Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction Under Section 302, 34 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal -  The appellants challenged their conviction for murder citing improper appreciation of evidence, dubious oral dying declaration, procedural lapses in investigation, and faulty Section 313 examination—High Court found multiple inconsistencies in prosecution story including absence of dying declaration in FIR, non-examination of neutral witnesses, improper recovery of weapon from public place, and defective questioning under Section 313 CrPC—Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt—Appeals allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted [Paras 1-25].

Dying Declaration – Non-Mention in FIR and Inquest Report – Version Discredited – Alleged oral dying declaration by victim to his brother not reflected in FIR or medical records—No hospital records showing presence of PW1—Omissions deemed material and suggestive of prosecution improvement—Held: Prosecution failed to establish dying declaration as credible evidence [Paras 10-15].

Eyewitness Credibility – Prosecution Relied Only on Victim’s Associates – Court noted suspicious absence of local independent witnesses at place of occurrence—Seizure witnesses and primary prosecution witnesses all belonged to victim’s locality, not the crime scene—Held: Prosecution version doubtful, non-examination of neutral witnesses fatal [Paras 16-21].

Recovery of Weapon – Recovery from Public Place Without Proper Corroboration – Iron rod recovered from public drain in absence of local witnesses—Court held recovery lacked credibility under Section 27 Evidence Act—Reliance placed on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. and Manjunath v. State of Karnataka—Held: Recovery not proved satisfactorily [Paras 18-20].

Defective Examination Under Section 313 CrPC – Procedural Lapse – Court found improper clubbing of questions under Section 313, denying appellants fair opportunity to explain incriminating evidence—Held: Trial Judge erred by not conducting proper examination—Conviction vitiated due to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 22-24].

Final Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside—Appellants acquitted of all charges—Directed to be released forthwith if not required in other cases [Paras 25-26].

Criminal Law - DNA Testing in Rape Case – Quashing of Sessions Court Order – Mandatory DNA Sampling Upheld – The petitioner, prosecutrix, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which had set aside the Magistrate’s order permitting DNA sampling of Respondent No.2 in a case registered under Section 376 IPC. The Delhi High Court held that the Sessions Court had erroneously applied the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act despite clear evidence of separation between the prosecutrix and her husband. It was concluded that in cases involving allegations of rape, DNA examination under Section 53A Cr.P.C. is mandatory and indispensable for a fair investigation. The Court set aside the order of the Sessions Court and directed Respondent No.2 to provide his blood sample for DNA testing within fifteen days. The Court also permitted use of reasonable force if the accused declined or resisted [Paras 1-99].

Collection of DNA Sample – Section 53A Cr.P.C. – DNA Testing is a Mandatory Step in Rape Investigation – The Court reaffirmed the legal position that in cases of sexual assault, DNA sampling is mandatory under Section 53A Cr.P.C. The rationale is to ensure comprehensive investigation and facilitate accurate determination of guilt or innocence. The order of the Magistrate allowing DNA testing was found to be correct and aligned with the statutory mandate of fair investigation [Paras 53-57, 86-88].

Presumption of Legitimacy under Section 112 Evidence Act – Not Applicable in Criminal Investigation – The Court held that the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Evidence Act is meant for matrimonial disputes and cannot be allowed to interfere in criminal proceedings. In the present case, since the prosecutrix and her husband were separated without access to each other, the presumption was inapplicable. The Court held that modern scientific tools like DNA testing must prevail over presumptions to ascertain truth in criminal cases [Paras 60-93].

Scientific Evidence Prevails – Importance of Truth in Criminal Justice – The Court emphasized that in criminal justice, truth is paramount and DNA testing is a near-perfect scientific tool to determine paternity and establish facts in sexual assault cases. Courts must prefer conclusive scientific evidence over legal fictions or presumptions where justice demands it [Paras 64-71, 85-87].

Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Principles of Matrimonial Law Not Applicable – The Court distinguished between civil and criminal cases, observing that while certain presumptions may apply in matrimonial disputes, they cannot limit the investigative powers of the police in criminal proceedings. The right to fair investigation in rape cases includes recourse to scientific methods like DNA testing irrespective of matrimonial presumptions [Paras 83-89].

Direction for Compliance – ASJ Order Set Aside – Blood Sample to be Collected – The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and directed Respondent No.2 to present himself for DNA sampling within fifteen days. The Investigating Officer was authorized to use reasonable force if Respondent No.2 failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed, ensuring proper application of legal provisions to aid investigation [Paras 98-99].

Civil Writ – Service Law - Pension Entitlement – Daily Wager Service Prior to Regularization – Non-Consideration of Pre-Regularization Service – Dismissal of Writ – Petitioner, a Chowkidar in Gorakhpur Development Authority, sought inclusion of daily wage service from 1988 to 2010 towards pension qualifying service under the Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: As per Rule 2(i), qualifying service requires 20 years of regular service; petitioner’s regular service was only 13 years post-regularization—Service prior to regularization as daily wager excluded from qualifying service computation—Petition dismissed [Paras 14-18].

