Civil Law -  Mutation - Inheritance – Succession of Issueless Hindu Male – Mother as Class-I Heir – Mutation in Favour of Class-II Heirs Invalid – Upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother Smt. Santo was alive and the only Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act – Mutation of his share in land in favour of his siblings and sister Daro was illegal – Held: The entire remaining estate of 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved solely on his mother, and not on collateral heirs [Paras 3–5].

Transfer of Property – Applicability of Section 41 TPA – Bonafide Purchaser Protection Denied – No Ostensible Ownership – Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Santo in excess of Santo's inherited share were wrongly protected by the First Appellate Court under Section 41 of the TPA – Supreme Court precedent in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, laid down mandatory conditions for invoking Section 41, including ostensible ownership and due diligence – None satisfied – Held: Section 41 not attracted and transfers to that extent invalid [Paras 6–7].

Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Sale by Stranger to Title – Invalid Transfer – Reiterated that no individual can transfer better title than he lawfully owns – Sale by Mehma Singh of property not inherited by him from Pritam Singh was void and ineffectual against rightful successors [Para 7].

Revenue Mutation – Erroneous Entry Caused Litigation – Revenue Authorities Directed to Rectify Records – Mutation wrongly included land already sold by Pritam Singh and did not limit inheritance to the mother – Court directed Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct mutation, restrict Santo’s title to 3 kanals 3 marlas and disregard excess sales by others – Directed compliance report within two months [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Mutation to be Rectified – Directions to Revenue Authorities – Court allowed the appeal with direction to correct revenue entries – Only 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved upon Smt. Santo and sale by her upheld to that extent – Financial Commissioner to ensure implementation and submit compliance [Paras 9–11].

Anticipatory Bail – Direct Approach to High Court – Permissibility in Special Circumstances – Application Allowed – Applicant directly approached the High Court bypassing Sessions Court citing rejection of interim protection to co-accused and risk of similar denial – Court held that special circumstances were made out, particularly due to applicant’s young age and academic commitments – Preliminary objection overruled [Paras 2–9].

Dowry Death Allegation – Discrepancy Between FIR and Medical Evidence – Bail Granted – FIR alleged strangulation by co-accused (mother), implicating the applicant and family – However, postmortem showed ligature mark with cause of death as hanging, and no injury elsewhere – No direct allegations against applicant – Bail granted considering lack of prima facie material and academic background of applicant [Paras 10–16].

Anticipatory Bail – Bail Not Barred by Prior Writ Dismissal – Distinct Remedies – Held – Withdrawal of earlier writ petition for FIR quashing did not preclude filing anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail considered independently on its own merits [Para 15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties in event of arrest or appearance, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-interference with investigation, and presence before trial court [Paras 16–17].
 

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Petitioner Alleged to Have Driven the Getaway Vehicle – The petitioner sought bail claiming parity with co-accused Sifarish Khan and Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, who had been granted bail earlier – Held: The petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the robbery, driving the motorcycle with a fake number plate and aiding the pillion rider who snatched the gold – The co-accused had distinct and less direct roles, thus no parity existed [Paras 4, 6].

Robbery – Daylight Crime with Police Impersonation – Bail Denied – The offence was committed in broad daylight in a busy locality, with the perpetrators dressed in khaki to impersonate police officers and using a pistol-shaped lighter – The court found the nature and execution of the crime to be daring and serious, justifying rejection of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Recovery of Property – Gold Not Yet Recovered – Accused's Claims Unfounded – Though the defence claimed the gold was fake, the prosecution clarified it had not been recovered yet – Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel was not correctly briefed, and such misrepresentations weakened the bail plea [Para 8].

Final Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Given the seriousness of the offence, involvement of the petitioner, and absconding co-accused, the court found it unfit to grant regular bail to the applicant [Para 9].
 

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Permanent Disability – Enhancement Allowed – The claimant, aged 48 years and engaged in dairy farming, suffered 60% permanent disability in a road accident and remained hospitalized for nearly a month – The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 2,60,000 without assessing future loss of income, pain, or other non-pecuniary damages – Held: Applying the settled law from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Pranay Sethi, the High Court reassessed monthly income at Rs. 2100, applied a multiplier of 13, and awarded compensation under various heads including pain, suffering, and loss of amenities – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,06,854 with 9% interest from date of petition awarded [Paras 6–12].

Compensation Calculation – Application of Minimum Wages and Multiplier – Just and Reasonable Compensation – Appellant's monthly income fixed at Rs. 2100 per minimum wages for skilled labour in Punjab – Future prospects @ 25% added – 60% disability applied on annual income, and multiplier of 13 used for assessing future income loss – Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs for pain and suffering, Rs. 2 lakhs for attendant charges, Rs. 2 lakhs for loss of amenities, and other conventional heads quantified – Tribunal had failed to follow settled principles in assessing just compensation [Paras 6, 10].

Interest on Compensation – Applicable Rate and Period – Interest @ 9% per annum granted – Following ratio in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu STC, Court ordered interest on enhanced amount from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit within 2 months [Para 11].

Final Relief – Compensation Enhanced – Original award of Rs. 2,60,000 enhanced to Rs. 11,66,854 – Enhanced amount of Rs. 9,06,854 directed to be paid by Insurance Company with 9% interest – Insurance Company to disburse advocate's fee and payment to claimant’s bank account as directed [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC  - Accid Attack - Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness – Acceptability of Single Witness Testimony – Upheld – The conviction was based substantially on the testimony of the deceased's brother, who was an eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Statement of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence – Evidence of PW-10 Sanjay Rawat was detailed, corroborated by medical and forensic reports, and found to be credible [Paras 16–18].

