Service Law – Coast Guard Dismissal – Summary Trial – BOI – Rule 28(d) – Petitioners challenged dismissal orders following alleged recovery of 1,512 bottles of illicit liquor on ICGS Sarthak – 15 petitioners were initially subjected to summary trials with minor punishments under Section 57(g), which were later set aside by DIG citing legal infirmities including destruction of evidence and procedural bias – Held: Officer possessing authority to approve punishment under Rule 28(d) can set aside punishments even where prior approval is not statutorily required – No bar under Section 68 or Article 20(2) to initiate fresh proceedings [Paras 41–51]

Disciplinary Proceedings – Board of Inquiry – Rule 39(4) Compliance – Procedural Safeguards – Non-supply of BOI Records – All petitioners subsequently faced BOI proceedings under Rule 39 – Held: BOI proceedings did not comply with Rule 39(4) as petitioners were not afforded meaningful opportunity to cross-examine, defend, or access adverse material including Offence Report, Abstract of Evidence, BOI minutes – Typed “admissions” lacking signatures insufficient to establish participation – Violation of audi alteram partem principles renders dismissal unsustainable [Paras 52–66]

Natural Justice – Vagueness in Show-Cause Notices – Non-application of Mind – Show-cause notices under Section 11(b) were vague, lacked specifics of alleged misconduct (dates, locations, witnesses), and were unsupported by evidentiary documents – Petitioners’ replies were dismissed as “unsatisfactory” without substantive reasoning – Held: Notices violated Rule 23 and failed to provide effective opportunity to defend – Material relied upon must be disclosed to enable proper reply [Paras 63–64]

Constitutional Law – Article 311 – Not Applicable to Coast Guard Personnel – Article 310 Applies – Petitioners’ claim of protection under Article 311 rejected – Held: Indian Coast Guard personnel serve at the pleasure of the President and are governed by special legislation – Reaffirmed principle laid down in UOI v. Major S.P. Sharma [Paras 56–57]

Administrative Law – Due Process – Setting Aside Dismissals – Direction for De Novo Proceedings – Court held BOI and dismissal proceedings vitiated by non-compliance with natural justice and statutory procedure – Dismissal orders set aside with direction to conduct fresh proceedings within 8 weeks in accordance with law – Reinstatement ordered to the extent of setting aside of dismissal, subject to outcome of re-conducted BOI [Paras 66–69]

Decision: Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – Dismissal Orders dated 28.02.2024 Quashed – Fresh BOI Proceedings Directed in Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice – No Order as to Costs

Public Interest Litigation – Allegations of Corruption – Vague and Unsubstantiated – PIL filed alleging illegal constructions and misuse of public office by newly appointed Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh and Jammu Development Authority – Petition contained bald and generalized allegations without any documentary evidence or reference to the alleged social media posts – Held: No prima facie case made out and no material to justify judicial interference [Paras 2, 33].

Public Interest Litigation – Abuse of Process – Allegations found to be vague and made with the apparent motive of seeking publicity – Court noted the absence of bona fide public interest – Citing Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. and State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma, reiterated that PILs must not be allowed to be misused for private grievances, political vendettas, or media attention – Held: PIL mechanism must not be abused by publicity seekers or busybodies [Paras 3, 4, 30–35].

PIL Jurisprudence – Judicial Caution – Court reiterated the need for caution in entertaining PILs – Courts must verify the petitioner’s credentials, assess seriousness of allegations, and ensure that evidence exists to support claims – Highlighted that genuine cases are delayed due to trumpery PILs – Judicial process should not be misused by masquerading litigants [Paras 14, 16, 35].

Decision: Petition dismissed as misconceived and publicity-motivated – No costs imposed taking a lenient view – Petitioner cautioned against misusing court process in future.

