Probate – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will Upheld – Appellant-objector (son of testator) challenged probate granted to respondent no. 1 alleging that the testator had already sold the property via documents dated 30.04.1998 – Trial court found Will dated 14.09.1998 valid and genuine – Appellant failed to prove due execution or consideration of sale documents – Held: Execution of registered Will proved through attesting witnesses – No concrete suspicious circumstances established – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 19-24]

Indian Succession Act – Burden of Proof – Attesting Witnesses – Proof of Will – Petitioner examined two attesting witnesses and official from Sub-Registrar’s office – Will was registered and read over to the testator in his vernacular – Testator was in sound mind – Held: Statutory requirements of Section 63 of ISA and Section 68 of Evidence Act fulfilled – No material infirmity found in witness testimony to invalidate Will [Paras 10-12]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 53-A – Protection of Possession – Claim Rejected – Appellant relied on agreement to sell, power of attorney, and other documents dated 30.04.1998 – Admitted no registered sale deed and no proof of payment of ₹1,00,000 consideration – Held: Unregistered sale documents confer no title – No right to prevent testator from executing Will – Appellant failed to establish claim under Section 53-A TPA [Paras 6, 23]

Family Dispute – Disinheritance – Testamentary Intention – Evidence showed strained relations between testator and appellant – Testator disowned appellant in the Will, citing reasons such as misconduct, refusal to pay maintenance, and legal harassment – Held: Will reflected clear, conscious intent to exclude appellant – Presence of family discord did not create suspicious circumstance – Supported by mother and sister of appellant who raised no objection [Paras 11, 24]

Suspicious Circumstances – Mere Presence of Beneficiary – Inconsistent Witness Statements – Held: Mere presence of beneficiary during execution or registration of Will not suspicious per se – Inconsistencies in witness deposition regarding mode of travel and drafting sequence immaterial – Appellant failed to plead or prove undue influence or coercion – Burden not discharged [Paras 19, 22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment granting probate upheld – No infirmity found in trial court's findings – Pending applications closed [Paras 25, 26]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Matrimonial Dispute – Attempt to Murder – Petitioner-husband sought quashing of Sessions Case No.20 of 2024 under Sections 324, 326, 307 IPC on the basis of compromise deed with wife (Respondent No.3), the complainant – Allegations related to physical assault with knife – Chargesheet filed, but during trial parties amicably settled the matter through mediation and executed compromise on 11.08.2025 – Held: Though offence under Section 307 IPC is serious and non-compoundable, Court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC where parties settle disputes of personal nature voluntarily – No public interest involved – Allegations arose from domestic quarrel with no premeditated intent – Proceedings quashed to secure ends of justice and restore peace between spouses [Paras 2–4, 7–11].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Offences of personal nature – Reliance placed on Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 10 SCC 303 and Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. (2025) 4 SCC 78 – Court noted that many domestic disputes are wrongly escalated under Section 307 IPC – In the present case, compromise was genuine, voluntary and aimed at rebuilding marital relationship – Continuation of proceedings would be counterproductive – Held: High Court's inherent power can be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure justice [Paras 9–11].

Decision: Sessions Case No. 20 of 2024 under Sections 324/326/307 IPC pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Shillong, quashed – Criminal petition allowed [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping a 14-year-old girl in her bathroom during early hours of the morning – Testimony of prosecutrix consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Birth records and witness statements proved she was below 16 years – Held: Conviction sustainable as consent is immaterial in case of minor – No ground to interfere with findings of trial court [Paras 2, 7–10].

Testimony of Prosecutrix – Evidentiary Value – Court held that conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if found credible – Minor contradictions do not weaken the prosecution’s case – Her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in FIR were consistent – Supreme Court precedents followed on sufficiency of sole testimony [Paras 9–10].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – Birth certificate from MCD and testimony of mother confirmed victim was 14 years old – Defence claim of majority rejected – Court reiterated that consent of minor under 16 is legally irrelevant – Legal bar on consent fully attracted [Para 8].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – MLC showed torn hymen, FSL confirmed presence of semen on vaginal swabs – No external injuries found but held not essential to prove rape – Conviction justified based on reliable ocular and medical evidence – Absence of injury not fatal [Para 11].

