Rape of Minor – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability and Credibility – Victim aged 13 years gave a consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual assault and confinement by the accused – Minor discrepancies regarding school timings and routine held to be trivial – Evidence of prosecutrix found to inspire confidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix without corroboration when evidence is of sterling quality – Sensitivity required in appreciation of evidence of child victims [Paras 31–38].

Sexual Offences Against Children – Consent Irrelevant – Prosecution proved victim was 13 years old at the time of incident – Question of consent wholly irrelevant – Act squarely falling within offence of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34, 38].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Value – Medical examination revealed old hymenal tear, redness, tenderness and history of repeated sexual assault – Minor discrepancy in medical opinion not fatal – Held: Ocular testimony of victim prevails over medical evidence – Medical findings sufficiently corroborated prosecution case [Paras 40–44].

Delay in FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after victim returned home next morning – Delay satisfactorily explained considering age of victim and circumstances – No adverse inference drawn [Paras 39, 44].

Criminal Trial – Error in Framing of Charge – Deleted Statutory Provision – Charge framed under Section 376(2)(i) IPC which stood deleted prior to date of incident – Accused contended grave prejudice and failure of justice – Held: Mere error in charge is curable under Sections 215 & 464 CrPC unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown – Accused fully aware that prosecution case was rape of a girl below 16 years – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 45–58].

Alteration of Conviction at Appellate Stage – Powers of Appellate Court – Conviction under deleted Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Ingredients of both provisions identical and maximum punishment same – Accused not placed in a worse position – Appellate Court competent to correct error and alter conviction where no failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 54–66].

Sentencing – Meaningful Hearing – Alleged Prejudice – Contention that hearing on sentence was defective rejected – Accused had opportunity to address sentencing both before Trial Court and High Court – Any defect cured at appellate stage – No violation of principles of fair trial [Paras 61–63].

POCSO Act – Section 42 – Higher Punishment to Prevail – Trial Court correctly applied Section 42 POCSO Act and imposed sentence under Section 376(3) IPC as providing higher punishment – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 65–67].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 342, 363, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC maintained – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 POCSO Act upheld – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine confirmed [Paras 67–68].

Vehicle Requisition – Hire Charges – Non-payment by State – Petitioner’s Maruti Van requisitioned by police authorities for maintenance of law and order under Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 – Hire charges payable as per Government Notification dated 06.02.2014 – Bills raised for multiple periods during 2022–2023 – Outstanding amount of Rs. 6,65,004/- claimed – Liability not disputed by respondents [Paras 2–5, 8].

State Liability – Admitted Dues – Once liability admitted, State cannot withhold payment on ground of non-receipt of sanction or allotment of funds – Administrative delay not a valid justification to deny legitimate dues of citizen – Held: Petitioner entitled to payment of outstanding hire charges [Paras 6–9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Direction for Release of Payment – Where facts are undisputed and claim is admitted, writ court justified in issuing direction to authorities to release payment within a stipulated time – Held: Mandamus issued directing Director General of Police to release admitted amount [Paras 9].

Adjustment and Deduction – Statutory Deduction – Amount already paid to be adjusted – Payment to be made after statutory deductions and set-off of sums already credited to petitioner’s account [Para 9].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 3 (Director General of Police, Assam) directed to take steps to release the amount lawfully entitled to the petitioner after statutory deductions within six months from receipt of certified copy of the order – Amount already paid to be adjusted at the time of final payment.

Family Pension – Recovery of Excess Payment – Bank Error – Widow Pensioner – Demand Notice Challenged – Excess family pension paid for more than a decade due to mistake of pension disbursing bank – No misrepresentation, fraud or concealment by petitioner – Recovery sought from widow solely dependent on family pension – Held: Recovery impermissible as being harsh, inequitable and arbitrary – Demand notice set aside to extent of outstanding recovery [Paras 1–3, 18–23].

Pension Law – Recovery of Excess Amount – Principles of Equity – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Recovery from retired employee/family pensioner after long period – Excess payment continued for over 10 years – Court held recovery would cause grave hardship outweighing employer’s right to recover [Paras 12–14, 20–21].