Application of Prem Singh Principle – Distinction Between Work-Charged and Daily Wager Service – Petitioner Ineligible – The Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Singh (2019) applies to work-charged employees under 1961 Rules; clarified in Uday Pratap Thakur (2023) that daily wager service cannot be counted for pension quantum or qualifying service under Retirement Rules, 2011—Held: Petitioner being daily wager, not entitled to pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service [Paras 17-18].

Pending Reference Before Larger Bench – Judicial Restraint Exercised – The issue of counting daily wage service under the 2011 Rules is sub judice before Division Bench in Kanhai Ram (2024)—Held: Court refrained from granting relief pending authoritative determination of issue—Petitioner at liberty to avail remedy post reference outcome [Para 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Pension Entitlement for Daily Wage Service – Court dismissed petition noting absence of requisite 20 years qualifying service post-regularization, and legal distinction between work-charged and daily wager categories—Petitioner’s remedy remains open subject to decision in pending reference [Para 19].

Arms Act Conviction – Doubtful Evidence – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioner was convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act based on recovery of .315 bore pistol and live cartridge – Court noted unexplained delay in sending the weapon for ballistic testing, non-submission of recovered cartridge for expert opinion, and armourer’s report failing to mention examination of firing pin – Held: Prosecution failed to establish working condition of firearm beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction and sentence quashed, petitioner acquitted [Paras 1-23].

Unexplained Delay in Sending Weapon for Examination – Material Lapse – The Court found that the pistol recovered on 02.11.2002 was sent to the armourer only on 15.01.2003 without satisfactory explanation—Such unexplained delay undermines prosecution’s case—Held: Delay in examination creates doubt on integrity of recovered weapon [Paras 16, 20].

Lack of Testing of Cartridge – Omission Deemed Fatal – Court observed that recovered live cartridge was not sent for examination, following the Supreme Court ruling in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1993 CrLJ 183)—Held: Failure to test cartridge coupled with delay in weapon examination renders prosecution case untrustworthy [Paras 19-20].

Deficiency in Armourer’s Report – Absence of Firing Pin Verification – Armourer’s report lacked basis of conclusion on working condition and omitted firing pin verification—Court relied on Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, CRR-861-2008 (decided 17.03.2025), and held prosecution evidence defective—Held: Essential elements of ‘working firearm’ not established [Paras 21-22].

Final Decision – Revision Allowed – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments set aside—Petitioner acquitted of charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act—Petitioner’s conviction and sentence quashed [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail – Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 110, 190, 296(b) of the BNS - Advocate Assaulted for Professional Duty – Bail Rejected – Petitioners, political leaders, sought anticipatory bail after allegedly attacking a lawyer who had drafted a complaint against them – Court found motive established from documentary evidence and confirmed grievous injuries to the complainant – Held: Granting bail would impair custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon – Bail application dismissed [Paras 1–12].

Custodial Interrogation – Supreme Court Precedent – Pre-arrest Protection Dilutes Investigation – Relying on Supreme Court judgment in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail may hinder effective interrogation – Held: Bail at pre-investigation stage can insulate accused and reduce interrogation to a ritual – Therefore, custodial interrogation justified [Para 10].

Rule of Law – Attack on Advocates Threatens Judicial Access – Grave Concern – Court observed that assaulting a lawyer for drafting a legal complaint undermines the justice system and the right of citizens to access legal remedies – Held: Such conduct cannot be condoned as it erodes rule of law – Petitioners not entitled to anticipatory bail [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court directed no protection under Section 482 of BNSS – Petitioners to be available for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon of offence – Seriousness of charges and professional nature of enmity considered decisive.

Criminal Law - Section 94, 438(2) BNSS - Interlocutory Orders – Revisional Jurisdiction Barred under BNSS – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought to set aside the trial court’s order summoning the Investigating Officer (IO) for a report regarding CCTV footage preservation – The High Court held that the impugned order was purely interlocutory in nature, not amounting to any substantive direction, and thus, barred from challenge under Section 438(2) of BNSS – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised against interlocutory orders, nor can inherent powers be invoked to bypass this bar [Paras 1-4].

No Interference Where Application Pending – Premature Challenge – The petitioner further sought directions for CCTV footage preservation which was already the subject matter of the pending application before the trial court – Held: There is no occasion to interfere when the lower court has already seized of the matter; petition deemed premature and infructuous [Paras 5].

Frivolous Petition – Costs Imposed – Abuse of Court’s Time – The Court found the petition not only meritless but frivolous, filed without any justification for interference at the interlocutory stage – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of ₹20,000 payable to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within one week [Paras 6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Directions Issued – The High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, refused to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings, and imposed exemplary costs, directing communication of the order to the Jail Superintendent for apprising the petitioner [Paras 6].

