Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Death Penalty Commuted – Five-month-old infant abducted by maternal cousin from a marriage function – Later found severely injured and unconscious in a nearby vacant plot – Died during treatment – Convict last seen with victim – Recovery of victim and circumstantial evidence including forensic analysis supported prosecution – Conviction upheld but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment till natural life without remission – Held: Brutality alone cannot justify capital punishment in absence of premeditation or ruling out reform [Paras 1, 4, 35–39, 47–48, 57–58, 62, 63–72].

Evidence Act – Last Seen Theory – Circumstantial Evidence – Forensic Linkage – Accused seen taking child from mother at 7 p.m. – Found hours later with injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma – Biological fluid of female origin found on accused’s clothing – No credible alternative hypothesis – Chain of circumstances complete – Theory of enmity rebutted – Held: Conviction sustainable even without DNA match where other links are firmly established [Paras 39, 48–50, 57–58, 60, 62].

Criminal Procedure – Capital Punishment – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Commutation to Life Imprisonment Without Remission – Though trial court imposed death penalty, High Court held that since conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and there was no premeditated intent, past criminal record, or evaluation from Probation Officer or psychologists, death penalty not justified – Reformation potential not ruled out – Life imprisonment without remission ordered [Paras 63–72].

Criminal Law – Investigation Lapses – Non-Fatal to Prosecution Case – CCTV footage procured but not produced in original Pen Drive – Compact Disc version unavailable – However, oral testimony of Investigating Officer and other witnesses, along with physical and forensic evidence, sufficient to prove guilt – Held: Investigation lapses alone cannot override substantive evidence [Paras 31–32, 60–61].

Constitutional Law – Sentencing – Consideration of Mitigating Factors Mandatory Before Awarding Death Penalty – Trial court did not obtain reports from Jail Administration, Probation Officer, or psychologist – Convict was 27 years old with no criminal antecedents – Death penalty must only be imposed when reform is unquestionably ruled out – Commutation appropriate in absence of full inquiry [Paras 63–71].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Death penalty under Sections 302 and 376(Ka)(Kha) IPC read with Section 6 POCSO Act commuted to life imprisonment for natural life without remission – Sentence under Section 364 IPC and fines confirmed – Reference in Capital Case No. 4 of 2021 not confirmed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal – Accused admitted signature on cheque but denied liability – Complainant presented sufficient documents including return memo, legal notice, postal proof, and reply – Trial Court acquitted the accused citing discrepancies and held complainant acted without reasonable cause – Held: Acquittal alone insufficient to invoke Section 250 CrPC – No finding of malicious prosecution – Direction to pay compensation unsustainable [Paras 10–15]

Criminal Law – Compensation to Accused under Section 250 CrPC – Setting Aside – Appellant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the respondent issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000/- towards repayment of a hand loan, which was dishonoured for “Insufficient Funds” – Trial Court acquitted the accused but awarded compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC to the accused, holding that the complaint was filed without reasonable cause – High Court held that although the complainant failed to prove his case, the essential requirements to invoke Section 250 CrPC were not satisfied – No material to show malafide, malicious prosecution, or that the complaint was frivolous – Acquittal alone is insufficient ground for awarding compensation under Section 250 CrPC [Paras 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15]

Compensation – Malicious Prosecution – Scope of Section 250 CrPC – High Court analyzed precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekh (2016) 1 SCC 514 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 – Reiterated that compensation under Section 250 CrPC can only be awarded if prosecution was without reasonable cause, was malicious or actuated by ulterior motives – Findings of the Trial Court based on presumption, not on cogent evidence of malice – Held: Procedural lapses or acquittal do not justify invoking Section 250 CrPC unless malicious prosecution is established [Paras 9, 13, 14, 15]

Cheque Dishonour – Existence of Reasonable Grounds – Cheque admitted by accused to bear his signature – Dishonour proven by return memo from SBI – Legal notice issued and duly served – Evidence such as postal acknowledgment, receipts, and reply to notice placed on record – High Court found that these materials constituted reasonable grounds to file complaint under Section 138 NI Act – Absence of memo from payee’s bank or discrepancies in endorsement do not amount to frivolous or malicious prosecution [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13]

