Criminal Law – Murder - Unlawful Assembly – Formation of Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Accused persons, all armed with firearms, engaged in abusive conduct while passing the victims’ house and, upon being confronted, opened indiscriminate fire causing multiple injuries and two fatalities – Held: The unlawful assembly came into existence the moment firing began – The conduct, presence, and nature of arms carried by the accused established their shared object to commit the offence – Prosecution evidence consistent and reliable – Conviction under Sections 147, 148, 149/302, and 149/307 IPC rightly recorded [Paras 26-36]. 
 
Delayed FIR – Explanation and Consequence – FIR registered nearly 6.5 hours after incident – Informant carried injured to police station 10–12 km away in a tractor-trolley – Written report prepared promptly and submitted upon arrival – Held: Delay satisfactorily explained – No adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26-27]. 
 
Testimony of Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Reliability Affirmed – Injured eyewitnesses PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 corroborated prosecution case – Medical evidence supported injury reports – Hostile witnesses did not deny incident – Held: Testimonies of injured witnesses credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve them [Paras 36]. 
 
No Recovery – Effect on Conviction – Weapons Not Recovered from Appellants – Defence raised doubt due to lack of recovery and specific overt acts – Held: Non-recovery not fatal – Participation in unlawful assembly and role in indiscriminate firing sufficient to uphold conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 20-21, 36]. 
 
Common Object – Inference from Conduct – Sections 141 and 149 IPC – Applicability Established – Court reaffirmed legal position that common object can develop on the spot – No requirement of prior meeting of minds – Assembly became unlawful upon firing – Armed nature and conduct at scene sufficient to establish shared object [Paras 28-33]. 
 
Appeals – Dismissal – Conviction and Sentences Affirmed – Court found no merit in the appeals – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Appellants directed to undergo sentence – Bail of two appellants cancelled and custody ordered [Paras 37-39]. 
 

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Section 378(3) CrPC – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of accused under Sections 307, 323, and 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC – The High Court held that the trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and well-reasoned – No perversity found warranting interference – Held: Government appeal dismissed [Paras 16-21, 30-31].

Common Intention – Requirement of Pre-Arranged Plan – Section 34 IPC – No Evidence of Pre-Meditation – The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations without attribution of specific roles or proof of pre-arranged plan are insufficient to invoke Section 34 IPC – Absence of direct evidence against the surviving accused negated liability under common intention – Held: Acquittal justified [Paras 15, 23-29].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Corroboration – Non-Matching Injuries – Discrepancy in Prosecution Story – The first informant alleged injuries by lathis, but medical records showed no such injuries or examination – Only one superficial injury found on another victim – No witness identified the assailant – Held: Medical evidence failed to support prosecution version [Paras 24-26].

Parity of Legal Precedents – Mahbub Shah v. Emperor Applied – Distinction Between Similar Intention and Common Intention – The Court relied on Mahbub Shah (AIR 1945 PC 118) to underscore that mere similar intentions cannot substitute for common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held: Inference of common intention must be based on necessary evidence and not assumptions [Para 28].

Standard of Review – Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Judicial Restraint Reiterated – The Court reiterated the principle that appellate interference in acquittal must be based on clear perversity, manifest error, or unsustainable findings – Held: Trial court's judgment reflected a fair and plausible view, hence no interference warranted [Paras 16-21, 30].

Civil Law - Child Custody – Paramount Consideration of Welfare – Father's Custody Refused – Despite being acquitted of wife's alleged murder, the father was denied custody of the minor son – Court prioritized the child's welfare, observing emotional trauma and the minor's expressed unwillingness to reside with the father – Reiterated that guardianship rights cannot override welfare of the child [Paras 24-25, 36-43].

Natural Guardian – Not Entitled as of Right – G.W. Act – Welfare Overrides Guardianship – The appellant, though the natural guardian, was denied custody as the court emphasized that natural guardianship does not guarantee custody when contrary to the minor’s interest and well-being [Paras 28-29, 48-50].

Preference of the Minor – Significant Factor – Refusal to Stay with Father – The minor had deposed against the father in a murder case and persistently refused to live with him – Held: Minor’s opinion, being of intelligent age and under trauma, must be given due weight [Paras 40-43, 54-55].

Pending Criminal Appeal – Impact on Custody – Custody Denied Despite Acquittal – The father’s acquittal in a criminal case was not considered conclusive – Pending appeal and child’s testimony in earlier proceedings continued to weigh against granting custody [Paras 25, 34-35, 39].

