Labour Law - Workmen's Compensation Act – Claim for Compensation Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the decision of the Competent Authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, dismissing the claimant's application for compensation due to lack of evidence proving loss of earning capacity. [Para 1, 6]

Evidence and Proof – Requirement for Claiming Compensation – The claimant failed to provide adequate evidence to establish the extent of loss of earning capacity due to the injury, as required under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant’s continued employment as a laborer despite the injury was noted. [Para 5-6]

Legal Interpretation – Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 4(1)(c)(ii) – Application of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) in cases of non-specified injuries requiring proof of loss of earning capacity. The court elaborated on the necessity of evidence to establish the percentage of loss of earning capacity for claiming compensation. [Para 5]

Judgment – Upholding Competent Authority’s Decision – The High Court upheld the Competent Authority's decision to dismiss the claimant's application for lack of substantial evidence demonstrating a significant loss of earning capacity as per legal requirements. [Para 6]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Court considered a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022 under Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC, alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy, linked to a breach of a marital agreement. The Court scrutinized the details of the agreement and the FIR to determine the nature of the alleged offences. [Para 2-3, 6-8]

Interpretation of Cheating under Sections 420 & 120-B IPC – held – emphasized that the mere breach of terms of an agreement does not necessarily constitute cheating, unless there is a fraudulent or dishonest intention from the inception. The Court found no initial dishonest intent or inducement in this case, thereby not fulfilling the requirements for an offence under Section 420 IPC. [Para 8, 11]

Civil Remedy Versus Criminal Prosecution – observed – the Court noted that the agreement between the parties provided for a civil remedy in case of breach. It held that turning a civil liability into a criminal case constituted an abuse of the process of law, emphasizing that criminal law should not be used as a tool for arm-twisting in civil disputes. [Para 7, 12]

Decision – Quashing of FIR – The Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 38 dated 01.07.2022, along with all subsequent proceedings, underlining the inappropriateness of criminal prosecution in this instance and underscoring the need to distinguish between civil and criminal liabilities. [Para 12-13]

Civil Procedure – Right to Lead Evidence – Grant of Final Opportunity – whether the petitioner should be granted a final opportunity to present evidence after multiple adjournments. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to lead evidence as part of natural justice and fair play. [Para 6, 10]

Judicial Discretion in Grant of Opportunities – exercised – Court recognized that while procedural law aims at doing substantial justice, judicial discretion should be employed thoughtfully, balancing the need for expeditious disposal of cases with fairness. The Court noted that imposing costs could be a reasonable measure before closing a party's right to present evidence. [Para 7, 8]

Procedural Law – Serving Justice – observed – The Court cited precedents emphasizing that procedural law should aid, not obstruct justice. It underscored the principle that procedural prescriptions are instruments to facilitate, not impede, the administration of justice. [Para 9]

Decision – Granting Final Opportunity to Lead Evidence – The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the impugned order of the lower court. It provided the petitioner one final chance to lead evidence, subject to the payment of costs as compensation for the inconvenience caused to the respondents. [Para 11, 12]

Costs Imposition – As a Conditional Relief – The Court imposed costs on the petitioner, conditioning the grant of a final opportunity to lead evidence upon the payment of these costs, thereby ensuring accountability and responsibility in the conduct of litigation. [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – Court considered the application for regular bail filed by Sanju alias Sahil Kumar in FIR No. 323/2023 under IPC Sections 307, 452, 148, 149 and Arms Act Sections 25, 27. The petitioner sought bail, emphasizing his inadvertent implication in the crime, lack of specific role or injury attributed to him, and a compromise with the complainant. [Para 1-3]

Application of Judicial Principles in Granting Bail – The court reiterated the fundamental legal principle that 'Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception,' deriving from the landmark judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977). The court stressed the importance of individual liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to a speedy trial, and the presumption of innocence, alongside the gravity of the offence. [Para 5-7]

Factors Considered for Bail – The petitioner’s clean criminal record, the approximate three-and-a-half months of incarceration, completion of the investigation, and the fact that charges had not yet been framed were key factors influencing the decision. The court noted that further incarceration would not serve a purpose as the presence of the accused could be secured by other means. [Para 10]

Decision – Grant of Regular Bail – The court allowed the bail application, ordering the petitioner’s release on furnishing the required bail and surety bond, without commenting on the merits of the case. This decision was made considering the totality of circumstances and legal principles governing bail. [Para 11]

Transit Anticipatory Bail - Grant of - Cyber Fraud Case – CRM-M-901 of 2024 - Petitioner seeking transit anticipatory bail in a case registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Hyderabad for alleged involvement in cyber fraud - FIR registered for offenses under Sections 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act and 419, 420 IPC - Court, relying on precedent in Priya Indoria Versus State of Karnataka & others, 2023(4) Law Herald (SC) 3279, grants transit anticipatory bail for 15 days to enable petitioner to approach the competent court in Hyderabad for anticipatory bail - Observes that courts can exercise jurisdiction and entertain pleas for transit anticipatory bail even if FIR not filed within territorial jurisdiction - Decision ensures access to justice and acknowledges presumption of innocence. [Paras 1-9]

Cyber Crime Investigation – Jurisdictional Concerns – Analysis - Court recognizes the challenge of jurisdiction in cybercrime cases - Emphasizes that courts have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail in cases registered outside their territorial jurisdiction - Upholds the principle of access to justice and presumption of innocence until proven guilty - Reiterates the approach established in the case of Priya Indoria, emphasizing flexibility in judicial process for cyber crimes spanning multiple jurisdictions. [Paras 6-7]

