Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Permissible – Miscarriage of Justice Avoided – Appellate court found trial court’s acquittal perverse due to misreading and omission of critical evidence – Held: Acquittal of accused 1 to 5 reversed, convictions recorded based on consistent and corroborated evidence [Paras 31-32, 58].

Eyewitnesses – Injured Witnesses Credible – Conviction Based – PWs 1 and 2, both injured in the attack, provided clear, consistent testimony identifying accused – Supported by medical and recovery evidence – Court found no ground to doubt reliability [Paras 9-11, 15-19, 39].

Test Identification Parade – Fair and Valid – Witnesses Identified Accused Repeatedly – PW53 conducted parades for accused 1 to 5 with PWs 1 and 2 identifying the accused in multiple rounds – Accused failed to discredit TIP process – Identification upheld [Para 24].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprints, Hair, DNA, and Blood Match – Forensic reports linked accused 2, 4, and 5 to the crime scene vehicle and weapons – Blood on MO4 knife matched deceased’s blood group – DNA confirmed presence of accused in getaway van [Paras 26-28, 52].

Conspiracy – Charge Not Proved – Evidence Lacked Specificity – Witnesses PW7 and PW9 failed to establish a common design among all ten accused – Court found no cogent motive or agreement connecting all accused – Acquittal of accused 6 to 10 under Section 120B upheld [Paras 33-36, 49].

Section 109 IPC – No Instigation Established – Accused 6 Allegedly Procured Vehicle – Mere ownership insufficient to establish active instigation – Acquittal on this count confirmed [Paras 56].

Section 201 IPC – Suppression of Evidence Not Proved – Evidence against accused 8, 9, and 10 found unreliable or uncorroborated – Alleged concealment of swords not adequately linked – Acquittal sustained [Paras 50, 57].

Delay in FIR and FIR Forwarding – Explained and Acceptable – Court found delay justified due to injuries of witness PW1 – No deliberate suppression of facts or masking of accused identity – Trial court’s inference found flawed [Paras 40-42].

Identification of Assailants – No Masks Worn – Prosecution Rebutted Mask Theory – Despite initial medical reports suggesting masked assailants, eyewitnesses and corroborative testimonies confirmed clear identification of attackers – Trial court’s reliance on this theory overturned [Paras 43-44].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment Imposed – Accused 1 to 5 convicted under Section 302 IPC – Accused 2 and 4 also sentenced under Sections 324 and 326 IPC respectively – Court imposed minimum statutory sentence citing mitigating factors – Concurrent sentences awarded – Victim compensation ordered [Paras 4-8 of sentencing order].
 

Employment Law - Absorption in Government Department – Valid Exercise of Option Required – Claim Denied – Petitioner claimed adjustment in GWS&I after abolition of his post in OLIC, but failed to establish he exercised a valid option within stipulated time – Held: Absence of timely option and pending VRS application disentitles petitioner to absorption under transfer circular [Paras 6-8, 15-17].

Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Application Withdrawn But Not Relieved – No Jural Break – Petitioner applied for VRS but was never relieved; continued under interim protection of court – Held: While legal employment relationship continued, this does not create a vested right to absorption in absence of option [Paras 7-8, 10].

Doctrine of Negative Equality – Illegal Appointments of Others Not Ground for Parity – Petitioner relied on absorption of juniors to claim parity – Held: Article 14 does not permit perpetuation of illegality – Petitioner cannot claim relief based on benefit wrongly granted to others [Paras 8, 20-21].

Creation and Abolition of Post – Policy Decision – Not Justiciable – Cabinet decision to abolish 7341 posts including 39 tracer posts upheld – Held: Court cannot interfere unless mala fide shown – Decision found to be bona fide administrative restructuring [Paras 5-6, 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found no legal basis to direct petitioner’s absorption or declare cabinet action illegal – Petition dismissed with no order as to costs [Para 9-10].
 

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].

Medical Negligence – Failure of Vasectomy – No Liability of State – Plaintiffs Not Diligent – Despite vasectomy operation being unsuccessful, the plaintiffs failed to prove compliance with post-operative medical instructions, particularly semen analysis after 3 months – It was also not denied that the plaintiffs were informed in advance that the operation may fail and the State would not be liable – Held: There was no negligence on part of the surgeon; judgment of appellate court awarding compensation was erroneous and liable to be set aside [Paras 13-16].

Unwanted Pregnancy – Non-Termination of Pregnancy – Conduct of Plaintiffs Considered – The court observed that although the plaintiffs alleged the pregnancy was unwanted, they neither attempted to terminate the pregnancy nor submitted credible evidence about the mother’s inability to do so – Held: Plaintiffs’ conduct undermined their claim for damages for mental agony [Paras 14, 18].

Distinction in Precedents – Santra’s Case Distinguished – The Court clarified that the decision in State of Haryana v. Santra was based on unique facts involving incomplete sterilisation – Held: That ruling does not apply universally and was distinguishable on facts from the present case where vasectomy was complete and conducted by an experienced surgeon without negligence [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The High Court found merit in the appeal filed by the State of Haryana and held that the lower appellate court had ignored key facts including lack of proof of negligence and non-compliance with medical advice – Held: Judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra was set aside; suit of the plaintiffs dismissed [Para 19].

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].
 

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].
 

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].
 

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offence – Consent of Complainant Mandatory – Petition Dismissed – The petitioners sought compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act after a delay of over 12 years, but the complainant did not consent – Held: As per settled legal position, compounding under Section 147 NI Act cannot be allowed without complainant’s consent – The impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting compounding was upheld [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Discretion – Quashing vs Compounding – Distinction Maintained – The petitioners relied on judgments suggesting courts can close proceedings even without consent – Held: A five-Judge Constitution Bench clarified in Expeditious Trial of NI Act Cases (2021) that Kanchan Mehta’s observation allowing closure without consent is not good law – Court reiterated the distinction between quashing and compounding, emphasizing that compounding is rooted in consent [Paras 6-7].

*Decision – Revision Dismissed – No Interference with Trial Court Order – The High Court held that in the absence of any illegality or perversity, the trial court’s order refusing compounding due to lack of complainant’s consent was valid – Petition dismissed accordingly [Para 7].

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].