Civil Procedure – Specific Performance – Judgment on Admission – Decree passed without trial – Trial Court decreed specific performance suit based solely on pleadings, holding defendants’ written statement to be evasive and constituting deemed admission under Order VIII Rule 5 CPC – Held: Not proper to dispose of suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC when factual disputes were evident and a compromise deed was executed during the pendency – Defendant’s omnibus denial required framing of issues [Paras 9-11, 32, 36-39]

Compromise Deed – Evidentiary Status – Execution of settlement during pendency – Deed of compromise dated 17.10.2023 was not brought on record before the Trial Court but surfaced during appeal – Held: Though inadmissible under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, such deed indicates existence of disputed facts requiring trial – Plaintiff’s argument that deed was signed under pressure does not nullify it automatically [Paras 34-39]

Limitation – Article 54 of the Limitation Act – Defendant claimed suit was time-barred as agreement for sale was from 2013 and suit was filed in 2022 – Plaintiff argued cause of action arose only upon express refusal to perform in 2022 – Held: Limitation issue is a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be decided without evidence [Paras 18, 30]

Procedural Law – Framing of Issues and Right to Lead Evidence – Trial Court erred in not framing issues and directly deciding suit on admissions – Appellate Court noted material propositions were disputed and required trial – Judgment passed without recording evidence violates CPC and principles laid down in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381 [Paras 12, 18, 36-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024 in TS No. 690/2022 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame issues and proceed with trial on merits after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence [Paras 40-42]

Dowry Death – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC – Reduction of Life Imprisonment – Husband Convicted – Sentencing Principles Applied – Appellant-husband convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by Trial Court – Appellate Court held that life imprisonment is not mandatory under Section 304-B IPC and sentence must be proportionate to culpability – Appellant was 20 years old at the time of incident, with no criminal antecedents – Already undergone more than 14 years in incarceration – No conviction under Section 302 IPC – Held: Sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment while upholding conviction [Paras 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 37].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Legal Presumption – Evidentiary Threshold under Section 304-B IPC – Court reiterated that conviction under Section 304-B IPC often rests on legal presumptions unlike Section 302 IPC – Hence, quantum of sentence must account for lack of direct evidence and nature of presumption-based liability – Sentence of life imprisonment not justified in absence of extreme aggravating circumstances [Paras 30, 31].

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Omnibus Allegation Against Mother-in-law – No Specific Role Attributed – Accused mother-in-law convicted under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 4 DP Act – Court found that FIR and testimonies only contained general allegations without any specific overt act against her – Two other co-accused similarly situated (jeth and jethani) exonerated during investigation – Applying parity and settled law, conviction of mother-in-law unsustainable – Held: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, appellant acquitted [Paras 28, 32, 33, 35].

Sentencing – Principles of Proportionality and Judicial Discretion – Need to Consider Reformative Theory – Appellate Court reiterated settled law that punishment must be proportionate to the nature and degree of offence – Courts must weigh both aggravating and mitigating factors – Age, background, possibility of reform and factual matrix relevant – Life imprisonment to be reserved for exceptional cases – Reliance placed on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, and Nadeem decisions – Held: Undue harshness in sentencing without justification liable to correction [Paras 29-32].

Family Members in Dowry Cases – Caution Against Roping in Relatives Without Specific Allegations – Court emphasized that general tendency to implicate in-laws, especially female relatives, in dowry cases must be curbed unless supported by specific, credible evidence – Parity with similarly exonerated co-accused a relevant factor – Held: Conviction of mother-in-law in absence of specific role violates settled jurisprudence [Paras 28, 32, 33].

Decision:

Appeal of Chandra Pal @ Rachit partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence under Section 304-B IPC reduced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal of Smt. Atarkali allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged.

Succession – Challenge to Will – Thumb Impression Found Forged – Plaintiff (natural heir) challenged a Will dated 08.08.1985 allegedly executed by deceased mother Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of three sons – First appellate court allowed production of handwriting expert's report under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Expert opined that thumb impression on Will did not match authenticated standard impressions – Defendants led no rebuttal evidence – Held: Will not duly executed – Mutation based on Will is void – Property to devolve equally among all eight children [Paras 7, 8.1, 11–14, 16–17]

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Non-Registration – False Recitals – Scribe Lacked Experience – Will written by an unknown scribe who had never authored a document before – False recitals about earlier allotment of property to other heirs – Will was not registered despite testator living two months after execution – Held: Surrounding circumstances not satisfactorily explained – Will rightly disbelieved by first appellate court [Paras 8.2, 13–14]

Evidence Law – Opinion of Handwriting Expert – Thumb Impressions from Judicial File – Standard thumb impressions taken from earlier civil suit file authenticated by court – Expert’s unrebutted testimony held reliable – Held: When no rebuttal is offered and document’s foundation is falsified, Will cannot be upheld [Paras 7, 12]

