Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].

Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Wife Residing Separately – Sufficient Cause Established – Wife ousted from matrimonial home due to cruelty and dowry harassment – Trial Court erred in holding she left without cause – Allegations substantiated by her continued attempts at reconciliation and absence of effort by husband to resume cohabitation – Held: Findings of Family Court contrary to evidence – Wife had sufficient cause to live separately [Paras 5, 10].

Maintenance – Quantum – Financial Capacity of Parties – Petitioner a qualified homeopathic doctor pursuing postgraduate education, temporarily engaged during COVID-19 with stipend, but currently unemployed – Respondent working as Technician (Mechanical) at ONGC earning ₹74,000/month – Held: Wife entitled to ₹15,000/month maintenance excluding period she received stipend – Subject to modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of change in circumstances [Paras 9, 11].

Marital Obligations – Gender Equality – Marital relationship does not negate wife’s right to develop herself – Husband’s duty extends to supporting wife’s educational and professional growth – Allegations of wife's desire to live separately from in-laws not supported by evidence – Court stresses on equality and mutual support in marriage [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Order of Family Court rejecting maintenance set aside – Maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded to wife from date of application, excluding period of COVID-19 stipend – Subject to future modification under law [Para 12].

Loan Recovery – Partnership Liability – Implied Authority – Plaintiff claimed loan of ₹2,33,800 was advanced to partnership firm through partner Avtar Singh – Trial Court found no evidence of implied authority or benefit to firm – Partnership deed not proved, and receipt not shown to be on behalf of firm – Held: Receipt Ex.P3 executed solely by defendant No.2; loan not binding on firm or other partners – Decree rightly confined to defendant No.2 personally [Paras 11, 14–15].

Forgery – Expert Opinion – Disputed Signature – Defendant denied signatures of deceased partner Avtar Singh on loan receipt – Handwriting expert DW2 confirmed forgery – Plaintiff failed to rebut expert evidence or examine own expert – Held: Signature of Avtar Singh on Ex.P3 found to be forged – Loan not proved against deceased partner or his legal heirs [Paras 11–12].

Foreign Loan – NRI Plaintiff – Admissibility of Oral Evidence – Plaintiff residing in USA did not appear as witness – Evidence led through attorney/son-in-law with no personal knowledge of transaction – No documentation shown for mode of remittance – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove source, transmission, or legality of funds – No permission under FEMA or RBI norms produced [Para 13].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings – Findings on authority, forgery, and lack of proof of partnership debt are factual – Held: High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal unless substantial error shown – No such error made out – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree against defendant No.2 personally for ₹2,33,800 with 12% interest upheld – Suit rightly dismissed against firm and other defendants [Paras 17–18].

Motor Accident Claims – Maintainability of Revision – Award Below Threshold – Petitioners (owner and driver) sought to challenge award of Rs.21,380/- passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal via Article 227 petition – Contention raised that appeal barred under Section 173(2) MV Act but revision not expressly prohibited – Held: Revision petition not maintainable where statute bars appeal for awards below Rs.1 lakh – High Court cannot be used to circumvent express statutory bar on appeal under guise of Article 227 [Paras 2–6]

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Petitioners relied on power of superintendence under Article 227 – Reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory remedies – High Court cited Bharti AXA (CR-6131-2016) and Shriram General Insurance (CR-1727-2025) to hold that intervention under Article 227 is not permissible where statute explicitly prohibits appeal – Supreme Court’s decision in Shalini Shyam Shetty followed to reaffirm limited, discretionary, and exceptional nature of Article 227 jurisdiction [Paras 5–7]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Tribunal award upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – Pending applications disposed of.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Court Fee – Suit for Damages – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Plaintiff claimed damages of ₹2 crore in suit for malicious prosecution but affixed only nominal court fee of ₹100 claiming tentative valuation – Held: When a specific amount is claimed, even if termed “tentative,” ad valorem court fee is mandatory under Section 7(i) of Court Fees Act – Trial Court erred in treating suit under Section 7(iv) and allowing provisional fee – Plaintiff directed to affix appropriate court fee within one month failing which plaint to be rejected [Paras 6–8]

Court Fees Act – Section 7(i) vs. Section 7(iv) – Scope Distinguished – Referring to State of Punjab v. Dev Brat Sharma, 2022 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, Supreme Court clarified that liberty to value relief under Section 7(iv) is limited to specified categories – For suits involving quantified monetary relief, ad valorem fee under Section 7(i) is mandatory – Present case being a damages suit falls within Section 7(i), hence attracts ad valorem fee [Paras 7–8]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Trial Court wrongly permitted under-valuation of court fee by accepting tentative fee despite specific monetary claim – Discretion misapplied – High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to ensure compliance with statutory mandate [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.07.2023 set aside – Plaintiff directed to affix ad valorem court fee on ₹2 crore within one month – Failing which, plaint shall stand rejected

Civil Procedure – Advocate Commissioner – Identification of Land – Appointment Set Aside – Trial court permitted appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify suit land in Sy.No.125/E3 at the instance of the plaintiff relying on a sada bainama lacking boundary descriptions – High Court held that such appointment at preliminary stage amounted to collection of evidence – Also held that the trial court ignored findings in earlier CRP No.2136/2022 which declined injunction due to lack of prima facie title and possession – Held: Appointment of Advocate Commissioner was premature and perverse – Order set aside [Paras 3, 23-27]

Injunction Suit – Possession Dispute – Prima Facie Title and Possession Absent – Plaintiff failed to establish physical possession or valid title to the land – Sada bainama executed when plaintiff was allegedly a minor and lacking boundary details – Revenue records inconsistent regarding whether title was derived by inheritance or purchase – Plaintiff’s claim contradictory – Held: Injunction rightly denied earlier – Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to cure evidentiary defects [Paras 9-13, 22-24]

Land Identification vs. Demarcation – Legal Distinction – High Court clarified that identification (locating land generally) and demarcation (physically marking boundaries) are distinct – Appointment for mere identification without clear prima facie title or possession is impermissible – Advocate Commissioner cannot be used to fish for evidence or validate defective title [Paras 26.3-26.5]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Trial court misdirected itself by misreading earlier High Court order and failing to appreciate the lack of credible evidence – High Court held that Article 227 powers warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: Order allowing appointment of Commissioner quashed [Paras 7, 27]

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].