Execution of Decree – Confirmation of Possession – Recovery of Possession Permissible – Decree holder obtained decree for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction – After finality of decree, judgment debtor forcibly entered into possession – Held: Such conduct amounts to obstruction – Executing Court rightly directed eviction to enforce decree – A decree of confirmation of possession, once violated, can be enforced by removal of obstruction [Paras 6, 8, 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Section 47 CPC – Repeated Applications – Judgment debtor filed multiple applications under Section 47 CPC on same grounds after rejection of earlier ones – Held: Such repeated objections barred by principle akin to res judicata – Supreme Court’s directions in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi followed – Frivolous objections to execution to be sternly dealt with [Paras 5, 14–15]

Limitation – Execution of Decree – Applicability of Article 136 – Petitioners contended execution was barred by limitation – Court held decree also involved permanent injunction, and thus not governed by 12-year limitation under Article 136 – Execution was within time as obstruction occurred post-second appeal – Held: Enforcement of perpetual injunction not time-barred [Paras 8–9, 19]

Interpretation of Decree – Executing Court’s Role – Judgment debtor contended that eviction not permissible as decree lacked specific direction for possession – Court held: Executing Court can interpret decree to determine its enforceability, especially when decree holder’s possession was confirmed and later obstructed – Relief sought does not go beyond decree but seeks its enforcement [Paras 21–22]

Abuse of Process – Judgment Debtor’s Tactics – Repeated filing of objections and technical pleas by judgment debtor seen as an attempt to delay and frustrate decree – Held: Courts cannot allow decree holder to be driven to file fresh suit when earlier decree has attained finality – Conduct of judgment debtor amounted to abuse of process [Paras 1, 17–18, 23]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition dismissed – Executing Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders upheld – Decree holder entitled to recover possession in enforcement of decree confirming possession and restraining interference – Executing Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

Criminal Law – Conviction Based Solely on Section 313 CrPC Statement – Appellant convicted for dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 IPC solely on the basis of admission recorded under Section 313 CrPC – No prosecution witness of fact examined – Only formal witness (P.W.1) proved FIR and charge-sheet – Held: Statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 12–13, 16–23, 28]

Confession – Voluntariness and Validity – Appellant moved multiple applications expressing fear for life and desire to remain in jail – No legal representation provided – Confession influenced by fear – Held: Admission not free from fear or voluntary in the legal sense – Cannot be relied upon for conviction [Paras 24–26]

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – No legal aid provided to appellant at trial – No evidence that he was informed of his rights or defended by a lawyer – Held: Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 304 CrPC – Trial vitiated [Paras 26–27]

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Not on oath – Cannot be equated with testimony – Cannot substitute prosecution evidence – Must be read in conjunction with legally admissible evidence – Held: Conviction without prosecution evidence and based solely on 313 CrPC statement is unsustainable [Paras 18–21]

Precedents – Relied on decisions of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, Pramod @ Bhoka v. State of Chhattisgarh, Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam – Held: Consistent judicial view that Section 313 CrPC statement alone cannot support conviction [Paras 18–21]

Long Incarceration – Appellant spent nearly 24 years in custody despite absence of incriminating evidence – Held: Continuing detention would be miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released forthwith unless wanted in other case [Paras 27–30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Appellant Azad Khan acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant to execute personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

Partition – Joint Family Property – Second Appeal – Divergent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Trial Court decreed suit for partition holding that suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties and that alleged oral partition of 1972 and registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 were not binding on plaintiffs – First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that parties had already partitioned in 1972 and acted upon the same – High Court reappreciating evidence in light of substantial questions of law – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court erroneous and unsustainable – Judgment of Trial Court restored [Paras 1, 16, 31–32].

Partition – Proof of Prior Oral Partition – Unregistered Palupatti dated 03.11.1972 – Evidentiary Value – Defendants relied on unregistered document to contend severance of joint family – No cogent documentary evidence showing allotment of specific shares or mutation pursuant to 1972 partition – Revenue records and RTCs continued to reflect joint names of parties – Held: Mere plea of oral partition without reliable corroboration insufficient to prove earlier partition [Paras 4, 7, 24, 30].