Relinquishment – No Registered Instrument – Deemed Relinquishment Unsustainable – First appellate court erroneously held that respondents 5 to 7, by supporting Will, relinquished their share – Held: Relinquishment of share in immovable property must be through registered instrument or valid family settlement – No such evidence presented – All heirs entitled to equal share under succession law [Paras 15–17]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Will dated 08.08.1985 and Mutation No.1648 dated 23.07.1986 declared invalid – Finding of deemed relinquishment by defendants 5 to 7 set aside – All eight children of deceased to inherit suit property equally (1/8th share each) – First appellate court’s decree modified accordingly – No costs [Paras 16–18]

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act for alleged brutal killing of a woman – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court found serious discrepancies in prosecution evidence – FIR silent on gunshot injuries – Medical report shows death by gunshot, but no bullet was recovered and ballistic report was not sought – Contradictions between statements under Sections 161, 164 Cr.P.C and deposition in court by PW2 and PW3 (minor children of deceased) – Inconsistent ocular and medical evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate lack of corroboration and major procedural lapses – Held: Conviction unsustainable, prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].

Evidence – Child Witness – Reliability – PW2 and PW3, son and daughter of the deceased, were key eye-witnesses – Their deposition before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and before the trial court materially contradictory – PW2 claimed shooting as cause of death under Section 164 Cr.P.C., later stated sharp cutting weapons used – PW3 did not state gunshot injury in initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C – Medical evidence showed only gunshot wound, no sharp weapon injuries – Evidence of child witnesses not found wholly reliable – No corroboration from other local witnesses – Held: In absence of corroboration, contradictory statements from child witnesses weaken prosecution case [Paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 32].

Criminal Procedure – FIR – Delay – FIR lodged by deceased’s sister only after verifying facts and visiting hospital – Delay in lodging FIR held explained – However, three-day delay in forwarding FIR to Magistrate remained unexplained – Held: Delay in forwarding FIR to court assumes significance in view of discrepancies in eyewitness accounts and possibility of embellishment – FIR appears to be post-deliberation document [Paras 3, 31, 32].

Criminal Procedure – Investigation Lapses – Arms recovered not connected to incident – Recovered in another case and improperly tagged with the present case – No forensic examination to link bullet injury with seized arms – No ballistic expert report obtained – Held: Failure to obtain ballistic opinion and improper arms recovery fatally affect prosecution’s credibility – No clear evidence on who fired fatal shot – Trial court failed to evaluate lapses [Paras 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 32, 33].

Medical Jurisprudence – Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Medical report confirmed death by gunshot, but no exit wound or bullet recovered – FIR did not mention gunshot injury – Eye-witnesses’ version included sharp cutting weapons, which was medically ruled out – Contradictions between medical and ocular evidence not resolved – Held: Medical evidence contradicted eye-witnesses’ version, further undermining prosecution case [Paras 6, 7, 9, 32, 33].

Judicial Precedents – Application – High Court relied upon multiple Supreme Court rulings – Jagdish v. State of Haryana, Ram Singh v. State of U.P., Siba Nial v. State of Odisha, Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, K. Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P., among others – Held: Where child witnesses are unreliable, ballistic reports are missing, and ocular evidence inconsistent, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court misapplied principles and ignored crucial discrepancies [Paras 10–30].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act set aside – All nine appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Paras 34, 35, 36, 37].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Agreement to Sell – Admission of Signatures and Receipt of Consideration – Defendant admitted encashment of ₹16 lakh via cheques forming part of earnest money – Agreement bore his signatures on all pages including reverse of stamp papers – Held: Once execution and consideration admitted, burden shifted to defendant to prove fraud or incapacity – No cogent evidence led to discharge burden – Defence of intoxication and fraud rightly rejected by both courts below [Paras 2–4, 8]

Contract Law – Fraud and Incapacity – Mere Plea Without Evidence – Defendant claimed agreement obtained under intoxication and fraud – No medical or documentary proof filed – Testimony of wife (DW2) and own cross-examination failed to support plea – Held: Defence was a mere afterthought and lacked credibility – Concurrent findings based on record require no interference [Paras 4, 8]

Procedural Law – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both trial and appellate courts held that plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part and that defendant defaulted without justification – Held: No substantial question of law arises – Second appeal lies only where there is perversity or misapplication of law, not mere reappreciation of facts [Paras 7, 12–13]