Civil Law - Title and Recovery of Possession – Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act - Dar Raiyati Interest – Right Not Heritable – Adverse Possession Plea Rejected – The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of right, title and possession over raiyati land, claiming defendants, recorded as sikmi dakhaldars, had no inheritable rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit relying on limitation and adverse possession – The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s finding, holding that Sikmi rights are not inheritable without proof of custom – Second appeal dismissed confirming the Appellate Court's findings that the defendants are mere trespassers – Provisions of the C.N.T. Act and Specific Relief Act do not bar such suits by recorded raiyats – Held: Entry in records shows plaintiffs as rightful raiyats and defendants' occupation is unauthorized [Paras 3-23].

Adverse Possession – No Hostile Animus Established – Continuous Possession Insufficient – The defendants claimed long possession for 70-75 years and heritable sikmi rights by custom – Court held possession alone does not constitute adverse possession – There was no hostile assertion against plaintiffs nor claim of ownership adverse to them – Revenue records remained unchanged reflecting plaintiffs' title – Held: No adverse possession established, defendants liable to be ejected [Paras 9, 17-21].

Suit Maintainability – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act and Section 46(1)(a) of C.N.T. Act – Clarified – The Court held that a recorded raiyat is entitled to sue for recovery of possession from unauthorized occupants despite remarks column entries showing sikmi rights – Suit is not barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act or Section 46 of C.N.T. Act as no lease exceeding five years was in question – Notice under Section 106 T.P. Act is not necessary in cases of unauthorized possession – Held: Plaintiffs' suit maintainable [Paras 7, 22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment and decree of the Appellate Court upheld – Defendants are trespassers liable to be evicted from suit land – No interference warranted in concurrent findings on title and possession in favor of plaintiffs [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death and Suicide – Conviction under Section 304B Modified – Section 306 and 498A Sustained – The appeal was preferred against conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death following suicide of wife within seven years of marriage—High Court found lack of evidence establishing harassment or dowry demand 'soon before death' but consistent dowry demands established during marriage—Held: Conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable, altered to Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498A IPC (cruelty)—Sentence reduced—Appeal partly allowed [Paras 12-24].

Dowry Demand and Cruelty – Section 498A – Established – Continuous dowry demand including demand for car shown by reliable testimony—Court held the demands amounted to cruelty under Section 498A IPC—Conviction under Section 498A IPC confirmed with reduced sentence of two years [Paras 23-24].

Soon Before Death Requirement – Section 304B IPC Not Attracted – Court explained that absence of dowry-related cruelty immediately before death disables presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act—Last proven dowry demand made more than three months prior to death—Conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC set aside [Paras 19-21].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Upheld Due to Lack of Evidence – Co-accused (mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law) acquitted by Trial Court as they lived separately and their involvement was not established—Revision petition against their acquittal dismissed—Held: Trial Court’s finding proper, no interference warranted [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed, Revision Dismissed – Conviction altered from Section 304B to Section 306 and 498A IPC—Sentence reduced to four years for Section 306 and two years for Section 498A, to run concurrently—Revision petition against acquittal of co-accused dismissed [Paras 24-26].

Bail Appeal – Group Assault – Sections 118, 117 of BNS and SC/ST Act – Bail Granted – The appellant challenged rejection of bail under multiple sections of BNS, 2023 and SC/ST Act alleging injuries inflicted during an altercation – The High Court observed no specific role was initially attributed to the appellant and the parties had since entered into a compromise – The appellant had undergone over five months of incarceration, the investigation was complete, and the trial was yet to commence – Held: Considering the compromise, prolonged custody, and absence of adjudication on merits at the pre-trial stage, the appellant was granted regular bail, subject to conditions [Paras 3-8].

SC/ST Act – Accused Himself Belonging to Scheduled Caste – Prima Facie Non-Applicability – The appellant contended being from a Scheduled Caste himself, hence, provisions of SC/ST Act were not applicable – The Court noted this contention without deciding on merits, considering it was a bail stage and such issues would be decided during trial [Paras 3, 7].

Compromise Between Parties – Impact on Bail – Role in Assault Disputed – The complainant affirmed compromise and settlement of disputes arising from misunderstanding – The Court held that though the allegations were serious, the settlement weighed in favour of granting bail – Held: Settlement between parties is a valid consideration in bail proceedings, especially where custodial trial would be prolonged [Paras 4-8].

Custodial Detention – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Detention Without Trial – The Court emphasised the principle of liberty where the appellant had been in custody since 28.01.2025 with no substantial trial progress – Held: Further pre-trial incarceration not justified, bail granted [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Bail Granted – The appeal was allowed and appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of trial court – Court clarified that non-furnishing of bail bonds within one week would exclude further custody counting in the present case [Paras 8-9].