Trial Court Findings – Held Perverse – Trial Court placed undue emphasis on evidentiary gaps like lack of bank memo from Nishant Society and endorsement by third-party bank – Found complainant had misused cheque without concrete evidence – High Court noted such findings were based on surmises – Witness from credit society admitted blank cheques are not permitted, contradicting respondent’s defence – No finding of malice or ill-intent against complainant – Invoking Section 250 CrPC unjustified [Paras 11, 13, 14, 15]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Trial Court’s order dated 16/03/2017 awarding compensation of ₹25,000/- under Section 250 CrPC quashed and set aside – Acquittal of respondent under Section 138 NI Act remains undisturbed – No compensation payable to respondent – Appeal disposed accordingly [Para 15, Final Order]

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage – Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Appellate Court dismissed application for production of additional documents in appeal against conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Power under Section 391 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to secure ends of justice and where non-receipt of evidence may result in failure of justice – Additional evidence not confined to cases where judgment cannot be pronounced but where its absence may occasion miscarriage of justice – Impugned order set aside and petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence [Paras 8, 12-14].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction under Section 138 – Appeal Pending Since 2017 – Application for Production of Ledgers and Cheque Records – Appellate Court rejected plea treating it as dilatory tactic and holding that documents would not conclusively prove unlawful custody of cheques – High Court held that appellate court ought not to draw adverse inference on merits at stage of considering application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and should examine necessity of evidence for just decision of appeal [Paras 10-11, 14].

Section 391 Cr.P.C. – Parameters for Exercise of Power – Additional evidence permissible where party was prevented from producing evidence despite due diligence or where facts came to light during pendency of appeal – Evidence must be necessary to avoid failure of justice – Reliance placed on Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh (Retd.) MVC v. State of U.P. – Wide discretion vested in appellate court but to be exercised judiciously [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Order dated 25.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.22 of 2023 in Crl.A. No.859 of 2017 set aside – Application under Section 391 Cr.P.C. allowed – Petitioner permitted to adduce additional evidence – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law – Road Accident – Identification of Vehicle – Conviction under MV Act Partly Restored – Trial Court acquitted the accused for want of clarity on vehicle identification and ownership – Appellate Court reversed the acquittal under Sections 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act based on corroborative circumstantial evidence including repair records, expert opinion, and evasive conduct of car owner and accused – High Court affirmed the conviction and fine – Held: Non-seizure of motorcycle or minor lapses in investigation do not override consistent evidence of hit-and-run and subsequent concealment by the accused [Paras 2–6, 14–17]

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 134(a) and (b) r/w Section 187 – Duty of Driver in Accident – Violation Established – Driver failed to provide medical aid or report the accident to police – Forensic and circumstantial evidence, including service centre documentation and expert opinion, confirmed vehicle's involvement – Vehicle was hurriedly left for service post-incident to evade detection – Conviction under MV Act upheld with lenient sentence of ₹5000 fine in lieu of imprisonment [Paras 15–17]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Locus and Scope – Appeal filed not by the State but by victim’s brother—court held that even a private party has standing in such matters—conviction under MV Act justified by evidence overlooked by trial court—High Court refused to interfere in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 6, 12–13, 17–18]

Judgment Correction – Counsel’s Name Rectified – Post-judgment correction made to record correct name of appearing counsel from “Mr. R. Parthaban” to “Mr. R. Prathaban” – Fresh copy directed to be issued accordingly [Order dated 11.12.2025]

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Conviction under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act upheld – ₹5000 fine imposed stands – No relief granted to petitioners – Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Criminal Law – Robbery – Doubtful Identification – Nighttime Crime – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners (A1 & A3) convicted for stabbing and robbing two employees carrying ₹16 lakhs – Conviction confirmed by appellate court – However, eye-witnesses (PW1 & PW2) admitted to contradictions regarding identity, absence of lighting, prior exposure to accused photographs, and conflicting testimonies on sequence of events – Test Identification Parade conducted 45 days post-arrest after exposure to accused undermined its probative value – Held: Identification highly doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13-18, 22].