Undertaking for Recovery – Effect – Consent on Dotted Lines – Exploitation – Undertaking furnished by widow authorising recovery from pension – Such undertaking obtained as a matter of routine held insufficient to justify recovery – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment holding such undertakings exploitative and unenforceable in equity [Paras 22–23].

Pension Payment Order (PPO) – Binding Nature – Correction of Pension – While recovery barred on equitable grounds, petitioner held entitled only to family pension strictly as per PPO prospectively – No right to continue receiving excess pension [Paras 18, 23].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Bank as Disbursing Authority – SBI merely a pension disbursing agent – Excess payment due to clerical error of bank – Recovery from vulnerable pensioner deprecated despite absence of misrepresentation [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned demand notice quashed to extent of remaining recovery – Adjustments already made not interfered with – Family pension payable strictly as per PPO henceforth.

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Successive Declarations under Section 3D – Validity – Challenge to second notification dated 10.07.2024 issued under Section 3D(1) without issuing a fresh Section 3A notification – Allegation of change in alignment and arbitrary inclusion of petitioner’s land – Court held that no change in alignment was established – Issuance of two Section 3D notifications necessitated due to obstruction by landowners preventing survey – Both notifications part of same acquisition proceedings and issued within one year of Section 3A notification – Act, 1956 does not prohibit successive Section 3D declarations – Second notification held valid [Paras 6.2.1–6.2.13].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3C – Right of Objection – Limited Scope – Petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to file objections before issuance of second Section 3D notification – Section 3A notification duly published in Gazette and newspapers – Petitioner failed to file objections within statutory period – Right under Section 3C confined only to objection regarding use of land and not acquisition per se – Failure to object within time disentitles petitioner from raising grievance later – No violation of principles of natural justice found [Paras 6.3.1–6.3.9].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Bar of Judicial Challenge – Upon publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), land vests absolutely in Central Government under Section 3D(2) – Section 3D(4) bars challenge to such declaration before any court – Once vesting takes place, acquisition cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6.4.4–6.4.5, 7.1].

Compensation – Section 3G(3) – Alleged Procedural Lapse – Remedy under Section 3G(5) – Petitioner contended non-compliance with mandatory requirement of public notice before determination of compensation – Court held that even assuming procedural irregularity, it would not vitiate acquisition – Dispute relates to quantum and classification of land – Statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) held to be efficacious – Writ petition not maintainable on this ground [Paras 6.4.1–6.4.6].

Judicial Review – Highway Projects – Limited Interference – Decisions regarding alignment, feasibility and extent of land acquisition lie within domain of technical experts – Courts not equipped to evaluate technical and policy considerations – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides – No mala fides or statutory violation established in present case [Paras 6.5.1–6.5.4].

Public Interest vs. Private Interest – Infrastructure Projects – Widening and four-laning of NH-334D held to be project of national importance – Individual hardship cannot override larger public interest – Appropriate relief lies in fair compensation rather than quashing acquisition – Balance struck in favour of public interest while safeguarding right to seek enhanced compensation [Paras 6.6.1–6.6.5, 7.3–7.4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits of compensation or classification of land [Paras 8–8.1].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of his wife on allegation of assault with sickle – Conviction based on motive, recovery of weapon and clothes, FSL report and judicial confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused – Missing links and serious infirmities in prosecution case – Conviction set aside [Paras 19, 38–41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution required to prove circumstances conclusively and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Evidence adduced fell short of mandatory standards required for conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 19–20].

Motive – Proof of – Failure to Establish – Alleged motive of suspicion regarding wife’s alleged illicit relationship not proved – Testimony of PW-4 (labour contractor) found unreliable and based on hearsay – Witness admitted lack of personal knowledge of alleged quarrels or relationship – Failure to prove motive weighed in favour of accused [Paras 23–26].

Judicial Confession – Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Evidentiary Value – Confession not Substantive Evidence – Confession can only be used for corroboration and not as sole basis of conviction – Accused denied guilt and alleged coercion – Trial Court erred in treating confession as substantive proof of motive and guilt – Reliance on Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reiterated [Paras 27–29].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Examination of Accused – Non-Confrontation of Inculpatory Material – Confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. not put to accused during Section 313 examination – Held: Failure amounts to serious irregularity causing prejudice – Trial vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Reliance on Samsul Haque v. State of Assam and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 30–32].

