Civil Law - Specific Performance – Oral and Written Agreement – Burden of Proof – Dismissal of Suit – The appellant sought specific performance based on an oral agreement and a subsequent written agreement dated 30.08.2000 – The Trial Court found that the oral agreement was not proved due to lack of corroborative evidence and the diary produced (Ex.P/1) lacked evidentiary value – Held: Oral agreement could not be established solely by entries without supporting testimony or documents [Paras 22-25].

Execution of Written Agreement – Authority to Execute – Invalidity of Power of Attorney – The written agreement was executed by one Trilok Singh purportedly on behalf of others under a power of attorney, two of the executors having predeceased the agreement – Held: Agreement executed on behalf of deceased persons invalid – No enforceable contract established [Paras 26-28].

Readiness and Willingness – Financial Incapacity – Specific Performance Denied – The appellant failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness, critical for specific performance – Admissions regarding financial incapacity and inability to pay court fees were decisive – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 29-31].

Possession and Adverse Possession Claim – Documentary Evidence – Claim Rejected – The appellant’s possession was not proved through revenue records – Orders of the Tehsildar and SDO dismissed the claim of possession – Held: Mere physical occupation without legal right or acknowledgment by authorities does not confer ownership or protect possession [Paras 32-34].

Application for Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Dismissal – Documents produced at appellate stage (electricity bills, Nagar Palika receipts, etc.) were rejected for not being newly discovered evidence and irrelevant to pronouncement of judgment – Held: No grounds made for admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC [Paras 18-21].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court’s findings affirmed – The appellant failed to prove oral or written agreement, possession, readiness and willingness; thus, no interference warranted with Trial Court judgment [Paras 37-38].
 

Bail – Rape – POCSO Act - DNA Report – Admissibility at Bail Stage – Interim Assessment - DNA evidence considered as opinion evidence which requires proof in trial – Delay in analysis and questions regarding sample collection and testing procedures raised doubt – Held: DNA report cannot be treated as conclusive proof at bail stage and bail granted considering long incarceration [Paras 7.1, 7.3, 18-25].

Presumption under POCSO Act – Section 29 – Scope and Limitation – Presumption under Section 29 not absolute and comes into play only upon foundational facts being established – Prima facie inconsistencies in prosecutrix’s version noted, undermining foundation for presumption – Held: Bail granted, presumption under Section 29 not mechanically applicable [Paras 15-17].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after significant delay – Court recognized that delay alone not fatal in sexual assault cases involving minors – However, discrepancy in facts and circumstances undermined credibility of prosecution’s case at bail stage [Paras 10-11, 14].

Long Incarceration – Pending Trial – Relevance – Applicant incarcerated for over 2 years and 8 months with no certainty of trial commencement – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention considered a valid ground for grant of bail [Paras 12-13, 25].

Decision – Bail Granted – Court directed release of Applicant on bail with conditions to ensure non-tampering of evidence and non-contact with victim – Observations made limited to bail and shall not affect trial merits [Paras 26-29].

Criminal Law – Quashing 0f FIR - Muslim Divorce – Talaq-e-Ahsan – Distinction from Talaq-e-bidat – Quashment of FIR - Applicants demonstrated that the pronouncement of divorce was through Talaq-e-Ahsan and not Talaq-e-bidat which alone is banned – Held: Talaq-e-Ahsan is a recognized mode of divorce under Muslim Personal Law and not punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 [Paras 3-7].

Scope of Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act – Offence applies only to husband – No vicarious liability for relatives – Proceedings against parents-in-law quashed - Held: Section 4 applies solely to Muslim husbands; involvement of in-laws is legally untenable, and their prosecution constitutes an abuse of process [Para 6].

Requirement of Immediate or Irrevocable Divorce – Definition under the Act – Instantaneous Divorce Only Punishable - Held: Only Talaq forms having instantaneous and irrevocable effect such as Talaq-e-bidat are punishable; Talaq-e-Ahsan not prohibited as per Supreme Court and Kerala High Court precedents [Paras 7-8].

Abuse of Process – Quashing of Proceedings – Preventing Misuse of Criminal Process - Held: When allegations do not satisfy ingredients of offence and proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intention, it amounts to abuse of process and deserves quashment [Paras 7-8].