Registered Partition Deed – Allegation of Fraud and Incapacity – Partition deed dated 21.12.2004 – Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was illiterate, aged, suffering from burn injuries and was taken to Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw – Evidence of DWs admitted poor health and burn injuries of executant – No recital in registered deed regarding prior partition of 1972 – Held: Circumstances surrounding execution raise serious doubt about free and conscious consent – Trial Court rightly held partition deed not binding on plaintiffs [Paras 19–20, 25, 29–30].

Joint Re-grant of Inam Lands – Effect – Properties re-granted jointly in favour of plaintiffs’ father and defendant under Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act – Mutation entries and RTCs showed joint cultivation and possession – Subsequent grant in sole name of defendant did not negate earlier joint cultivation evidenced by records – Held: Suit properties retained joint family character and were liable for partition [Paras 18, 23–24, 31].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Registered documents and revenue records showing joint names prevailed over interested oral testimony of defence witnesses – DWs found to be interested and inconsistent – Admissions by defendants regarding joint execution of sale deeds and joint dealings – Held: Trial Court correctly appreciated evidence; First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law [Paras 25–30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in reversing Trial Court decree without material proof of earlier partition – High Court held that reversal was based on inadmissible and insufficient evidence – Interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 16, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019 restored.

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

Election Law – Interlocutory Application – Dismissal of Election Petition – Non-filing of Form-25 Affidavit – Section 83(1)(c) Proviso – Section 86(1), Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Respondent sought dismissal of election petition on ground that allegations of corrupt practice were not supported by affidavit in Form-25 as required under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules – Similar interlocutory applications seeking dismissal under Section 86(1) earlier dismissed by High Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – Held: Present application not maintainable as issue arose from same pleadings already adjudicated and attained finality – Plea barred by constructive res judicata – Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file future applications cannot be construed as permission to reopen concluded issues [Paras 7–14].

Election Petition – Corrupt Practice Allegations – Requirement of Affidavit – Directory vs Mandatory – Finality of Earlier Adjudication – Earlier order of High Court considered allegations relating to suppression of criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and declined dismissal of election petition – Supreme Court expunged certain observations but affirmed operative conclusion – Held: Expunging of observations does not reopen or unsettle findings on maintainability – Court becomes functus officio on issues finally decided – Subsequent application raising same foundational objections impermissible [Paras 8–11].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Application at Different Stages of Same Proceeding – Principle of res judicata applies not only between two separate proceedings but also at different stages of the same litigation – Grounds which might and ought to have been raised earlier are deemed to have been decided – Respondent having failed to raise Form-25 objection in earlier applications cannot raise it subsequently – Reliance placed on Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal and Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Discipline – Liberty to Mention / File Further Applications – Scope and Limitation – Liberty granted by higher court to file further applications is general in nature – Cannot be used to indirectly seek review or reconsideration of issues already finally decided – Entertaining such application would amount to impermissible collateral review – Reliance placed on Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Interlocutory Application dismissed as not maintainable – Election Petition directed to be listed for settlement of issues.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Accused convicted for murdering his wife with the help of others and mutilating the body to destroy evidence – Trial Court relied on last seen theory, motive of extramarital affair, and recovery of knife – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Last seen witnesses were unreliable and examined after unexplained delay of 3 months – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but not linked to the accused – Recovery of knife unsupported by independent seizure witnesses – Identification of body solely based on a tattoo, no DNA testing done – Section 106 Evidence Act could not be invoked as foundational facts were not proved [Paras 11, 17-38].

Criminal Procedure – Additional Charge – Trial Court framed charge under Section 498A IPC despite absence of specific allegations and opportunity for cross-examination – Held to be contrary to Section 212 Cr.P.C. – Conviction on that ground unsustainable [Paras 12(iii), 12(iv)].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Majority of material and independent witnesses turned hostile – Delay in recording last seen witnesses’ statements unexplained – Statements found contradictory and inconsistent – Held: Their testimonies failed to inspire confidence [Paras 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Burden of Proof – Court clarified that burden under Section 106 arises only after prosecution proves foundational facts – Since place of offence was not linked to accused and no discovery at his instance, burden does not shift to accused [Para 35].

Criminal Trial – Standard of Proof – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof – Chain of circumstantial evidence must be complete – Missing links and inconsistencies fatal to prosecution case – Accused acquitted [Paras 36-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine refunded – Matter referred to District Legal Services Authority for compensation to victim’s mother [Para 38-39].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.