Recovery Evidence – Memorandum and Spot Panchanama – Inconsistencies – Recovery of clothes from open and accessible place – Discrepancies in timing of panchnamas – Held: Recovery evidence not trustworthy and insufficient to corroborate prosecution case [Paras 20–21].

Forensic Evidence – FSL Report – Chain of Custody – Blood Group Evidence – Failure to examine carrier and prove safe custody and transmission of samples – No blood detected on weapon – Blood on accused’s clothes alone insufficient to sustain conviction – Non-compliance with prescribed procedure fatal in circumstantial evidence cases – Reliance on Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra and Putai v. State of U.P. [Paras 34–37].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal Death – Limited Role – Post-mortem report proved homicidal death and possible use of sickle – Held: Medical evidence alone cannot connect accused with crime in absence of reliable corroborative evidence [Para 33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, subject to execution of P.R. Bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 41–42].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC – Appeal against life sentence – Victim sustained bullet injuries inside his house on the eve of Panchayat elections – Trial Court convicted appellants on the basis of eyewitness testimony and oral dying declaration – High Court reappreciated entire evidence – Held: Conviction justified and appeal dismissed [Paras 1–5, 79–80].

Evidence Act – Res Gestae – Sections 6 and 7 – Victim’s spontaneous utterance naming appellants immediately after being shot – Statements heard by wife (PW 14) and daughter-in-law (PW 15) – Such utterances formed part of the same transaction and surrounding circumstances – Admissible despite being hearsay in nature [Paras 41–44, 47–49].

Dying Declaration – Oral dying declaration – Section 32, Evidence Act – Victim naming appellants as assailants immediately after first bullet injury and repeatedly thereafter to family members, police personnel and companions en route to hospital – Victim conscious though in pain – Oral dying declaration held admissible and reliable – No requirement of written form or Magistrate recording for admissibility [Paras 49, 55–65].

Witness Testimony – Related witnesses – Wife and daughter-in-law as eyewitnesses – Natural presence at place of occurrence – No motive to falsely implicate appellants – Minor inconsistencies and subsequent allegations of police coercion not sufficient to discard substantive testimony before Court – Court entitled to separate truth from embellishment [Paras 56–57, 71–73].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem findings of bullet injuries and secondary injuries consistent with collision after being shot – Medical opinion corroborated ocular testimony regarding manner of assault – Absence of X-ray and recovery of bullet not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 14–18, 67–68].

Investigation – Lapses and irregularities – Delay in recording statements under Section 164 CrPC – Non-production of written dying declaration allegedly recorded by police – Deficiencies in sketch map and forensic collection – Held: Serious lapses noted but cannot outweigh cogent and credible eyewitness and dying declaration evidence [Paras 66, 74–76].

Identification of Accused – Visibility and presence at scene – Argument of insufficient lighting rejected – Assailants firing through grill gate necessarily implies mutual visibility – Victim’s immediate recognition of appellants, known to him earlier, found natural and credible [Paras 50–53, 68–69].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Failure of appellants to take plea of alibi – Denial of presence without explanation – Adverse inference drawn in light of prosecution evidence establishing presence at place of occurrence [Para 78].

Sentence – Fine and compensation – Life imprisonment and fines upheld – Modification directing distribution of fine amount equally between wife and daughter-in-law of deceased – Direction to State to pay compensation of ₹5 lakhs in default of payment of fine by appellants [Paras 80–85].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 IPC, Section 448 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act upheld – Directions regarding surrender, payment of fine and compensation affirmed with modification.

Criminal Law  – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC / Section 351 BNSS – Mandatory Duty of Court – Fair Trial – Convict sentenced to death for rape and murder of a five-year-old child – Trial Court failed to put vital incriminating circumstances, including DNA report, toxicology report and Section 164 CrPC statements, to the accused – Long omnibus questions reproducing entire prosecution case framed instead of specific material circumstances – Held: Such examination defeats the object of Section 313 and violates principles of audi alteram partem – Causes serious prejudice to the accused in a capital punishment case [Paras 22–29, 31–56].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Incriminating Evidence – DNA Evidence – Failure to Put to Accused – Ext PZ DNA report forming the backbone of prosecution case not put to accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Circumstances not put to the accused must ordinarily be excluded from consideration – In a case involving death sentence, omission is grave and non-negotiable – Fair opportunity to explain incriminating material is imperative [Paras 24–26, 40–43, 59].