Decision – FIR and criminal proceedings quashed - The Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR registered at Bhusawal Bazar Peth Police Station and Regular Criminal Case No. 1156/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhusawal, against all applicants [Final Order].
 

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Inadequate Legal Representation – Violation of Article 21 of Constitution – De novo Trial Ordered - The Court found that the convict was deprived of adequate legal assistance throughout the trial due to frequent change of legal aid counsel, perfunctory cross-examinations, and failure to provide proper defence – This amounted to a violation of the convict’s right to a fair trial under Article 21, necessitating a retrial from the stage of charge framing [Paras 10-16].

Section 313 CrPC – Improper Examination of Accused – Prejudice Caused – Trial Vitiated - The Court observed that the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC was lengthy, vague, and failed to put specific material circumstances individually to the convict – This denial of opportunity to effectively explain the evidence against him constituted a serious procedural irregularity causing prejudice and vitiating the trial [Paras 17-20].

Sentencing in Death Penalty Cases – Failure to Consider Mitigating Circumstances – Separate Sentencing Hearing Mandatory - The Court criticized the trial court for not conducting a separate sentencing hearing or considering mitigating factors before awarding the death penalty, in violation of constitutional norms established under Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh – Hence, the death sentence could not be sustained without a fair sentencing procedure [Paras 21-22].

Denial of Fair Trial – Fundamental Lapses by Trial Court – Need for De Novo Trial - Cumulative procedural irregularities including ineffective legal aid, improper Section 313 CrPC examination, absence of a genuine sentencing hearing, and the failure to protect the convict’s rights led the Court to conclude that the trial was fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional – Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a de novo trial [Paras 23-28].

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Case remanded to Trial Court for a fresh trial – Directions issued for competent legal aid, proper conduct of trial, and compliance with constitutional standards [Paras 28-32].
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Circumstantial Evidence – Standards for Conviction – Chain of Circumstances Incomplete – Conviction Set Aside - In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all circumstances conclusively and exclude any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused – The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the deceased and failed to prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased – Therefore, benefit of doubt granted and conviction set aside [Paras 3-5, 8-14].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Applicability – Prosecution Must First Establish Complete Chain - The prosecution cannot rely on the failure of the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge unless it first establishes a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt – Here, failure to prove the basic facts rendered Section 106 inapplicable – Failure of accused to explain absence from the flat not fatal [Paras 17-19].

Motive – Absence of Proof of Pending Cases – Failure of Prosecution - Alleged motive that accused wanted to fake death to escape trial was not established by producing evidence of pending cases – No investigation against others possibly involved – Weak prosecution conduct noted [Paras 21-22].

Role of Prosecutor – Duty to Conduct Prosecution Diligently – Criticism of Casual Approach - The Court criticized the prosecution for failure to bring crucial evidence on record and for casual conduct during trial – Directions issued to Director of Prosecution for taking note against erring prosecutor [Paras 22-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Quashed – Appellant Acquitted - The Court acquitted the appellant giving him benefit of doubt as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and directed his immediate release if not required in any other case [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].

Election Law - Corrupt Practice – Election Manifesto Promises – Not Attributable to Candidate – Petition Rejected - Allegations of corrupt practices arising from the 'five guarantees' made in the INC's election manifesto were held insufficient to constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act – The Court relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and clarified that such promises are considered declarations of public policy and not acts of individual candidates – It was held that mere association with the manifesto or affixing a signature as a CLP leader does not establish personal liability or intent – Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for lack of cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Lack of Material Facts – Pleadings Defective – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition lacked material facts necessary to support allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – No details provided showing how the alleged conduct materially affected the result – Bald assertions and absence of particulars were deemed fatal – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) confirmed [Paras 23-28].

Non-disclosure of Expenditure – Allegation Against Party, Not Candidate – Rejected - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of expenditure for manifesto distribution – Held: Promises and related expenses pertained to the political party, not the individual candidate – Hence, no duty of disclosure by the respondent under the R.P. Act [Paras 29-31].

Pleadings After Limitation Period – Rejoinder Cannot Cure Deficiency – Ignored - Petitioner’s attempt to supplement material facts through rejoinder was rejected – Court reiterated that material facts must be present in the original petition filed within limitation – Reference made to Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [Para 34-35].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Balaji Decision Applicable – Petition Dismissed - The Court emphasized that until overruled, decisions of the Supreme Court such as S. Subramaniam Balaji are binding – Pending review or reference to larger Bench does not dilute binding nature – High Courts must follow settled precedent [Paras 36-38].