Sentencing – Modification on Grounds of Reform – Appellant had undergone more than 5 years of sentence with good jail conduct – No misuse of liberty during appeal – Considering 16-year gap since incident and his family responsibilities, sentence modified to period already undergone – Court emphasised rehabilitative justice – Conviction maintained [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Directions issued for communication to trial court and jail authorities [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Rape – Age of Victim Not Proven – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act – Birth certificate (Exhibit P8) obtained on court order shortly before complaint, with no production of the court order or supporting documents under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – No school admission register or SSLC marks card produced – Medical officer failed to conduct ossification test or comply with Section 164A CrPC – Parents of victim admitted ignorance of her birth date – Held: Age determination failed statutory standards under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Delay in Filing Complaint – Alleged repeated intercourse on promise of marriage – Complaint lodged after two-year delay – Medical report confirmed absence of signs of recent assault – Victim's own statement indicated consensual relationship – Held: No evidence of force or coercion – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not satisfied – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC not sustainable [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial – Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to follow procedures for determining age or gathering admissible evidence – No application filed under Section 173(8) CrPC for additional documents post-charge sheet – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court’s conviction based on inadequate appreciation of evidence set aside [Paras 16–19, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Bail – Attempt to Murder – KCOCA – Bail rejected for Accused Nos.3 and 4 – Petitioners alleged to have assaulted CW.2 with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries – Seizure of blood-stained dagger and cricket bat from petitioners confirmed by FSL report – CCTV footage corroborates incident – Petitioners involved in multiple prior criminal cases and are registered rowdy sheeters – Held: Prima facie case established against petitioners – Threat to witnesses if enlarged on bail – Bail denied [Paras 12–16]

Confessional Statement – Section 19 KCOCA – Validity of Confession – Petitioners challenged admissibility of confession recorded by DCP under Section 19 of KCOCA – Court held that in Bengaluru, DCP holds rank equivalent to Superintendent of Police – Confession held admissible under Section 19 – Challenge rejected [Para 13]

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Petitioners in custody for over 1½ years – Contended trial yet to commence – Cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 – Court distinguished case based on gravity of offences, evidence, and antecedents – Held: Nature of crime and threat to witnesses outweigh prolonged custody – Bail cannot be granted solely on basis of delay [Paras 3, 16]

Organised Crime – Applicability of KCOCA – Petitioners argued they were not members of organised crime syndicate – Court found sufficient material including overt acts, seizure of weapons, identification by witnesses, and involvement in previous cases – Held: Prima facie ingredients under KCOCA met – Bail rightly refused [Paras 3, 14–16]

Judicial Reasoning – Rejection of Bail – Courts must weigh nature of offence, evidence, and potential threat to witnesses – Prior criminal record relevant – Cited Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – Held: Bail to be denied when antecedents and facts indicate possibility of interference with justice [Para 15]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioners failed to make out any ground – Threat to witnesses and seriousness of offence considered.

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

Arbitration Law – Contract Interpretation – Rebate for Damaged Buses – Petitioner claimed rebate for 966 damaged buses – Held: The contract was for the "fleet" of buses available, not necessarily buses actually plying. Clause 1.1.1 of Schedule-VI specifically stated that 100% of buses may not be on road due to maintenance and no claims could be raised. The Arbitrator's interpretation that no rebate was contractually due is a plausible view and does not warrant interference under Section 34. [Paras 30-33]

Arbitration Law – Public Policy – Interest on Interest – Respondent claimed interest on delayed payment charges – Held: The contract provided for delayed payment charges (which are essentially penal interest). Awarding further 18% interest on these charges amounts to "interest on interest" and is ambiguous/confusing under the contract terms. Such an award is contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law and is set aside. [Paras 44-47]

Contract Law – Penalty vs. Reasonable Compensation – Defacement Charges – Section 74 Contract Act – Respondent claimed penalty of Rs. 1000/day/bus for non-removal of ads – Held: The stipulated amount was a penalty. The Respondent failed to prove actual loss or expenditure incurred for removing advertisements. Awarding the entire penalty amount without proof of loss violates Section 74 of the Contract Act and the ratio in Kailash Nath Associates. Award set aside on this count. [Paras 60-63]

Decision: Petition partly allowed. Award modified: Counter-claims for interest on delayed payments and defacement charges set aside. Award for RTO fees confirmed. Costs reduced. [Para 67]

Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution alleged accused abused complainant by caste and assaulted him – Held: There were material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses regarding the presence of accused and the weapon used. The FIR did not name the first accused. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal upheld. [Paras 8.1-8.3, 10]

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(1)(10) – Insult/Intimidation – Held: Every insult or intimidation does not amount to an offence under the Atrocities Act unless it is directed at the victim because they are a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Mere utterance of indecent words without the specific intent related to caste does not constitute the offence. [Para 8.4-8.5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed. [Para 18]