Criminal Law - Abduction for Ransom – Conspiracy and Execution – Section 364A, 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellants conspired and executed the abduction of Partha Roy Burman, inflicting gunshot injuries during the kidnapping and detained him at a secluded location to demand ransom – Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW31 and PW32 (cooks), PW33 (co-accused turned prosecution witness), and PW35-PW55 (official and medical witnesses) corroborated the pre-planning, execution, custody of the victim, and ransom transaction – Held: The prosecution successfully proved the conspiracy and abduction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-10, 23-31, 35-45].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability of Other Evidence – Conviction Not Vitiated - Although some key witnesses, including PW26 (victim) and relatives like PW20, PW22, PW23 turned hostile, their testimonies regarding initial facts and identification of injuries, along with other documentary and corroborative evidence like seizure lists, forensic reports, voice samples, and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, stood consistent and reliable – Held: Conviction sustainable even when certain witnesses turned hostile [Paras 31-38, 53-55, 66-67].

Electronic and Forensic Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Voice Samples and Footprint Matches – Audio cassette recordings of ransom calls matched with the voices of appellants as confirmed by CFSL expert (PW67) – Footprint evidence also corroborated the presence of appellants at relevant places – Held: Properly proved and relied upon [Paras 66-69, 73-77].

Abduction for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 364A and 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Prosecution proved that appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct Partho Roy Burman for ransom through meetings, arrangement of hideouts and vehicles, and execution of the abduction with the use of arms – Conspiracy corroborated by direct evidence of PW31, PW32, and PW33 who were privy to planning meetings, distribution of roles and captivity of the victim – Victim was injured, confined at Bhoot Bunglow, and released after ransom payment – Held: Appellants participated actively in the conspiracy and execution, warranting conviction [Paras 105-120].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Non-fatal – Delay in conducting TIP explained due to appellants being absconders – Appellants identified both in TIP and by prosecution witnesses who had seen them repeatedly during conspiracy meetings and captivity of the victim – Held: TIP delay does not vitiate identification when corroborated by substantive evidence [Paras 99-128].

Evidence of Approvers – PW31, PW32, PW33 – Acceptable and Reliable – Appellants challenged credibility of PW31, PW32, and PW33 as approvers – Court held that they were not chance witnesses but insiders to conspiracy, who lived with the accused for substantial periods – Their depositions were consistent, corroborated by independent circumstances and other witnesses – Held: Evidence of these approvers reliable [Paras 113-120].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B – Voice Samples, Emails, Audio Cassettes – Prosecution relied on intercepted calls, emails, and audio tapes – Although formal certificate under Section 65B was partly absent, electronic records collected under Section 27, proved through official witnesses, and corroborated by oral evidence were held admissible – Court distinguished between primary and secondary electronic evidence and applied substantial compliance doctrine – Held: Electronic evidence validly relied upon [Paras 134-138].

Delay in Recording Statements – Defence Argument Rejected – Delay caused due to appellants absconding for long periods and bifurcation of trial – Court accepted prosecution’s explanation and held that delay did not prejudice the defence – Held: Conviction cannot be vitiated on this ground [Paras 129-133].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Defence plea of incomplete chain rejected – Court found complete chain of circumstances established through eyewitnesses, recovery of articles, forensic reports, and testimonies of key witnesses PW31, PW32, PW33 and others – Held: Conspiracy, execution, ransom demand, payment, and release of victim proved beyond doubt [Paras 120-140].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant Akhtar Hossain – Acquitted – Evidence insufficient to link Akhtar Hossain to supply of arms or direct participation – No evidence of his presence at Bhoot Bunglow or conspiracy meetings – Held: Conviction not sustainable against Akhtar Hossain – He is acquitted [Paras 141-143].

Final Decision – Convictions of all other appellants confirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld for Noor Mohammed @ Shahbaz, Jalal Molla @ Omar, Mizanur Rahman @ Shahjahan, Mujammel Sk. @ Akram, Ishaque Ahmed @ Dilsad, Arshad Khan, Tariq Mehmood @ Nayeem – Akhtar Hossain acquitted – Connected applications dismissed [Paras 141-144].
 

