Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discrimination – Reversal Set Aside – Appellant appointed as Chowkidar on daily wages in 1994 – Board of Directors approved regularization based on performance in 1996 – Junior employee Mohan Lal, appointed later in December 1994, was regularized earlier despite same post – Appellant’s civil suit for regularization decreed by trial court – First Appellate Court reversed citing lack of educational qualification – Held: No rule or evidence was produced to show essential qualification for post – Respondents failed to prove any qualification norms – Appellant’s qualification not in dispute – Board’s resolution to regularize was never withdrawn – Held: Disqualification ground unsustainable – First appellate court erred in reversing decree – Appeal allowed – Suit decreed restoring appellant’s right to regularization from date of entitlement [Paras 9–15].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Bribe Demand and Acceptance – Accused public servant allegedly demanded ₹1500 from complainant to release subsidy amount of ₹3000 – Trap conducted by ACB – Accused caught with tainted currency – However, Demand Draft for subsidy not found tainted – Evidence showed that DD was handed over before any contact with anthracene-laced notes – Held: Sequence of events raises serious doubt about prosecution’s version and falsifies theory of bribe being a precondition for release of subsidy [Paras 13–15, 19].

Evidence – Tainted Money – Anthracene Test – Prosecution case that bribe was accepted prior to handing over of DD contradicted by fact that DD showed no trace of anthracene – If DD was handled after bribe transaction, it would have shown traces – Court held that this absence indicated subsidy was already released before any money changed hands [Paras 13–15].

Defence – Legal Recovery – Appellant’s defence that ₹1500 was towards licence fees for fishing activity – Complainant admitted that further ₹500 was sought for issuance of receipt – Court held that no bribe giver demands receipt, and no officer issues receipt for bribe – Admission of demand for receipt strengthens claim of legal transaction – Held: Serious doubt created about nature of payment – Benefit of doubt must be given [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Trial – Evaluation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider key admissions of complainant and crucial aspect that DD was untainted – Mere delay in Appellant raising defence theory insufficient to discredit it – Absence of evidence supporting defence does not ipso facto prove prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 18–19].

Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act – Rebuttal – Though presumption arises upon acceptance of tainted money, court held that surrounding circumstances, including prior release of DD and demand for receipt, sufficiently rebut presumption – Held: Explanation offered by accused plausible and unshaken [Paras 16–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to execute P.R. bond of ₹15,000 under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 437A CrPC) [Para 20].

Civil Law - Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Admissibility – Application Allowed Without Pleading Custody of Original – Order Set Aside – Plaintiffs sought to prove registered Will dated 17.11.1979 by secondary evidence, claiming original was with defendant – No such averment made in plaint – Application moved after closure of evidence at rebuttal stage – Trial Court allowed application – Held: No foundational pleading or timely action to justify late-stage application – Application wrongly allowed – Trial Court directed to determine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act independently [Paras 1, 5–6, 9, 21–23]

Civil Procedure – Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Scope for Rebuttal Evidence – No Automatic Right to Produce Secondary Evidence – Application to lead secondary evidence filed at rebuttal stage under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC – Held: Rule permits rebuttal evidence but does not override requirements of Sections 65–66 of Evidence Act – Application required prior foundational pleadings and timely disclosure – Delay and lack of basis rendered application untenable [Paras 10–11, 21]

Documentary Evidence – Will – Secondary Evidence – Legal Standards – Filing Application Not Mandatory Where Document Already Exhibited – Will already marked as Exhibit PW5/2 (certified copy) and Mark-G (photocopy) – One attesting witness examined as PW5 – Held: In such circumstances, no separate application under Section 65(c) required – Trial Court must evaluate evidence on merits as per settled legal standards without being influenced by application or order – Application and trial court’s order set aside [Paras 13–16, 20–23]

Judicial Discretion – Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice – Procedural Lapse Cannot Supplant Statutory Requirements – Though courts should not non-suit parties on technicalities, procedural laxity cannot override specific legal requirements under Evidence Act – Trial Court erred in allowing application based on equitable considerations without legal foundation – Held: Admissibility and probative value of the Will must be tested under law [Paras 12, 18, 22–23]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 13.09.2024 permitting production of Will by secondary evidence set aside – Application dismissed – Trial Court directed to examine admissibility and proof of Will under Evidence Act on merits without being influenced by prior order [Paras 23–24]

Property Law – Unregistered Sale Deed – Section 17 & 49 Registration Act – Section 53-A TPA – Document Written as Sale Deed, Not Agreement – No Registration – No Title or Possession Rights – Ex.B1 executed in 1983 for Rs.1100 treated as sale deed by defendant but unregistered – Held: Unregistered sale deed cannot convey title; inadmissible to prove transfer of property; cannot be converted into sale agreement for invoking Section 53-A – Defendant’s plea inconsistent and self-contradictory – First Appellate Court erred in granting protection of part performance [Paras 10–16, 20–21].