Equity – Hardship and Discretion – Defendant claimed hardship and offered to refund double earnest money – Held: No hardship proved – Defendant had history of selling land, was financially sound, and had no equitable claim – Offer to refund does not override valid contractual obligation – Plaintiffs entitled to specific performance based on established readiness and willingness [Paras 10–11]

Evidence – Non-Examination of Scribe – One Attesting Witness Related to Plaintiff – Held: Mere relationship or non-examination of scribe does not vitiate execution once document is proved by party admission and testimony of other attesting witnesses – No inconsistency or contradiction shown – Place of execution and rate variation irrelevant [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Judgments and decrees of both lower courts affirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Death in Motor Accident – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Truck fell 200–250 feet into a gorge resulting in death of conductor – Accused admitted driving – Mechanical inspection showed no defect – Accident of such nature, absent any other explanation, attracts the principle of res ipsa loquitur – Held: burden shifts to accused to explain accident; defence version (deceased putting stone under wheel) inherently improbable, does not explain fall of truck – Negligence proved [Paras 25–31].

Criminal Law – Section 304-AA IPC – Intoxication – Requirement of Blood Alcohol Level – As per Lyon’s Medical Jurisprudence, intoxication begins at 150 mg% – Report showed only 21.68 mg% alcohol – Below even the statutory limit under Section 185 MV Act (30 mg%) – Held: accused cannot be held “intoxicated” for the purposes of Section 304-AA IPC – Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–16].

Criminal Law – Conversion to Lesser Offence – Section 304A IPC – When ingredients of aggravated offence (Section 304-AA IPC) not proved but negligence causing death established – Court may convict for lesser offence despite charge for higher one – Held: conviction altered from Section 304-AA to 304A IPC [Para 32].

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Admissibility – Accused admitted driving – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Sukhdev Singh, Mohan Singh, Ramnaresh) permits use of inculpatory statements under Section 313 CrPC where consistent with prosecution evidence – Held: admission corroborates PW15 (vehicle owner); fact of accused driving treated as proved [Paras 17–24].

Motor Vehicles – Intoxication Standard – Harmonious Construction – Legislature cannot intend that a person under 30 mg% alcohol is punishable under IPC but not under MV Act – Held: interpreting Section 304-AA IPC to punish persons below statutory MV Act limit would be absurd and contrary to legislative intent [Para 16].

Sentencing – Substantial Reduction – Trial Court awarded seven years under Section 304-AA IPC – After alteration to Section 304A IPC (maximum 2 years), High Court imposed 18 months imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000; in default, four months SI – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC allowed [Para 33].

Decision: Conviction under Section 304-AA IPC set aside – Conviction modified to Section 304A IPC – Sentence reduced to 18 months imprisonment with ₹10,000 fine (4 months SI in default) – Conviction under Section 279 IPC affirmed – Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Sections 227 and 228 CrPC – Trial court discharged public officials and contractors accused of conspiracy, corruption, and loss to exchequer in road projects executed during 2007–2009 – High Court upheld discharge, holding that the record failed to establish prima facie misuse of official position, fraudulent conspiracy, or wrongful loss to the state – Investigation lacked credible evidence, delayed FIR, and suffered from natural deterioration of work sites due to lapse of time – No interference warranted [Paras 6–14].

Corruption – Loss to Exchequer – Enquiry reports indicated minor or no loss in most of the 19 components – Work components 8 and 19 initially shown as loss-making were justified by subsequent departmental enquiry reports, which found the rates reasonable and execution within sanctioned powers – Allegations of inflated rates or unauthorized approvals unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B RPC – No material establishing agreement between officers and contractors to commit illegal acts – Mere administrative lapses or procedural deviations insufficient to attract criminal conspiracy without evidence of shared criminal intent – FIR and charge sheet lacked necessary foundational facts to support conspiracy charge [Para 9].

Evidence – Standard at Framing of Charge – Court reiterated principles from M.E. Shivalingamurthy and Kewal Krishan – At the stage of framing charge, court must assess if prosecution case discloses grave suspicion; mere suspicion or improbability does not suffice – Trial court’s order reasoned, based on applicable legal standards, and not perverse [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Revision – Scope of Interference – High Court held revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, not to be exercised for reappreciation of evidence or to substitute trial court’s plausible conclusions – Interference justified only if trial court’s order is manifestly perverse or unsupported by record – No such case made out [Para 12].