Decision – Custody to Continue with Maternal Grandparents – Custody rightly continued with the maternal family – Court held that the overall development, education, emotional safety, and well-being of the child was better served with the respondents – Appeal dismissed [Paras 33, 46-47, 52-53].

Criminal Law – Release of Seizure of Cash – Economic Offence – Conditional Release Directed – The Court allowed the release of ₹15 lakhs seized from the petitioner during CBI investigation in a financial scam case – Held: While the petitioner’s entitlement remains disputed, prolonged retention of cash undermines economic activity – Directed release with safeguards preserving evidentiary value [Paras 1-3, 9-11].

Judicial Discretion – Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. – Seized Property Can Be Released – Court invoked principles from Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Manjit Singh to hold that property, including currency, should not stagnate in judicial custody without compelling reason – Mandated detailed panchnama, photographic documentation, and financial security as preconditions for release [Paras 5-6, 9-11].

Economic Utility vs Investigative Integrity – Balance Achieved by Safeguards - Cash to remain available if required during trial – Ordered bank guarantee for 50% amount and other financial security for remainder – Petitioner required to submit undertaking affirming return of funds if directed by court [Paras 11, 14-15].

Guidelines Issued – Comprehensive Framework for Disposal of Seized Property – Court issued broad guidelines for handling and disposal of various types of seized assets, including cash, gold, vehicles, narcotics, electronic devices, and perishable goods – Emphasized minimization of custody time and utility maximization [Paras 12-13, 16-24].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Cash Ordered to be Released with Conditions - Trial court’s rejection of release application set aside – High Court directed release subject to documentation and security measures [Para 13].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC – Cause of Action and Limitation – Respondent filed suit for partition, possession, and injunction in respect of jointly purchased house – Property transferred by registered gift deed dated 02.12.2014 and corrected by deed dated 05.08.2015 – Respondent alleged fraud and misrepresentation by appellant (brother) and relied on MOU dated 10.11.2017 wherein appellant assured re-transfer – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC for want of cause of action – Lower Appellate Court set aside the order holding that the pleadings disclosed triable issues and remanded the case – Held: Meaningful reading of plaint reveals specific averments alleging fraud and misrepresentation – Cause of action made out – Question whether the respondent will ultimately succeed is not relevant at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14–17].

Pleadings – Fraud and Misrepresentation – Challenge to Gift Deed – Though respondent did not seek specific declaration to set aside the registered gift deed, averments alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and assurance to re-transfer property under MOU dated 10.11.2017 sufficient to infer that transaction was alleged to be void ab initio – Hence, absence of declaratory relief not fatal at threshold – Whether gift deed is void or valid requires objective scrutiny at trial [Paras 15–16].

Limitation – Article 59, Limitation Act – Gift deed executed on 02.12.2014, suit filed on 04.04.2019 – Plea that plaintiff was unaware of true nature of transaction and discovered fraud only later – Limitation being a mixed question of law and fact cannot be determined at stage of Order VII Rule 11 – MOU dated 10.11.2017 corroborated plaintiff’s version and justified filing within limitation [Paras 18–19].

Precedents – Distinguishable Facts – Judgments in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020 SAR (Civ) 793), Rajendra Bajoria v. Hemant Kumar Jalan (2021 SCC OnLine SC 764), K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan (2021 SCC OnLine SC 238), and Raghwendra Sharan Singh v. Ram Prasanna Singh (2020) 16 SCC 601 distinguished on facts – Suit not sham or illusory; triable issues exist – Reliance placed on G. Nagraj v. B.P. Mruthunjayanna, Civil Appeal No. 2737/2023 (SC), holding that inconsistent or improbable averments do not justify rejection of plaint [Paras 20–25].

Civil Revision Application No. 45/2020 – Coordinate Bench Decision – Earlier decision between same parties on similar facts not binding precedent, as Supreme Court dismissed SLP without reasons – Present case examined independently on merits applying crystallized law [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No perversity or illegality in lower appellate court’s order – Substantial question of law answered in affirmative – Matter to proceed to trial [Para 27–28].

Criminal Law – Challenge Conviction – POCSO Act - Juvenile Justice – Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 JJ Act – Improper Compliance – Conviction Set Aside - The Court held that the preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board was conducted without fully considering the mandatory criteria, and the Children's Court failed to perform an independent judicial assessment as required under Section 19(1)(i) of the JJ Act, causing serious prejudice to the appellant [Paras 17-29].

Children’s Court – Independent Assessment – Mandatory under JJ Act – Procedural Deficiency – The Children’s Court merely relied on the Board’s report without detailed assessment of the appellant’s physical and mental capacity or understanding of consequences, violating the statutory requirement for a fresh evaluation before trying as an adult [Paras 28-33].

