Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].
 

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intention vs. Nature of Injuries – Conviction Upheld – Multiple injured sustained firearm and incised wounds on vital parts; even if injuries not “sufficient in ordinary course of nature” to cause death, intention of assailants decisive – Courts relied on SC precedents clarifying that minor or non-fatal injuries do not exclude Section 307 – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-36].

Self-Defence – Injuries to Deceased Accused Explained – Evidence showed deceased Lallan Singh fired first, causing firearm injuries; when he attempted to reload, prosecution witnesses disarmed and assaulted him, causing fatal injuries – Held: Prosecution explained injuries to accused; appellants were aggressors – Plea of self-defence rejected [Paras 37-40].

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – PW2 (injured) found reliable despite delay in recording statement; corroborated by medical evidence – PW1 and PW3 also consistent – Minor inability to assign specific roles in group assault not fatal – Testimonies accepted [Paras 41-45].

Sentencing – Leniency by Trial Court – Ten Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment – Sentence Upheld – Though Section 307 permits life imprisonment, trial court awarded 10 years; considering gravity of crime, assault on six victims with lethal weapons, sentence held appropriate despite passage of 40 years and old age of surviving appellants – Appeal dismissed [Paras 46-51].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellants under Sections 307/149, 147, 148 IPC upheld; appellants on bail directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Paras 51-53].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against conviction - Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Confession Voluntarily Made – Conviction Upheld – Appellant confessed to killing his wife before village chowkidar and other witnesses, then surrendered at the police station with blood-stained Gandasa and a country-made pistol – Such conduct falls under Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Supported by forensic evidence showing human blood on the weapon and clothes – Held: Extra-judicial confession corroborated by surrounding circumstances and forensic evidence is reliable and valid for conviction [Paras 3-9, 35-37, 43-48, 56-58].

Prompt FIR – Importance in Criminal Trial – FIR Lodged by Chowkidar – Validity Maintained – FIR lodged within two hours of the incident by the village chowkidar on oral information received – Head constable corroborated the lodging of FIR – Despite the chowkidar turning hostile, the court accepted the FIR as valid and prompt – Held: Timely FIR lends credibility to the prosecution case and cannot be discarded due to hostility of informant if otherwise corroborated [Paras 4-6, 37-38, 50, 53-54, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Forensic Corroboration – Conviction Based on Chain of Events – Deceased was last seen with the appellant, and appellant was seen returning alone – Appellant admitted guilt and provided murder weapon and clothes stained with blood – Forensic reports confirmed human blood on items – Held: Circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 9-14, 35-36, 43-47].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Partial Testimony – Acceptance of Supporting Depositions – Several prosecution witnesses including complainant and key witnesses turned hostile – However, relevant portions consistent with prosecution’s case accepted by the court – Held: Hostility does not invalidate entire testimony; courts may rely on corroborative parts [Paras 20-22, 51-55].

Refusal to Provide Signature – Adverse Inference – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Accused refused to provide specimen signature to verify written confession – Held: Refusal permits drawing adverse inference against the accused, particularly when confession and recovery of incriminating material stand otherwise proved [Paras 47-48].

Police Witness Testimony – Reliability – Admissible When Trustworthy – Recovery memos and confessional reports prepared in presence of police officers found consistent and truthful – Courts held that police testimony, if credible, can form basis of conviction – Held: No requirement that police witness must be independently corroborated in every case [Paras 25-28, 40-42].

Decision – Conviction confirmed – Appeal dismissed – High Court held that the trial court rightly convicted the accused based on extra-judicial confession, forensic evidence, and circumstantial facts – Accused directed to surrender and undergo life imprisonment as sentenced [Paras 61-62].
 

Life Imprisonment – No Automatic End at 20 Years – Remission Must Be by Government – Petition Dismissed - The Court clarified that life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life – Rule 320(A) and Section 57 IPC cannot reduce the sentence to a fixed term – Remission requires specific order under Section 432 CrPC – No indefeasible right arises without such remission [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Remission – Rule 320 Prison Rules Not Sufficient – Requires CrPC Compliance – Policy of 2018 Not Applicable - Remission under Rule 320 cannot operate autonomously to secure release – Government must exercise power under Section 432 with procedural checks – G.O.Ms.No.8 bars remission for death convicts whose sentence was commuted and those convicted of offences against minors – Petitioner’s father falls under both categories [Paras 24-26, 34-36].