Order – Transit Anticipatory Bail Granted - In light of the precedents and circumstances, the Punjab and Haryana High Court grants transit anticipatory bail to petitioner for 15 days - Directs petitioner to file a petition for anticipatory bail in the competent court in Hyderabad, Telangana - Clarifies that no opinion expressed on the merits of the case, leaving the matter to be determined by the court of competent jurisdiction. [Paras 8-9]

Conviction for Murder – Appellant Usman convicted under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife by strangulation – Life imprisonment and fine imposed – Child witness testimony crucial [Paras 2, 8, 18, 42-46, 50]

Child Witness – Evidence of son (P.W. 2), aged 6-7, asserting that appellant killed his mother by pressing a pillow on her mouth and using a rope for strangulation – Importance of child witness credibility and lack of tutoring [Paras 18, 19, 43-45]

Circumstantial Evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Appellant's presence at the crime scene and failure to provide an explanation – Burden of proof shift under Section 106 [Paras 30-31, 40-42]

Autopsy Findings – Ante-mortem injuries and asphyxia due to strangulation confirmed by autopsy [Paras 7, 22]

Testimonies of Relatives – Statements from brother (P.W. 1) and sister (P.W. 3) of deceased, supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13, 20, 21]

Investigation and Evidence Collection – Police investigation, site plan, recovery of the rope used for strangulation, and inquest proceedings [Paras 5, 6, 24-29]

Appellant's Defense – Claims of false implication and questioning the recovery of the rope and child witness testimony – Court rejects the defense, citing lack of reasonable explanation [Paras 32-34, 46-47]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Reference to Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar, Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra for principles on circumstantial evidence and Section 106 of the Evidence Act [Paras 35, 40, 41, 48]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld based on evidence and legal principles, especially the crucial role of the child witness and circumstantial evidence [Paras 49-50]

Gang Rape and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault - Conviction under Section 376D IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act - Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Accused involved in gang rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor - Approver's testimony corroborated by forensic evidence and other witnesses, establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt - Victim's age established as a minor through ossification test corroborated by parental testimony [Paras 1-3, 6-10, 12-16, 18-24, 26-34, 36-40, 42-56, 58-68, 70-80, 82-86, 87-91]

DNA Profiling Evidence - DNA profiling test confirms involvement of accused - One appellant established as biological father of child conceived from the assault - Forensic evidence played a crucial role in confirming appellants' involvement in the crime [Paras 7, 9, 27-29, 32-34, 42-48, 50-54, 66-67]

Judicial Scrutiny of Approver's Testimony - Legal precedents uphold use of approver’s testimony when corroborated - Evidence of approver (PW 23) corroborated by forensic and other evidence, confirming his and appellants' involvement [Paras 14-16, 20, 26, 30, 56-58, 73-76, 80-83]

Victim's Age and Consent - Ossification test establishes victim as a minor - Arguments on victim's consent dismissed based on conclusive proof of age and circumstances of the crime [Paras 21-22, 70, 84-85]

Decision: Appeals dismissed, conviction and sentences upheld - Period of detention suffered by appellants adjusted against sentence [Paras 87-91]

Lease Agreement and Dispute – Plaintiffs (lessors) filed suit for recovery of khas possession and mesne profit due to defendants’ (lessees) failure to vacate property post-lease expiry – Lease initially granted for 30 years with renewal clause for 21 years – Dispute over whether lease renewal was properly exercised [Paras 1, 2].

Application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Plaintiffs sought part decree based on defendants’ admission in written statement about the lease and its terms – Defendants countered, claiming rights to renew lease and challenging eviction without compensation [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Defendants’ Pleading and Counter Claim – Defendants filed a counter claim for lease renewal and injunction against eviction without compensation – Raised issue of Thika Tenancy but was not initially pleaded, and attempted amendment was rejected [Paras 6, 7, 20, 22].

Court's Analysis and Directions – Trial court rejected plaintiffs' application for part decree – High Court set aside trial court's decision, directing fresh consideration of the application under Order XII Rule 6 – Emphasis on consideration of admissions in pleadings [Paras 19, 23, 24].

Property Dispute – Mortgage Deed's Validity – Challenged in first appeal under Section 96 CPC – Hetram Sahu (Appellant/Defendant No.1) contesting trial court's decree declaring the mortgage deed as null and void, and ordering return of property possession – Allegations of fraud in execution of mortgage deed instead of rent deed. [Paras 1-2]

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Plaintiff's testimony and cross-examination evidence, alongside other witnesses (PW1 to PW10) – Plaintiff's lack of education and allegation of being deceived into signing mortgage deed – Defendant's admission of renting two shops and absence of registration for mortgage deed. [Paras 6-9]

Legal Analysis – Trial court's application of legal principles – Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act requires registration of mortgage deeds over Rs. 100 – Section 17 of the Registration Act deems unregistered deeds for property over Rs. 100 invalid – Appellant's argument on using unregistered mortgage deed for collateral purposes rejected as no recovery suit or counter-claim was filed. [Paras 10, 20-24]

Decision – Dismissal of First Appeal – Mortgage deed dated 20-9-2006 held not a valid mortgage by conditional sale as per Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act – Lack of registration and failure to fulfill conditions render mortgage deed invalid – Trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff upheld. [Paras 25-28]