Casual Drafting – Lack of Diligence – Grounds Unsubstantiated – Election Petition Rejected - The Court noted careless drafting, factual inaccuracies, and copy-paste pleadings from other petitions – Such defects, combined with legal insufficiencies, led to rejection of the petition in limine [Paras 41-42].

Final Decision – I.A. No. 1/2023 Allowed – Election Petition Rejected - The application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC was allowed – Entire election petition rejected for lack of cause of action and non-compliance with legal requirements [Paras 43-44].

NDPS Act – Bail and Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration Overrides Section 37 – Held: All petitioners except two had been in custody for nearly two years with trial not yet commenced—Court held that prolonged detention violated their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21—Bail granted subject to conditions – However, bail denied to petitioners Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta due to stronger material evidence and greater recovered quantities [Paras 91–103, 124–151].

Evidence and Recovery – Role of Individual Petitioners – Varies Across Accused – Petitioners had differing degrees of involvement—Some linked by parcel addressee name only, others by digital evidence, confession, or contraband recovery – NCB relied on voluntary statements, chats, and forensic data – Bail granted where evidence lacked direct attribution or corroboration [Paras 6–19, 27–29, 76–84, 123–124].

Controlled Delivery – Non-Compliance Not Fatal to Bail – Held: Controlled delivery procedure under Section 50A NDPS is directory and non-mandatory—Failure to undertake the same does not vitiate proceedings, but may affect credibility of prosecution’s case in certain instances [Paras 23, 85, 128].

Procedural Lapses – Irregularities in Seizure, Sampling and Certification – Petitioners cited delay in certification under Section 52A NDPS, improper packaging, sample handling and record-keeping—Court observed such procedural errors need to be tested during trial but factored in overall while granting bail [Paras 63–69, 65–66, 68–69].

Commercial Quantity – Differentiated Treatment Based on Quantity – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian (500 LSD blots) and Yash Gupta (prior similar parcel and digital recovery) – Held: Gravity of offence based on quantity and individual role justified continued detention in their cases [Paras 124–128, 144–151].

Decision – Bail Allowed for Five Petitioners – Petitions of Vaibhav Yadav, Arnav Dhankar, Pritesh Aggarwal, Nishant Rawat, and Avtar Singh allowed – Bail denied to Jithin Cherian and Yash Gupta – Petitioners directed to furnish sureties and comply with strict conditions [Paras 101–103, 124, 151].

Criminal Law - Sexual Assault of Minor – Section 354B IPC and Section 10 POCSO – Conviction Upheld – Based on consistent testimony of the victim and her immediate disclosures to two neighbors, supported by FIR and medical evidence, the High Court confirmed the conviction – Appellant’s act of disrobing the 7-year-old victim after luring her into his room established assault with sexual intent [Paras 1–12].

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Allegation Disbelieved – Section 376AB Charge Not Made Out – Although the victim later alleged penetrative assault, her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and neighbors' accounts did not corroborate this – Doctor's finding of ruptured hymen without accompanying injuries led the court to reject rape charge [Paras 5–6, 12].

Medical and Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies Not Material – Court held minor contradictions and absence of medical injuries did not undermine consistent core accusation of sexual assault – Trial court rightly excluded exaggerated claims and focused on credible portion of testimony [Paras 6–8].

Admissibility of Magistrate Statements – Not Prejudicial – High Court rejected challenge that non-examination of Magistrate who recorded Section 164 CrPC statements prejudiced defence – Held: Such statements admissible under Section 80 Evidence Act; Appellant had opportunity to summon magistrate but didn’t [Para 13].

Age of Victim – Proven Through Birth Certificate – Challenge to age dismissed as birth certificate was on record and marked as exhibit without contrary evidence from Appellant [Para 13].

Presumption Under POCSO – Not Rebutted – Section 29 of POCSO invoked to affirm guilt – Appellant failed to rebut presumption or prove any ulterior motive such as property dispute – Contradictions deemed immaterial [Para 14].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – CRA (SB) No. 72 of 2023 Dismissed – Judgment of trial court upheld in entirety, with no interference warranted [Paras 15–16].