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]

Civil Law - Will Execution – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof Not Discharged – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff relied upon an unregistered Will dated 09.03.2009 allegedly executed by Santra Devi to claim ownership over her estate – The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the Will was not validly proved – The High Court affirmed this, finding serious contradictions in the statements of attesting witnesses and the scribe, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s own deposition – Held: Will execution was shrouded in suspicious circumstances which the plaintiff failed to adequately explain, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act [Paras 17-26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that while framing of substantial question of law is not required under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, existence of a legal question is still necessary – The appeal was found to merely seek re-appreciation of evidence already examined by the Lower Appellate Court – Held: No misreading or perverse appreciation of evidence found – Appeal not maintainable [Paras 16, 26-28].

Inconsistent Testimony – Role of Attesting Witnesses and Scribe – Will Disbelieved – The statements of attesting witnesses Ved Prakash and Raj Kumar as well as scribe Anil Kumar Srivastava were materially inconsistent with each other and the pleadings – The plaintiff himself contradicted his previous statements made during mutation proceedings – Held: Evidence on record failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court regarding the Will’s authenticity – Will rightly disbelieved [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Lower Appellate Court’s Findings Affirmed – The Court upheld the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and found no grounds to interfere – Held: Appeal stands dismissed [Para 28].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].
 

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants failed to show any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: High Court cannot re-evaluate findings of fact where concurrent findings of two courts exist and evidence has been properly appreciated [Paras 13-14, 22-23].

Execution of Promissory Note – Attestation and Proof – Consideration Established – Plaintiff established execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and passing of consideration through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the attestor – Held: Defendants failed to rebut presumption under Section 118 NI Act or produce contrary evidence [Paras 6, 16-17, 21-22].

Allegation of Forgery – No Proof or Expert Evidence – Defence Rejected – Appellants claimed Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated but did not take steps to send the document to handwriting expert or file police complaint – Held: Mere plea of forgery without substantiation is insufficient to displace legally presumed validity of promissory note [Paras 7, 15-17, 21-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Corroborative Evidence of Debt – Section 138 NI Act Proceedings – Plaintiff filed cheque bounce case as parallel enforcement of debt – Held: Issuance of cheque for partial discharge of debt supports claim of enforceable liability under promissory note [Paras 6(a), 16].

Legal Presumption – Section 118 NI Act – Rebuttable Only by Preponderance – Courts Reaffirm – Held: Plaintiff enjoys presumption of consideration and valid execution which can only be rebutted through cogent contrary evidence—mere denial insufficient [Paras 18-19, citing G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Both trial and appellate court decrees upheld – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage without costs [Para 23].

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Requirement of Application – Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act – Alimony Award Quashed - Family Court had awarded Rs.70 lakhs as permanent alimony to the respondent-wife without there being a specific application, either oral or written – Held: Though the law does not mandate a written application, the absence of any application or prayer in pleadings and failure to frame an issue or consider evidence renders the order unsustainable – The Court found that the Trial Court had not evaluated the parties’ incomes, financial capacities, or relevant parameters before awarding alimony [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.1, 4.7-5].

Equitable Relief – Parameters for Granting Alimony – Court Must Assess Financial Status and Conduct – Fresh Determination Ordered - The High Court emphasized that grant of alimony is discretionary and must be based on conduct of parties, duration of marriage, income, standard of living, and other circumstances – The Trial Court had failed to evaluate these aspects properly and relied on U.S. court orders without examining domestic evidence – Matter remanded to the Family Court to be decided afresh with direction to record oral and documentary evidence from both parties [Paras 4.5-6].

Appeal Outcome – Alimony Order Set Aside – Matter Remanded - The Gujarat High Court quashed the Family Court’s alimony order and remanded the matter for fresh determination within ten weeks – Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the quantum or entitlement to alimony, leaving that to the Family Court’s discretion after evidence is led [Paras 6, Final Order].
 

PIL – Civil - Town Planning – Section 21(4A) vs. Section 162 MRTP Act – Composite Draft Development Plan – State  Government Empowered – Petitioners challenged appointment of Respondent No.6 by the State under Section 162, arguing only the “concerned” officer under Section 21(4A) could prepare draft development plan following planning authority’s failure – Held: Though Section 21(4A) mandates specified officers, supervening events and consensus in contempt proceedings justified State’s action under Section 162— Appointment upheld [Paras 24–27, 36, 40–41]. 
 
Contempt Proceedings – Statement Accepted by Court – Later Challenge Not Barred – Liberty Preserved – Petitioners argued contempt order dated 03.08.2023 was breached—Court held SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ—Thus, petitioner was not barred from challenge, but no illegality found in State’s subsequent action [Paras 31–32, 36]. 
 
Change of Officer – Mere Replacement Not Illegal – No Vested Right to Continue – Petitioners objected to replacement of Respondent No.4 who had completed draft up to Section 25—Court found no right to continue for any officer—State’s decision to appoint Respondent No.6 valid under Section 162 in light of practical need for a composite plan [Paras 33–36]. 
 
Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioners Acted in Collusion – Accessed Sealed Draft Unlawfully – Court found petitioners accessed and relied on draft documents submitted under seal by Respondent No.4— Held: Conduct casts doubt on fairness—Petitioners failed to approach court with clean hands, undermining relief sought under Article 226 [Paras 37–38]. 
 
Decision – All Writ Petitions and PIL Dismissed – Rule Discharged – Composite Development Plan by Respondent No.6 Validated – Future Objections to be Addressed under MRTP Act Framework [Paras 40– 43]. 
 

Civil Law - Validity of Marriage – Arya Samaj Ceremonies – Presumption of Validity – Application Dismissed - The applicant contended that marriage with opposite party no. 2 performed at Arya Samaj Mandir was invalid and hence proceedings under Section 498A IPC were untenable – Court held that marriages performed as per Hindu rites (including Kanyadan, Panigrahan, and Saptapadi) at Arya Samaj Mandir are valid under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The Arya Samaj marriage certificate may lack statutory force but can be supported by testimony of Purohit – Held: Marriage not invalid on this basis, and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 4, 6–10, 17–19].

Dowry and Cruelty Allegations – No Requirement of Dowry Demand – Cruelty Alone Suffices - The applicant argued absence of dowry demand in FIR – Court relied on SC ruling in Aluri Venkata Ramana vs Aluri Thirupathi Rao that cruelty under Section 498A includes both physical/mental harassment and dowry-related harassment – Presence of cruelty alone sufficient to sustain charges – Held: Prima facie case made out; petition dismissed [Paras 20–21].

Evidentiary Value of Marriage Certificate – Not Determinative – Facts to be Proven at Trial - Court clarified that registration under U.P. Hindu Marriage Rules or U.P. Marriage Registration Rules may serve as prima facie evidence but not conclusive proof of marriage – Question of validity is factual and must be decided on evidence during trial – Held: Disputed factual issues inappropriate for resolution under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Application Dismissed – Valid Marriage Presumed and Cruelty Allegations Require Trial - The Court found no legal basis to quash proceedings under Section 498A IPC – Held: Alleged marriage fulfilled conditions of Hindu Marriage Act; cruelty allegations require factual determination during trial – Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Para 21].