Evidence – Eye-Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Lack of Corroboration – Acquittal Justified – Evidence of PW1 and PW2 contradictory and unsupported by independent witnesses – Medical records silent on crucial aspects such as chilli powder allegedly used – Doctor did not confirm stated injuries or circumstances – PW3 and PW5 claimed to have transported victims to hospital but hospital registers mention different names – Place of occurrence itself in dispute – Held: Trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate contradictions – Evidence insufficient for conviction [Paras 12, 15-16, 18].

Criminal Trial – Parity Principle – Similar Role, Disparate Outcome – Conviction Discriminatory – Co-accused A2 and A4–A8 acquitted despite similar evidence – No weapon recovery traced to petitioners – No specific overt act attributed to them – Conviction based solely on disputed identification – Held: Principle of parity mandates that petitioners be given same benefit of doubt as others – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Investigation – Recovery and Confession – Procedural Irregularities – Witness Credibility Doubtful – Confession and recovery allegedly made in presence of PW7 (VAO) and PW8 (Village Assistant) who admitted to being stock witnesses – No independent witness or house owner (Rajendran) examined – Typed confessions using laptop and mobile printer at scene not supported by evidence – Held: Recovery procedure artificial and unsupported – Evidence unreliable [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Revision allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Petitioners to be released forthwith unless required in any other proceedings.

Extradition Law – Dual Criminality – India-Canada Treaty – Prima Facie Satisfaction for Magisterial Inquiry – Validity of MEA’s Decision – Petitioner challenged MEA’s direction under Section 5 of Extradition Act initiating magisterial inquiry into Canadian extradition request for offence under Section 320.16(3) of Canadian Criminal Code – Held: The alleged conduct, if committed in India, would amount to causing death by rash or negligent act punishable under Section 304A IPC – Requirement of dual criminality under Article 3 of India-Canada Extradition Treaty satisfied – Ministry's decision found legally tenable – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 4, 10–18].

Extradition Treaty – Interpretation of Dual Criminality – Emphasis on Underlying Conduct Not Textual Similarity – Petitioner argued that the Canadian offence of failing to stop after accident resulting in death has no equivalent under Indian law – Court held: Extradition offence under Article 3 requires similarity in punishable conduct, not identical statutory language – Conduct alleged involves death by driving and failure to assist, which is punishable under Indian law – Principle of dual criminality met [Paras 13–16].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Judicial Review – Extradition Process – Ministerial Satisfaction for Inquiry Stage Not Subject to Extensive Scrutiny – Held: At Section 5 stage, MEA only examines whether a prima facie case is made out and if dual criminality is met – Detailed examination of culpability or fairness of prosecution is premature – Interference by High Court unwarranted at pre-inquiry stage [Paras 8, 9, 17].

Interpretation – Marginal Notes in Statutes – Limited Relevance – Petitioner relied on marginal note “Failure to stop after accident” in Canadian Code to argue that omission alone was criminalised – Court clarified: Marginal notes are not determinative – Full provision must be read to understand the offence – Allegation involves active culpability including knowledge or recklessness about accident resulting in death [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Writ Petition and accompanying application dismissed – MEA’s order dated 19/04/2023 upheld – Interim order dated 25/09/2023 vacated – Observations made in the judgment not to influence trial proceedings in CT No. 882/2023.

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

Civil Law – Ownership Dispute – Relief of Mandatory Injunction – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff, sole owner of the property by virtue of registered gift deeds dated 6.7.2009 and 9.5.2014 executed by his mother Smt. Santosh Kumari, filed suit seeking possession from his brother (defendant) who was residing in a portion of the house as a licencee – Defendant contested, claiming co-ownership and challenged validity of gift deeds alleging fraud, coercion and undue influence – Trial court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction – Appeal by defendant dismissed – Held: Defendant failed to prove co-ownership or any title – Gift deeds validly executed – Suit for mandatory injunction maintainable post revocation of licence [Paras 1, 2, 5, 13, 14, 45, 49, 66, 73].

Transfer of Property – Valid Gift Deeds – Challenge to Gift by Sibling – Defendant claimed mother was not in sound mind and gift deeds were fraudulently executed – Plaintiff proved execution through attesting witness and documentary evidence – Both gift deeds executed in compliance with Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act – Gift valid even if possession not delivered at the time – Defendant’s allegations of fraud, coercion, and undue influence not proved – No specific pleadings or evidence to substantiate claim – Held: Gift deeds legally valid and enforceable [Paras 50–54, 58–66].