Habeas Corpus – Detention or Voluntary Admission – Allegation of Illegal Custody – Petitioner contended that alleged detenue, a farmer leader on indefinite hunger strike, was illegally detained by the police while returning from a meeting with Government officials – State argued detenue was hospitalized due to health condition and was free to leave – Held: Detenue was admitted in hospital based on Supreme Court directions and his own volition without any illegal custody [Paras 1-6].

Right of Access to Detenue – Family Visit to Hospital – Denial Alleged – Petitioner alleged that family members were being denied access to detenue in hospital – State expressed no objection to family visits subject to hospital protocols – Court directed the State to facilitate meetings without any hindrance while maintaining hospital rules [Paras 3-5].

Protest Rights – Balancing Health and Liberty – Detenue’s Health after Hunger Strike – Court noted that hospitalization of detenue was necessitated by his deteriorated health and not by any coercive state action – Detenue is free to seek discharge at his will – Petition disposed as no illegal detention found [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Petition disposed of – No illegal confinement established – Directions issued to ensure family, friends, and others may meet the detenue in hospital without hindrance but following hospital protocols [Para 6].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appellant (A1) convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302, 201, 420, 380, and 120-B IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased, his employer and relative – Allegation of staging accident using a car to eliminate deceased due to business rivalry – High Court found major contradictions in witness testimonies, missing crucial link in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged crime vehicle (MO.1) at the instance of A1 – Hostile and unreliable witness (PW.21) and conflicting testimonies of PW.12 and PW.25 regarding vehicle repair and seizure – Delay and gaps in investigation, non-examination of key witnesses like the real car buyer, and discrepancies regarding the vehicle number and possession – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16 to 47].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – PW.1 (wife of the deceased) alleged motive based on financial disputes and missing diary – PW.1's deposition found to be improved during trial compared to earlier statements to police – PW.2 and PW.4’s statements about disputes and missing diary also marked by improvements and contradictions – Evidence of PW.8 and PW.16 about alleged collection of Rs. 3 lakhs after the deceased’s death inconsistent and contradicted by their own depositions – Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 48 to 54].

Circumstantial Evidence – Seizure of MO.1 Vehicle – Seizure allegedly based on A1's confession – PW.21, one of the panch witnesses, turned hostile – PW.25’s version about seizure location contradicts prosecution case – PW.9 clarified that A1 was not the owner of the shop from where the car was allegedly seized – PW.13 testified that A1 had sold the car long before the incident – Delay in vehicle inspection and unexplained circumstances surrounding its possession raised serious doubt – Evidence insufficient to prove that MO.1 was used in the crime or linked to A1 – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete [Paras 20 to 46].

Motive – Disputes regarding financial dealings, alleged recovery of Rs. 20 lakh, and alleged theft of diary – No documentary evidence submitted regarding loan to Madhusudhan Reddy or recovery from A1 – Failure to recover the diary or prove A1’s exclusive access to it – Alleged motive remained uncorroborated and speculative – Held: Absence of motive further weakens the prosecution case [Paras 48 to 54].

Principle of Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof – The chain of circumstances must be complete and lead only to the hypothesis of guilt – Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conclusive proof [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant (A1) acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 58].
 

Arbitration Law - Stock Broker Liability – Prior Written Instructions – NSE Regulations – Regulatory Requirement Not Mandatory in Civil Claims – Client challenged arbitral award citing lack of prior written instructions for trades – Held: Requirement for prior authorisation is regulatory, not determinative of civil liability – 
Absence of authorisation cannot invalidate trades if client participated with full knowledge – Tribunal rightly considered emails, SMS alerts, fund flows, and securities transfers to affirm client’s conscious involvement [Paras 1, 11–21, 24, 27–30]. 
 