Capital Punishment – Procedural Safeguards – Heightened Scrutiny – Death penalty imposed by Trial Court – Proceedings concluded with undue haste and without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Held: In capital cases, every safeguard must be scrupulously followed – Any dilution of fair trial standards vitiates the conviction and sentence [Paras 59–60].

Appellate Powers – Remand – Section 386 CrPC – Curable Irregularity – Though defects under Section 313 CrPC are curable – Considering nature of omissions, defence rights, and need to balance justice to accused and victim – Held: Appropriate course is remand to Trial Court from the stage of recording statement of accused under Section 351 BNSS – Not a case of acquittal on merits nor mere exclusion of evidence [Paras 64–66, 69–70].

Criminal Appeal and Murder Reference – Result – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Death Reference Rendered Infructuous – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence quashed – Matter remanded to Sessions Court to re-commence trial from stage of Section 351 BNSS (Section 313 CrPC) – Accused to be examined afresh on all incriminating circumstances and permitted to lead defence evidence – Murder Reference disposed of as infructuous [Paras 67–75].

Decision: CRA-D-750-2021 partly allowed to the extent of remand – Conviction and death sentence set aside – Murder Reference No. 3 of 2021 disposed of – Trial to recommence from the stage of examination of accused under Section 351 BNSS.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Section 138 – Reversal of Acquittal – Trial Court acquitted accused on ground that complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance loan of ₹10,00,000 – Lower appellate Court reversed acquittal and convicted accused – Held: Once issuance of cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise – Trial Court erred in insisting upon proof of source of funds without accused discharging initial burden [Paras 2, 5].

Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 NI Act – Burden of Proof – Accused did not dispute signature or issuance of cheque – Defence that cheque was misused not supported by any material evidence – Mere suggestion or denial insufficient to rebut statutory presumption – Accused failed to probabilise defence [Paras 4–5].

Financial Capacity of Complainant – Requirement of Proof – Complainant stated that loan amount was mobilised from known persons and agricultural income – Sale deed produced to show ownership of agricultural land – Held: At initial stage, complainant is not required to prove financial capacity unless accused lays foundation in reply notice or evidence – Failure to reply to statutory notice strengthens complainant’s case [Paras 3, 6].

Failure to Reply to Statutory Notice – Adverse Inference – Accused neither replied to demand notice nor paid cheque amount – Held: Failure to reply to statutory notice permits inference that defence is an afterthought – Reliance placed on Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar [Paras 2, 6].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Judgment of Conviction – Lower appellate Court gave cogent reasons for reversing acquittal – Judgment found to be well-reasoned and based on evidence – Held: No perversity or illegality warranting interference under Section 374(2) CrPC [Para 5].

Sentence – Non-compliance of Suspension Order – Accused failed to comply with condition of deposit while seeking suspension of sentence – Held: Trial Court directed to secure accused for undergoing sentence [Para 5].

Anticipatory Bail – Exceptional Relief – Scope – Petition filed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under Section 299 BNS read with Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act – Reference made to Supreme Court decision holding that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted as a matter of routine – Held: Petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting grant of anticipatory bail [Paras 1, 7].

Cow Slaughter – Possession of Beef – Forensic Report – Petitioner claimed meat seized was buffalo meat purchased on the basis of invoices from Malerkotla and Saharanpur – Sample sent to National Meat Research Institute, Hyderabad found to be “Bos indicus (Bull/Ox)” – Addition of offence under Section 8 of the 1955 Act justified – Plea of being misled by sellers held to be an afterthought and not acceptable at the stage of anticipatory bail [Paras 2, 7].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Allegations of organised supply of beef affecting public order and religious sentiments – Prosecution asserted petitioner’s involvement in a wider racket – Held: Custodial interrogation necessary to unearth source, supply chain and involvement of other accused – Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper effective investigation [Paras 5, 7].

Religious Sentiments – Public Order – Court took note of sanctity of cow in Hindu religion and seriousness of allegations – Offence alleged not merely individual but having potential impact on communal harmony – Factor weighed against grant of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail [Paras 5, 7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail declined – Custodial interrogation held necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.