Part Performance – Section 53-A TPA – Applicability Prior to 2001 Amendment – Only Available for Genuine, Lawful, Uncompleted Contract – Burden on Transferee to Prove Valid Contract and Free Consent – Evidence shows Ex.B1 written in two inks, suspicious thumb impression placement, possibility of interpolation – No proof that contract executed with free will – Held: Defendant not entitled to benefit of Section 53-A even under pre-amendment law [Paras 11, 18–19, 22].

Title & Possession – Plaintiffs’ Possession Established – House Tax Receipts (Ex.A3 & Ex.A4) in joint names – Defendant failed to prove vendor (2nd plaintiff) was exclusive owner – Defendant’s claim of prior possession and renovation not credible – First Appellate Court misdirected itself by treating defendant’s possession as part performance without establishing contractual foundation [Paras 10, 16, 19].

Interpretation of Precedents – Reliance on Guman Singh v. Manga Singh, MANU/SC/0872/2016 & Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v. Devaji Supdu Dorik, (1977) 3 SCC 584 – Part performance can be used only as a defence, not as a basis for claiming title – Ex.B1 cannot operate as both sword and shield – Defendant’s attempt rejected [Para 20–21].

Decision: Second Appeal Allowed – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court decree restoring plaintiffs’ title and recovery of possession revived – Defendant directed to hand over possession within one month [Paras 23–25].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Eyewitness Account – Conviction Confirmed – Victim shot dead on a boat by appellant Dhanu Ghosh using a pipe gun – Other appellants instigated and facilitated the act – PW1 and PW4, brothers of the deceased, were eyewitnesses and gave consistent accounts of the incident – Post-mortem (PW7) confirmed gunshot injury from close range – Presence of multiple eyewitnesses nullifies argument of false implication – Common intention clearly established through coordinated acts and presence [Paras 10–12, 25–28, 32–35]

Evidence – Non-Recovery of Weapon – No Fatality to Prosecution – Pipe gun used in offence not recovered – Bullet also not recovered from the body – Held: Non-recovery of weapon not fatal where eyewitness testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence – Medical opinion clearly supports prosecution version of a close-range gunshot causing death [Paras 5–6, 23, 33, 36]

Criminal Trial – Eyewitness Credibility – Corroboration with Medical Evidence – Consistent Testimony – PW1 and PW4 identified appellants and described the incident with precision – PW2 (boatman) corroborated circumstances though not an eyewitness – PW3 arrived shortly after the incident and saw accused fleeing – Medical evidence (PW7) consistent with oral evidence – Cross-examination of witnesses failed to discredit them – Held: Trial Court rightly relied on ocular and medical evidence to convict [Paras 13–20, 27–31]

Criminal Law – Motive – Presence of Eyewitnesses – Motive Becomes Redundant – Defence raised plea of prior enmity and false implication – Court held that where there are trustworthy eyewitnesses, proof of motive is unnecessary – Enmity could also support motive for murder – Plea of false implication rejected [Paras 34–35]

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Improper Framing of Questions – No Prejudice Shown – Appellants argued that questions under Section 313 CrPC were complex – Court found no material prejudice – No denial of fair opportunity established – Conviction not vitiated on this ground [Para 7]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed – Period of detention already undergone to be set off under Section 428 CrPC – No interference warranted with Trial Court’s findings [Paras 37–40]

Criminal Law – Murder – Unlawful Assembly – Arson – Conviction Upheld – Accused formed unlawful assembly and launched attack on the deceased in course of property dispute – House of deceased was set on fire and he was assaulted with lathis on vital body parts causing fatal cranio-cerebral injuries – Trial court convicted under Sections 148, 436 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 – High Court found evidence of eye-witnesses, many of them injured, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: Conviction justified [Paras 1, 9, 13-14, 17-18]

Evidence – Injured Witnesses – Medical Corroboration – Six injured witnesses confirmed to have sustained blunt force trauma consistent with lathi assaults – Medical reports supported their presence at scene and nature of assault – Minor omissions and initial non-disclosures found not material – Credibility intact despite pendency of counter-case against them [Paras 11-14]

Medical Jurisprudence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem revealed depressed skull fracture, haemorrhage in brain stem and multiple antemortem injuries – Death opined to be due to cranio-cerebral trauma caused by hard and blunt weapon – Medical findings fully matched with witness account of assault – Held: Death was clearly homicidal [Para 9]

Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability – Acts of setting fire, fatal assault on deceased and coordinated attack on rescuers established that unlawful assembly had common object – Specific roles attributed to each appellant – No requirement to prove individual overt act where offence committed in furtherance of common object – Vicarious liability under Section 149 attracted [Paras 13, 17]

Hostile Witnesses – Effect on Prosecution – Some prosecution witnesses turned hostile or did not support prosecution – Held: Core case established by consistent and credible testimony of injured and independent witnesses – Conviction can be sustained on basis of quality evidence despite some hostile witnesses [Para 16]

Motive – Land Dispute – Claim of accused that house belonged to them contradicted by prosecution evidence showing longstanding possession by deceased – Existence of land dispute supported motive – Presence of motive strengthens prosecution version but not essential in light of direct evidence [Para 15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction of surviving appellants under Sections 148, 436 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC affirmed – Appeal abated against Appellant-Basudev Barik due to death – Remaining appellants directed to surrender within three weeks [Para 18]

Gram Nyayalayas Act – Appeal Bar under Section 34(2)(b) – Valuation Below ₹1,000 – Exception for Questions of Law – Appeal Held Maintainable – Original suit filed in 2000 for cancellation of will valued at ₹200 – Transferred to Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 – Gram Nyayalaya declared will void – Appeal filed before District Judge challenged by petitioner on ground of Section 34(2)(b) bar – District Judge held appeal maintainable as it raised a question of law – High Court affirms view, noting that Section 34(2)(c) permits appeal where legal question is involved even if valuation is below ₹500 – Dismissal of petition upheld [Paras 3, 4, 25, 27].