Applicability of Remission Policy – Law at Time of Commutation Applicable – Not at Sentencing – Clarified - Court rejected argument that remission policy applicable at time of conviction (1995) should govern consideration – Held: Relevant date is the commutation of sentence (1998) when remission became relevant [Paras 35-36].

Parole – Must Be Considered Fairly – No Absolute Bar – Case Referred Back - Though past parole requests were rejected citing threat and staff shortage, Court found no incident occurred during four prior paroles – Directed respondents to consider parole on par with similarly situated prisoners per Asfaq guidelines [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Liberty to Apply for Remission under Section 432 – Parole to Be Considered - Writ petition dismissed but liberty granted to file application under Section 432 CrPC – State to assess eligibility as per law and prevailing policy – Any parole application to be judged in light of reformative jurisprudence and fairness [Paras 41-42]

Education Law – Distance Education Degrees – Cut-off Dates Declared Invalid – Earlier judgment had prescribed 29.03.2010 (Deemed/Private Institutions) and 01.11.2012 (State Universities) as cut-off dates for recognition – Held: Such cut-off dates arbitrary, violate Article 21A and right to education – No evidence of irregularities at study centres or exams conducted – Academic qualifications obtained via distance mode upheld, subject to verification of affiliations and academic quality by UGC [Paras 32–34, 45–47].

Right to Education – Article 21A – Access to Distance Learning – Constitutional Protection – Held: Territorial restrictions imposed on examination/study centres of universities offering distance education defeat accessibility – Students cannot be denied educational and promotional opportunities due to administrative policies contrary to the core principles of remote education – Online and remote education valid where universities are duly recognized by UGC and maintain academic standards [Paras 31–33, 39–42].

UGC Guidelines – No Blanket Ban on Centres Outside Territorial Jurisdiction – Notifications Quashed – Held: Guidelines issued in 2010 and 2012 by DEC/UGC imposing jurisdictional limits on study centres held irrational – UGC failed to contest the writ petitions and did not appeal—Deemed to have acquiesced – Notifications (Annexures P-51 & P-53) quashed to extent they restrict operation of remote centres without UGC approval [Paras 21–30, 45].

Judicial Review – UGC’s Non-participation – Consequences – Held: In multiple LPAs, UGC was impleaded but failed to respond or contest the case—Its silence amounts to waiver and acquiescence to the directions issued – Argument of violation of natural justice rejected [Paras 15–18, 21].

Administrative Law – Degree Verification by Government Departments – Direction Issued – Held: While blanket cut-off dates quashed, recognition of degrees still subject to verification of institutional recognition, programme-wise recognition, and compliance with UGC norms—Verification to be done by government/UGC on case-to-case basis [Paras 44–46, 48].

Employment Law – Right to Consideration for Appointment/Promotion – Distance Degrees Not a Bar – Held: Unless degree is essential qualification and found invalid on verification, candidates cannot be denied regularization or promotion merely due to acquisition of qualification through distance mode – Distinction made between core and additional qualifications [Paras 40–43, 48–49].

Decision:
LPA-2003-2019 allowed – Cut-off dates and UGC notifications quashed
LPAs filed by State of Punjab disposed of – State directed to consider claims without relying on cut-off dates, subject to verification
CWP Nos. 2438 and 27015 of 2021 disposed of – Directions issued for consideration of appointment
LPA-1105-2021 allowed – Matter remanded for fresh decision without applying cut-off dates
LPA-450-2021 dismissed – Disputed factual issue; liberty granted to petitioner to seek civil remedies
Directions for UGC and Government – To verify institutional recognition, ensure academic standards, and provide proper invigilation in exams at centres outside university HQs [Paras 44–52].
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing FIR – Co-Accused’s Statement – Premature to Interfere – Applicant named in liquor seizure case solely based on co-accused’s statement – Held: Statement under Section 10 of Evidence Act relevant during investigation though inadmissible at trial – At FIR stage, admissibility not determinative – Court cannot scuttle investigation prematurely under Section 482 CrPC – No abuse of process made out [Paras 6–8, 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Interference in Ongoing Investigation Discouraged – Referring to Skoda Auto Volkswagen v. State of U.P., and Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in quashing FIRs unless allegations are palpably absurd – Investigation not concluded, charge-sheet not filed – Petition dismissed as premature [Paras 10–12].