Acid Attack – Chemical Burns Leading to Death – Sulphuric Acid Detected on Clothes and Vehicle – Cause of Death Established – Medical evidence confirmed death due to chemical burns – Forensic Science Laboratory found sulphuric acid traces on clothes of accused and seat cover of vehicle – Held: Recovery and expert reports corroborated ocular account and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 20].

Motive – Employment Termination and Personal Grudge – Considered but Not Essential – Rajni’s removal from employment by victim's brother-in-law was cited as motive – Held: Even in absence of motive, clear and cogent direct evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction [Para 17].

Non-Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Not Fatal – Accused Known to Witness – No TIP conducted for Rajni – Held: TIP not required when accused is already known to witness and is named in FIR – Non-identification of other co-accused in FIR strengthens natural course of prosecution narrative [Paras 17, 19].

Delayed Appeal Hearing – No Prejudice Established – Appeal Dismissed on Merits – Appeal filed in 2004 remained pending for 23 years – Held: Delay in hearing did not result in miscarriage of justice – Conviction sustainable on strength of unshaken prosecution evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Upheld – Life Imprisonment Affirmed – The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal, upholding the trial court’s findings and sentence – Acid attack resulting in death proven through consistent eyewitness account and corroborative forensic evidence [Paras 21].

Criminal Law - Bail Cancellation – Misuse of Liberty – Grounds Justified – Bail Cancelled – Petitioner sought cancellation of bail granted to private respondents in FIR No. 183 of 2016 for offences under Sections 307, 326, 323 IPC etc. – Respondents allegedly committed fresh offences post-bail including trespass and physical assault on the complainant and his family – CCTV footage corroborated their unauthorized presence – Held: Conduct of respondents showed disregard for judicial process and violated bail conditions, justifying cancellation [Paras 1–11].

Repetition of Offences – Pattern of Intimidation and Lawlessness – Compelling Ground for Cancellation – The Court found respondents engaged in further criminal conduct post-bail including threats, assault and criminal trespass at the complainant's residence – Held: Bail privilege forfeited by continued intimidation and interference with justice – Trial Court directed to take them into custody [Paras 12–14].

Decision – Bail Orders Dated 02.04.2019 and 15.12.2017 Cancelled – Trial Court Directed to Take Respondents Into Custody – The petitions were allowed and bail granted to private respondents was cancelled due to post-bail misconduct – Observations made without prejudice to merits of ongoing trial [Para 14].

NDPS Act – Bail under Section 483 BNSS – Disclosure Statement – Bail Denied – Petitioner not named in FIR, implication based on disclosure statement of co-accused – No recovery effected from petitioner – Petitioner allegedly managed drug money laundering firm – Allegations of concealment of heroin in tomato ketchup and juice bottles – Evidence includes call records, financial transactions and involvement in trade-based money laundering – Held: Despite lack of recovery, material prima facie indicates managerial role in a transnational drug syndicate – Gravity of offence and risk of absconding outweigh plea for bail – Bail denied [Paras 2-23].

NDPS Act – Speedy Trial – Direction for Expedited Proceedings – Twice Weekly Hearing Ordered – Considering voluminous evidence (8596 pages, 142 witnesses), trial to proceed twice a week – Both prosecution and defence directed to cooperate – Aim is to balance right to speedy trial with national security concerns [Paras 24-25].

Limitation Law - Second Appeal – Delay in Refiling – Vague Justification – Condonation Rejected – An application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 800 days delay in refiling the appeal was dismissed – Held: The explanation given was vague, generic, and did not constitute sufficient cause – Delay of each day must be explained in law [Paras 1–4].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Ownership – Karewa Marriage Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff challenged mutation of inheritance by alleging that the defendant was not the widow of deceased Ram Bhagat – Held: Rajwanti sufficiently proved karewa marriage and cohabitation with Ram Bhagat through admissions and witness statements – Concurrent findings of fact were rightly returned by the courts below [Paras 2–12].

Customary Marriage – Admission by Witnesses – Sufficient Proof – No Need for Documentary Evidence – The plaintiff’s own witnesses admitted the cohabitation and relationship of Rajwanti with Ram Bhagat – Held: Such admission constitutes best evidence – Plea of lack of documentary proof of karewa marriage not sustainable [Paras 11–12].

Declaration Suit – Possession Not Proved – Maintainability Fails – It was admitted that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff had not sought possession – Held: Simplicitor declaration suit without claim for possession is not maintainable under Specific Relief Act [Para 13].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – Findings of fact based on evidence and admission – Held: No scope for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed both on merit and due to delay [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed on merits and also on account of delay—Concurrent findings upheld—Pending applications also disposed of—No costs awarded.

Criminal Law - Corruption Allegation – Demand and Acceptance – Sole Witness Not Wholly Reliable – Conviction Set Aside - Prosecution case hinged on solitary testimony of complainant (PW1), who had a chequered criminal history and inconsistencies in his account of bribe demands – Held: His evidence lacked corroboration, was not wholly reliable, and recovery of tainted money not from A1 – Conviction reversed [Paras 17-29].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Possession by A2 Insufficient – Knowledge and Intent Not Proven - A2, a petition writer, was found with tainted notes but gave plausible explanation that money was handed over without his knowledge of its purpose – No evidence linking A2 to A1’s alleged demand – Held: No case made out under Section 12 of the Act – Acquittal justified [Paras 30-31].

Prosecution Case – Inconsistencies and Lack of Credibility – Entire Narrative Collapsed - Alleged bribe demands on festival or improbable dates contradicted by official duty registers – PW1’s inconsistent statements and prior disputes with A1 suggested motive for false implication – Court found prosecution story not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquittal Ordered - Trial court’s conviction of both appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act held unsustainable – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and fine amounts directed to be refunded [Para 32].