License – Nature of Possession – Permissive Possession of Defendant – Plaintiff’s brother allowed to stay as licencee – Relationship of licensor and licencee existed post-execution of gift deeds – Licence revoked via legal notice dated 4.8.2014 – Defendant failed to vacate – Held: Defendant's occupation was permissive and post-termination, plaintiff entitled to seek possession through mandatory injunction – Plaintiff rightly proceeded under Specific Relief Act and not for recovery of possession – Apex Court precedents relied upon [Paras 67–79].

Construction by Licencee – Irrevocability of Licence – Defendant alleged raising permanent structure in suit premises – No sanctioned plan or evidence produced – Plaintiff filed sanctioned plans in name of mother – Held: Defendant failed to prove that any construction raised by him – Licence not rendered irrevocable [Paras 80–81].

Registered Documents – Allegation of Interpolation – Defendant alleged manipulation in sale and gift deeds – Plaintiff produced originals – Every cutting signed – Held: No adverse inference – Registered documents carry presumption of genuineness – Defendant failed to rebut it [Paras 82–84].

Non-Exhibition of Documents – Procedural Lapse – Documents submitted in sealed cover for safe custody – Trial court failed to mark exhibits – Defendant did not object before trial court – Held: Procedural lapse by court – No prejudice caused – Plaintiff proved documents and execution through oral and documentary evidence – Decree not liable to be reversed merely for non-exhibition [Paras 85–95].

Mesne Profits – Appellate Court's Power Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC – Trial court denied mesne profits @ ₹30,000/month for lack of proof – During appeal, stay granted on condition of ₹10,000/month deposit – Held: Appellate court can award mesne profits at ₹10,000/month as condition of stay – Defendant bound by the order – Plaintiff entitled to receive damages for use and occupation till actual handover of possession [Paras 96–100, 106].

Caretaker/Trespasser – No Title by Long Possession – Defendant residing gratuitously – No tenancy or lease established – Apex Court in Maria Margarida and Behram Tejani reiterated caretaker acquires no right – Held: Long possession does not confer any right – Defendant must vacate [Paras 101–103].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 01.07.2019 upheld – Plaintiff entitled to possession via mandatory injunction and damages @ ₹10,000/month from 01.07.2019 till delivery of possession – Interim orders vacated [Paras 104–109].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of trial court affirmed – Defendant to hand over vacant possession to plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to ₹10,000 per month as damages from date of decree till possession is handed over.

Administrative Law – Termination of License – Writ Against APTDC – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged termination of license granted under agreement dated 03.10.2020 for operation of shop at Rushikonda Beach – Held: Though APTDC is ‘State’ under Article 12, disputes arising from license agreements are contractual and remedy lies in civil suit for damages – Writ not maintainable to challenge termination of license [Paras 9, 16]

Contract Law – License Agreement – Nature of Rights – Licensee Cannot Seek Interim Relief Against Termination – Petitioner admitted arrears of rent and operational default – Clause 7 of license agreement permits termination for non-compliance – Law well settled that licensee has no vested right to prevent termination – Once terminated, continued occupation is unlawful – Licensee may claim compensation but cannot seek injunction or continuation [Paras 4, 9-14, 16]

Distinction Between Lease and License – License Does Not Confer Interest or Possession – Agreement was clearly a license and not a lease – Reference to “lease” in correspondence was casual – Legal possession remains with licensor – Licensee has only a personal right which ceases upon termination – Petitioner cannot assert tenancy-like rights after expiration or cancellation [Paras 7, 12-14]

Writ Jurisdiction – Commercial Contract Disputes – No Public Law Element – Alternative Remedy Available – Court held that licensee’s grievance is private in nature – Remedy lies in filing a civil suit for compensation – No violation of constitutional or public duty shown – Writ jurisdiction not to be invoked for enforcing purely contractual rights [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Termination of license upheld – Interim order dated 06.10.2025 vacated – Petitioner may seek compensation by filing civil suit – No costs [Paras 17-18]