Arbitral Review – Limited Scope Under Section 34 – Findings Not Perverse – Petitioner argued award contradicted findings in first arbitral award – Court held that appellate tribunal’s conclusions were logical and based on evidence – No perversity or arbitrariness established – Interference under Section 34 not warranted [Paras 19–21, 31]. 
 
SEBI Circular – Evidentiary Guidelines – Not Substantive Law – Court interpreted SEBI’s 2018 Circular as procedural and directory – Emphasized that post-trade evidence like fund and securities movement can establish trade legitimacy in absence of prior written authorisation – Rigid interpretation would lead to inequitable consequences and allow clients to escape liability [Paras 25–29]. 
 
Commercial Conduct – Active Participation – Client Received Trade Alerts and Made Payments – Despite lack of explicit authorisation, evidence of continuous trading conduct, receipt of contract notes, transfer of securities, and lack of protest showed participation – Tribunal entitled to weigh such evidence in totality [Paras 14–18, 22, 26]. 
 
Trade Usages and Section 28(3) – Legal Recognition of Industry Practices – Tribunal rightly considered usage of securities market including trade confirmations, account settlements, and autonomous instructions – Judgment aligned with SC’s ruling in Chokshi where oral agreements and trade conduct were upheld in composite claims [Paras 33–38]. 
 
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned award upheld – Petitioner liable to pay ~Rs.69.20 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on petitioner payable to respondent within 4 weeks [Paras 41–42]. 
 

Anticipatory Bail – Bank Fraud – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Accused Alleged to Have Withdrawn Rs.1.5 Crores – Petitioner added as A20 in large-scale financial fraud involving bank employees and misuse of overdraft and fixed deposit schemes – Court held that custodial interrogation necessary due to non-recovery of funds and lack of explanation – Bail denied [Paras 3–5, 12–15, 22–23]. 
 
BNS Offences – Section 316(5) and 318(4) – Applicability Disputed – Petitioner argued that as he is neither a banker nor public servant, ingredients of Section 316(5) BNS are not met – Court noted doubt on applicability but held custodial interrogation still warranted due to gravity of offence and evidence of dishonest intent in fund withdrawal [Paras 11, 13, 16]. 
 
BNSS – Section 35(3) Notice – Applicability Contested – Petitioner claimed benefit under Section 35(3) BNSS for offences punishable up to 7 years – Court held discretion to arrest lies solely with investigating officer – Judicial interference with arrest procedure under Section 35 not warranted [Paras 17–19]. 
 
Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Discretionary Power – Extraordinary Relief – Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is exceptional and should be sparingly granted – Noted risk of compromising investigation and recovery of funds if bail granted – Petition dismissed [Paras 20–23]. 
 
Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail denied – Custodial interrogation found necessary for effective investigation – No expression of final opinion on merits of case [Paras 23–25]. 
 

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹5 lakh towards repayment of debt, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complainant issued legal notice but cheque remained unpaid – Trial Court convicted accused, sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and fine – Appellate Court upheld conviction – Revision petition filed challenging conviction on various grounds including non-service of legal notice, invalidity of bank return memo, and absence of loan entries in income tax returns or account books – Held: Conviction valid [Paras 1-5].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Presumption of Legal Liability – Sections 118 and 139 – Statutory presumption of consideration arises when signature on cheque is admitted – Presumption is rebuttable, but accused failed to rebut by preponderance of probabilities – Accused merely claimed absence of loan in complainant's accounts but offered no credible evidence – Presumption of legally enforceable liability not displaced – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-20].

Income Tax Returns – Non-reflection of Loan – Non-mention of loan in income tax returns or account books does not invalidate debt – Held: Presumption under NI Act cannot be negated solely because loan is unaccounted in tax documents – Non-disclosure may invite action under tax laws but does not defeat complainant's case under Section 138 – Support drawn from Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan and Ganga Prashad vs Lalit Kumar [Paras 18-22].

Service of Legal Notice – Validity – Registered Notice returned unclaimed – Presumption of valid service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies – Non-service due to absence of accused at address does not invalidate notice – Complaint not rendered premature – Held: Accused had opportunity to pay after receiving court summons as well [Paras 23-25].