Juvenile Tried as Adult – Impact of Procedural Violations – Matter Remanded - Given the grave procedural defects impacting the appellant’s right under the JJ Act, the conviction was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Children’s Court for fresh inquiry and assessment under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 34-36].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance under DV Act – Validity of Waiver Clauses – Agreement Not Enforceable – Despite the marital settlement agreement (Annexure A2) purporting to waive maintenance, such waiver was held unenforceable being opposed to public policy – Held: The wife’s statutory right to maintenance cannot be waived, and she is entitled to seek maintenance notwithstanding any prior agreement [Paras 12-14].

Interim Maintenance – Criteria for Grant – Income Disparity – Where the husband (a Pilot earning Rs. 8,35,000/- per month) had substantial income and the wife’s income was not conclusively established – Held: Interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month granted by trial and appellate courts found reasonable [Paras 6-7, 15-18].

Effect of Divorce on DV Act Relief – Maintenance Post-Divorce – Divorce Decree Does Not Extinguish DV Act Benefits – Held: Once domestic violence is established, the subsequent divorce does not bar claims under the DV Act, including maintenance [Para 16].

Scope of Revision – Interference with Concurrent Findings – Principles Reiterated – No interference warranted when findings are supported by materials and law – Held: Revision Petition dismissed [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Revision Petition dismissed – Interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month confirmed – Directions given to clear arrears within 30 days, failing which coercive steps permissible [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Trial of Juvenile as Adult – Mandatory Two-Stage Assessment – Trial Held Invalid – Appellant, aged 17, was tried as an adult based solely on preliminary assessment by Juvenile Justice Board – Held: Under Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act, trial of juvenile as adult requires two distinct assessments – Children’s Court must conduct independent judicial scrutiny – No such assessment done in this case – Trial process invalidated [Paras 23–33].

Procedural Law – Duty of Children’s Court – Section 19(1) JJ Act – Not an Empty Formality – Held: Sessions Judge merely endorsed Board’s report without giving reasons or evaluating appellant’s mental and physical capacity or understanding of consequences – Statutory obligation of Children’s Court not discharged – Decision to try appellant as adult illegal and caused prejudice [Paras 28–31].

Guidelines – Compliance with SC Mandate – Preliminary and Judicial Assessments Must Be Informed – Referring to Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu and Ajeet Gurjar v. State of M.P. – Held: Board’s assessment must be specific, and Children’s Court must apply mind afresh – Guidelines of NCPCR though later in time, reflect mandatory safeguards embedded in statute – Summary approval of Board’s assessment impermissible [Paras 14–22, 29].

Remand – Fresh Determination Required – Judgment Set Aside – Held: Since independent assessment was absent, matter remanded to Children’s Court for fresh inquiry under Section 19 JJ Act – If Court concludes appellant to be tried as adult, it may proceed with pronouncement based on existing evidence – No de novo trial required [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Case remanded to Children’s Court for conducting proper inquiry under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Preference directed for early disposal [Paras 34–36].

Bail – Sections 307, 452, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Second Bail Application – No Change in Circumstance – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner filed second application for regular bail after earlier rejection without demonstrating any substantial change in fact or law – Held: In absence of new material circumstances, successive bail plea amounts to impermissible review of earlier decision [Paras 11-13, 17].

Firearm Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Pistol Valid – Petitioner’s statement led to recovery of a pistol later confirmed by FSL to fall within the Arms Act – Held: Recovery supports prima facie involvement, and bail cannot be granted solely based on assertion of innocence [Para 2].

Delay in Trial – No Cogent Proof – No Entitlement to Bail – Though petitioner alleged delay in trial, court records did not support this – Statement of a witness already recorded showed progress in trial – Held: No infringement of right to speedy trial made out [Paras 18-19].

Parity – Bail of Co-Accused – Not Sole Ground for Grant – Petitioner claimed bail on parity as other co-accused were released – Held: Principle of parity not applicable when role of petitioner distinct and more serious, especially when involving use of firearm [Para 19].

Victim Turning Hostile – Not Ground for Bail – Bail Cannot Be Granted Mid-Trial – Petitioner sought bail on ground that victim had not supported prosecution – Held: Discrepancies in testimony not sufficient to grant bail after trial has begun; courts must refrain from interfering mid-trial unless delay is inordinate and unjustified [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Bail Denied – Court found no justification to deviate from earlier order rejecting bail – Held: Present petition dismissed, observations to have no bearing on trial merits [Paras 22-23].