Appeal – Right of Appeal – Substantive Right – Vested at Time of Suit – Cannot Be Taken Away Retrospectively Unless Expressly Provided – Court reiterates settled law that right of appeal is a vested and substantive right, accruing on the date of institution of the suit – Refers to landmark decisions including Colonial Sugar Refining Co. v. Irving, Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury – Held: Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 does not operate retrospectively – Right of appeal governed by law prevailing on date of suit in 2000 – District Judge rightly entertained the appeal [Paras 13–24].

Question of Law – Maintainability of Suit Before Gram Nyayalaya – Matter to Be Decided by Appellate Court – Though High Court notes that suit for cancellation of will may not lie before Gram Nyayalaya as per Second Schedule – Leaves the issue open for appellate court to determine – Declines to adjudicate maintainability in Article 227 jurisdiction [Para 26].

Judicial Review – No Jurisdictional Error – Rejection of Objection by Appellate Court Not Illegal – High Court finds no illegality in District Judge’s decision to entertain the appeal – Rejects petitioner’s contention that appeal was barred by Section 34(2)(b) – Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed [Paras 24–27].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – District Judge’s order upholding maintainability of appeal affirmed – Question of whether suit for cancellation of will is maintainable before Gram Nyayalaya left open to be decided by appellate court.

Assisted Reproductive Technology – Eligibility Criteria – Age Restriction – Respondent No.1 (wife) sought IVF treatment using donor sperm despite her husband (Respondent No.2) being aged 55 years – ART clinic denied service citing ineligibility of the couple as a whole under Section 21(g) of the ART Act – Held: The age restriction under Section 21(g)(ii) applies only where the male’s gamete is used – Where donor sperm is used, only the woman’s age is relevant – Married woman cannot be denied ART access on the sole ground of husband’s age if she seeks to use donor sperm with his consent [Paras 5, 20, 30]

Equality and Non-Discrimination – Married vs. Single Women – ART Act interpreted to avoid unconstitutional classification – Denial of ART services to married woman using donor sperm, while allowing access to single woman of same age, held discriminatory – Such a reading would place married women at unfair disadvantage – Held: Law must be interpreted harmoniously to uphold equal rights irrespective of marital status [Paras 5, 30]

Statutory Interpretation – Legislative Intent – Composite age restriction not prescribed in ART Act – Court refused to read additional conditions into clear statutory language – Held: When ART Act separately defines “woman” and “commissioning couple” and does not impose joint age criteria, it cannot be inferred that both spouses must individually satisfy age limits in all circumstances [Paras 21–23, 29–30]

Judicial Review – Appellate Interference – Court found no legal error or perversity in Single Judge’s interpretation – Appellate Court upheld reasoning that statute must not be interpreted to produce inequitable or absurd results – Writ Appeal dismissed [Paras 31]

Decision: Writ Appeal dismissed – Married woman held entitled to undergo ART procedure using donor sperm if within age limit under Section 21(g)(i) – No illegality found in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II – Appellant convicted for stabbing wife during sudden quarrel in fit of rage while under influence of alcohol – Incident occurred at home with only minor daughter present – No evidence of premeditation or prior enmity – Knife used was kitchen knife picked from spot – Victim’s dying statement to landlady, "Inhone mere ko kya maar diya", construed to refer to husband – Appellant remained at scene and cooperated during investigation – Held: Though act had knowledge of likely consequence, it lacked intent to kill – Conviction modified to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to 7 years simple imprisonment [Paras 38, 41, 44, 55–57, 60–64]

Criminal Procedure – Right to Silence – Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Appellant’s silence during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding genesis of quarrel held not incriminating – Court held silence could not fill evidentiary gaps – Prosecution case itself showed absence of murderous intent – Silence alone cannot lead to murder conviction [Paras 50–51]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Identification by Victim – Victim’s repeated utterance “inhone” interpreted in cultural context as pointing to husband – Though no eyewitness to stabbing, circumstantial evidence and victim’s immediate utterance held reliable [Paras 28–31]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Conditions for Exception 4 met: sudden quarrel, no premeditation, act done in heat of passion, no undue advantage taken – Appellant acted impulsively, under influence of alcohol, using kitchen knife at hand – Held: Circumstances supported reduction of offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 44, 54–56, 58–64]

Criminal Sentencing – Sentence Reduction – Original sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC modified to 7 years simple imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC – No fine imposed – Compensation to be disbursed per Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 as recommended by Trial Court under Section 357A Cr.P.C. [Paras 64–67]