-plaintiff, entitled to continue suit if plaintiff withdraws – No perversity or legal infirmity in impugned order – Revision dismissed [Paras 8-19].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants convicted under Sections 302, 120B IPC for murdering railway employee Hanuman Rai in his quarter—Prosecution relied entirely on circumstantial evidence: CCTV footage placing accused near crime scene, CDR/SDR data showing last call from accused Mobarak to victim minutes before phone switched off, recovery of victim’s OPPO mobile from co-accused Jakir, matching blue shirt button found at scene with Mobarak’s shirt, and medical evidence of manual and ligature strangulation—Motive proved through blackmail over homosexual relationship—Court held chain of circumstances complete, electronic evidence lawfully admitted under Section 65B Evidence Act, and recoveries admissible under discovery rule—Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 10-27].

Electronic Evidence – Admissibility – CDRs and SDRs supported by Section 65B(4) certificate, authenticated by telecom nodal officers—Cell tower location data corroborated presence of accused at crime scene—Combined with CCTV footage and recovery evidence, formed conclusive link to guilt [Paras 22-25].

Motive – Revenge Against Blackmail – Evidence showed accused Mobarak was repeatedly coerced into sexual acts by victim and blackmailed with obscene videos—Motive found credible and consistent with sequence of events [Paras 17-18, 26].

Decision – Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence under Sections 302/120B IPC affirmed; no interference warranted [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault on Minor – Conviction Under Section 6 POCSO – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged his conviction under Sections 363/367/323/342/506/377 IPC and Section 6 POCSO on grounds of inconsistencies in timelines and lack of recovery – Held: Testimony of the 9-year-old victim was clear, cogent, and consistent – Independent eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical evidence supported both the victim’s and the accused’s injuries – Appeal dismissed and conviction upheld [Paras 1–3, 7–8].

Victim Testimony – Child Witness Statement Found Reliable – Court Reiterates Evidentiary Value – The child’s detailed account of the assault, his abduction, and threats by the accused were consistent with his initial statement and trial deposition – Court held child’s testimony was truthful and supported by eyewitnesses Seema (PW3), Lakshan Rana (PW4), and Bhawna Sharma (PW2) – No reason found to doubt veracity [Paras 6–7].

Inconsistencies in Timelines – Not Fatal to Prosecution – Minor Discrepancies Explained – The appellant contended that variations in witness accounts regarding time of incident undermined credibility – Court held that minor discrepancies are natural in traumatic incidents and do not affect core prosecution case – Alleged delay in DD entry irrelevant in light of overwhelming evidence [Para 6].

Applicability of POCSO – Section 6 Properly Invoked – Ingredients Met – Court held that evidence on record established penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(a) and Section 5(m) of POCSO – The presumption under Section 29 stood unrebutted by the defence – Argument that Section 6 was not attracted found to be specious and rejected [Paras 7].

Medical Evidence – MLC Corroborates Allegations – Physical Injuries on Victim and Accused – MLC of victim revealed injuries to face and chest, consistent with assault – Accused’s MLC also reflected injuries from public apprehension – Court held medical reports reinforced credibility of prosecution witnesses and sequence of events [Para 7].

Decision  – Sentences Upheld – Appellant to Undergo Concurrent Imprisonment – Court upheld rigorous imprisonment of 10 years each under Section 377 IPC and Section 6 POCSO – Additional sentences under other IPC sections to run concurrently – Benefit of Section 428 CrPC retained – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of GR Case No. 1569 of 2023 arising from complaint by wife alleging physical and mental cruelty—FIR contained no dowry demand but alleged assault and neglect—Court held that FIR is not required to detail every incident; absence of wife’s presence in proceedings and petitioner’s inability to serve her notices suggested possible neglect—Though some arguments favoured petitioner, quashing not proper under Section 482 CrPC at this stage—Liberty given to raise all points at charge-framing before Trial Court [Paras 2, 4, 6-7].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Court reiterated that jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process—Quashing permissible only when FIR fails to disclose any cognizable offence—Neglect of spouse and children may, prima facie, amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC depending on evidence [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Criminal revision dismissed; liberty granted to petitioner to agitate defences before Trial Court at charge-framing; no costs; interim orders vacated [Para 8].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Disciplinary Proceedings Based Solely on Police Confession – Dismissal Set Aside – Petitioner, a bank employee, was dismissed from service for alleged involvement in fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 55.20 lakhs – The disciplinary authority relied solely on a confessional statement made to the police and a prosecution witness referencing that confession – No independent evidence was produced in support of the charges – Held: Findings based solely on such statements do not meet the standard of “preponderance of probability” in departmental proceedings – The punishment order suffers from legal infirmity and was quashed – Petitioner entitled to continuity in service and 25% back wages – Respondents may initiate fresh proceedings or await the outcome of the pending criminal trial [Paras 1, 27-36].