Bank Return Memo – Validity without Stamp – Section 146 NI Act – Return memo need not bear bank’s stamp if it carries official signature and branch details – Purpose is to relieve bank officers from entering witness box in every case – Return memo valid and admissible – Held: Objection to absence of stamp rejected [Paras 26-30].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits – Revisional Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to act as second appellate court – Held: Findings of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court and affirmed by Appellate Court are based on correct appreciation of law and evidence – No jurisdictional error or perversity found – Revision dismissed [Paras 9-11, 32].

Conduct of Accused – Offer to Compound – Accused offered partial settlement post-conviction but withdrew when asked to pay fair amount considering interest since 2003 – Held: Conduct displays intent to evade liability rather than genuine defence – Supports prosecution version [Para 25].

Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Trial Court directed to issue necessary warrants to secure custody of accused for serving sentence [Para 32].
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10]. 
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Common Intention – Eyewitness Testimony – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Converted – Appellants accused of beating deceased with belcha and kassi during worksite quarrel – Sole eyewitness PW-17 testified to quarrel and dragging of body, but did not witness actual assault – Trial court convicted both under Section 302/34 IPC – Held: Incident arose out of sudden altercation, no premeditation – In absence of direct evidence of fatal blow, case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 13, 18, 33–42]. 
 
Section 145 Evidence Act – Hostile Witness – Partial Credibility – PW-17 declared hostile and cross-examined – Although he retracted some police statements, core testimony on dragging body and shutter closure remained consistent – Court held such testimony admissible and reliable under Section 145 – Presence of accused and circumstantial evidence unerringly pointed to guilt [Paras 34–36]. 
 
Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability Considered – Deceased initiated quarrel by abusing A-2, which escalated into fatal fight – Court relied on precedents including Pulicherla Nagaraju and Dauvaram Nirmalkar to hold that appellants acted without premeditation in a fit of anger – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 37–42]. 
 
Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Period Already Undergone – Appellants from lower socio-economic background – No prior criminal record – Having undergone nearly 10 years of incarceration – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – No fine imposed [Para 42]. 
 
Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellants sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone – No fine imposed [Paras 42–43]. 
 

Civil Law – Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Redemption – Appellant filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and possession of land mortgaged by his father – Trial court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit treating the document (Ex.P/1) as an absolute sale deed – High Court held that Ex.P/1 is a "Shartiya Farokhtnama" i.e., mortgage by conditional sale – Substantial question of limitation resolved in favor of appellant as redemption period is 30 years under Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Suit filed within limitation – Appellant being Karta of Hindu Undivided Family is competent to file suit alone without impleading other heirs – Estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable [Paras 1-40].

Mortgage Deed – Nature of Document – Courts below erred in construing Ex.P/1 as an absolute sale ignoring clear recital of condition of redemption within five years – Comparison with contemporaneous transactions showed Ex.P/1 was not an outright sale but a mortgage – Consideration amount disproportionate to area compared to other sale deeds suggesting mortgage nature – Courts failed to apply Section 58(c) of Transfer of Property Act defining mortgage by conditional sale [Paras 17-19].

Limitation – Period for Redemption – Suit for redemption governed by Article 61(a) of Limitation Act – Period of limitation is 30 years from the date of right to redeem accrued – Right accrued on 17.03.1974, suit filed in 2002 well within limitation – Courts below erred in applying 3 years limitation treating transaction as sale [Paras 29-33].

Locus Standi – Right of Karta – Appellant as Karta of Joint Hindu Family entitled to sue alone – Non-joinder of brothers does not affect maintainability – No objection raised by other heirs – Courts below wrongly held suit defective for non-joinder [Paras 34].

Estoppel – Applicability – Doctrine of estoppel under Section 115 of Evidence Act not applicable where transaction adjudged as mortgage and suit within limitation – Redemption right cannot be estopped [Paras 35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit decreed for redemption and possession – Respondent directed to execute redemption deed on payment of Rs. 11,000/- within stipulated period – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 40-41].