Evidence Law – Statement of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence but Investigative Lead – Held: Co-accused statement inadmissible unless corroborated, yet it can serve as clue to launch investigation – Decision in Mansing Shakarlal Mina v. State of Gujarat affirmed – Final determination on evidentiary value lies at trial stage, not FIR stage [Paras 6–10].

Criminal Investigation – Prior Antecedents Considered – Applicant had 22 previous cases – Held: Criminal history reinforces need for thorough investigation before considering quashment – No basis for presuming malice or false implication at this juncture [Para 6].

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Interim relief vacated – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek remedy post-charge-sheet, if solely based on inadmissible evidence [Paras 12–14].

PIL - Public Prosecutors – Appointment and Consultation – Primacy of District Judge’s Opinion – Rules of 1978 Inapplicable - The Court held that the appointment of Public Prosecutors under Section 24(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 18(3) BNSS) is governed exclusively by statutory provisions and not by the Kerala Government Law Officers Rules of 1978, which apply only to civil posts – Public Prosecutors do not hold civil posts and hence fall outside the purview of the Rules – The CrPC/BNSS mandates consultation with the Sessions Judge whose opinion must be given primacy in the selection process [Paras 7–12, 15–19].

Vacancies – Delay in Appointments – Duty of the State – Protocol Required - The Court expressed serious concern over delays in appointing Public Prosecutors and failure to create posts in newly established courts – Directed the State to formulate and follow a protocol for timely appointment – Court reserved the right to revive the petition in case of non-compliance [Paras 21–23, 24.3].

Judicial Review – Arbitrary Appointments – Guidelines Must Align with Law – The Court held that any executive guidelines which dilute the statutory consultative requirement or deviate from the law laid down by the Supreme Court would be invalid – Mandated formulation of new internal guidelines giving primacy to the opinion of District Judges [Paras 20, 24.2].

Decision – Suo Motu PIL Closed with Directions – The Court closed the suo motu proceedings with explicit directions for the State to issue revised guidelines for appointments and protocols for prompt filling of vacancies – Liberty granted to revive the petition if future violations occur [Paras 24–26].
 

Banking Law – Fraudulent Withdrawal – Liability of Bank – Plaintiff firm’s Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs prematurely discharged within days of opening – Amounts fraudulently transferred to a current account falsely opened in plaintiff’s name by impersonation – Original FD receipts recovered from Bank custody – Trial Court decreed Rs. 39,67,922/- with interest and costs – Defendant Bank’s appeal dismissed – Held: Acts were committed in regular course of banking business by Branch Manager, thus Bank vicariously liable – Plaintiff not required to implead Branch Manager personally – Service rules of Bank do not bind customers – Suit for damages lies against the Bank [Paras 1, 18–20, 27, 31–36, 38].

Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Trial Court compared signatures of Branch Manager across documents and found similarity – Challenge by Bank rejected – Held: Section 73 empowers court to compare handwriting on admitted documents – Court is the ‘expert of experts’ – No need to refer to handwriting expert in such case – No legal infirmity in Trial Judge’s approach [Paras 22–26].

Fraud – Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Bank argued fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rejected – Held: In civil proceedings, standard is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Evidence indicated gross negligence and collusion by Bank employees – Even if fraud not established beyond doubt, Bank’s conduct went beyond negligence and into realm of fraud [Paras 27, 30–34].

Vicarious Liability – Acts within Course of Employment – Branch Manager acted within scope of authority and regular banking functions – Held: Bank liable for fraud/acts of negligence committed by its officer during official duties – Reaffirmed that recourse against employee lies with Bank, not with customer – Citing Smt. Shyama Devi v. SBI inapplicable where act took place within bank premises and regular course [Paras 20, 34–35, 37–38].

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Bank argued Branch Manager was necessary party – Rejected – Held: Dispute is between customer and Bank – Branch Manager acted as agent of Bank – No relief claimed against Manager personally – Suit maintainable against Bank alone [Paras 11, 36].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court found no error in Trial Court’s fact-finding or legal conclusions – Affirmed decree with minor modifications regarding disbursement of decretal amount and additional interest – Held: No ground for interference where judgment is well-reasoned and lawful [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree upheld – Bank directed to pay balance interest within 90 days failing which additional interest at 8% p.a. on such balance interest will apply – Bank Guarantee to be encashed and proceeds handed to plaintiff [Paras 41–44].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].