Departmental Proceedings – Reliance on Confession to Police – Not Sufficient Without Independent Corroboration – Charges were proved solely on the basis of petitioner’s alleged confession during police investigation and the testimony of a witness affirming the same – Held: Confession before police, without independent corroborative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for departmental punishment – The proceedings were rendered unsustainable [Paras 27-34].

Natural Justice – Non-Consideration of Objections – Clause 12(c) of Settlement – Procedural Non-Compliance – Disciplinary authority failed to meaningfully consider objections filed by petitioner in response to the proposed punishment and failed to independently assess the evidence on record – Held: The earlier direction of the High Court requiring detailed consideration of objections and findings of the inquiry report was not complied with in spirit – Order suffers from procedural infirmity [Paras 19, 26-28].

Preponderance of Probability – No Supporting Evidence – Departmental Proceedings Must Be Based on Some Probative Material – Merely relying on statements recorded during criminal investigation does not fulfill even the civil standard of proof – Held: In absence of material evidence indicating petitioner’s involvement, charges could not be treated as proved – Findings of guilt not sustainable [Paras 29-31].

Proportionality of Punishment – Other Accused Given Minor or No Punishment – Disproportionate Action Against Petitioner – Other officials allegedly involved were either not punished or awarded minor penalties – Held: Imposition of harsh penalty of dismissal without cogent proof or uniformity in treatment is arbitrary and disproportionate – Violates principles of equality and fairness [Para 21].

Final Relief – Dismissal Set Aside – Partial Back Wages Granted – Petitioner to be Treated in Continuous Service – Held: Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal and appellate rejection quashed – Petitioner entitled to continuity of service with 25% back wages – Respondents at liberty to proceed afresh or await criminal trial’s outcome [Paras 35-36].

Civil Law – Declaration and Injunction – Allegation of Fraudulent Decree – Appeal against dismissal of suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by legal heirs of Rugha Ram dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed that Rugha Ram, being of weak mental health, was defrauded into a mutual oral exchange of land for a house – Courts below held no evidence was adduced to prove mental incapacity or fraud – Plaintiffs also failed to implead key person (Mani Ram) in possession of disputed property or summon him as witness – Held: No illegality or perversity in concurrent findings of Courts below – No interference warranted [Paras 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs alleged that decree dated 01.05.1991 was obtained by fraud on mentally weak Rugha Ram – No evidence produced to support allegation of mental weakness or fraud – Plaintiffs failed to discharge burden of proof – Court emphasized that plaintiffs must stand on their own legs to prove fraud, which they failed to do [Paras 5, 7].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Mani Ram, in possession of house as per plaintiffs’ claim, neither impleaded as party nor examined as witness – Court held this failure further weakened the plaintiffs' case – Held: Material witness not examined, undermining plaintiffs' narrative [Para 8].

Res Judicata – Suit challenging validity of earlier decree filed after long delay – No challenge raised by Rugha Ram during his lifetime – Courts found that validity of 1991 decree could not be questioned decades later without proper justification – Plaintiffs estopped from re-agitating settled matter [Para 7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments and decrees of Courts below upheld – No merit in allegations of fraud – No interference warranted [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Bail - Terrorism Case – Bengaluru Riots of 11.08.2020 – Bail Rejected – Sections 16, 18, 20 UAP Act – Accused Nos. 6 & 20 alleged to have conspired, mobilized mobs, vandalized police station, burnt vehicles, and attacked police personnel – Earlier bail rejections upheld by High Court and Supreme Court – Contention of delay in trial and contradictions in witness statements rejected – Court found accused engaged in abuse of process by filing successive bail/discharge pleas to stall trial – Delay attributable to accused, not prosecution – No change in circumstances to warrant bail [Paras 4–15].

Plea of Parity with Co-accused Sentenced to 7 Years on Guilty Plea – Not Applicable – Accused had not pleaded guilty or shown remorse unlike co-accused Nos. 14, 16, 18 – Possible punishment under Section 16 UAP Act includes life imprisonment/death – Premature to assume same sentence – Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb distinguished – Risk to society considered – Bail denied [Paras 16–19].