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

Labour Law – Definition of Workman – Daily wage employee working for more than 240 days per year over 8 years as Clerk/Computer Operator in police training academy – Held: Respondent qualifies as “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act – Appointment was not under police service nor managerial or supervisory in nature [Paras 9–9.1].

Industrial Disputes Act – Definition of Industry – Maharashtra Police Academy was held to fall under the purview of “industry” as per Section 2(j) – Academy imparted paid training to private agencies, operated revenue-generating facilities like hostels, canteen, library, swimming pool – Activities involved systematic employer-employee cooperation and profit motive – Sovereign functions limited to statutory training did not cover all services [Paras 10–16].

Retrenchment – Violation of Section 25F – Termination of respondent without notice, retrenchment compensation or valid justification – No opportunity of hearing provided – Held: Retrenchment illegal and contrary to ID Act – Reinstatement with back wages and permanency justified [Paras 17–20].

Public Employment – Ad-hocism and Regularization – Resolution by Academy to fill permanent posts with existing daily wage staff ignored – Respondent possessed requisite qualifications and was eligible for regular appointment – Court condemns continued exploitation under temporary label – Directs reinstatement as High Grade Stenographer with full benefits [Paras 13–15, 22].

Industrial Court – Scope of Judicial Review – High Court finds no infirmity in Industrial Court’s judgment – Held: Impugned order dated 09.05.2025 is well-reasoned, supported by evidence and law – No interference warranted [Paras 21–23].

Stay – Court grants six-week stay of judgment to enable Petitioner to approach Supreme Court – Respondent granted liberty to apply for withdrawal of deposited back wages [Para 24–25].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Industrial Court’s order upheld – Petitioner directed to reinstate Respondent with continuity, permanency, and back wages within two weeks.

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Desertion – Continuous Separation – Wife left matrimonial home on 29.02.2012 and parties lived separately ever since – Respondent failed to prove justifiable cause for withdrawal from cohabitation – Allegations of dowry harassment and forced eviction made without supporting evidence or police complaint – Held: Mere allegations without proof insufficient – Wife found to have deserted husband without reasonable cause – Divorce granted on ground of desertion [Paras 9–12, 15].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Cruelty – False Allegations – Wife alleged dowry harassment and second marriage by husband without proof – No evidence led to support claims – Held: False accusations cause mental agony and constitute cruelty – Reference made to Rani Narsimha Sastry v. Rani Suneela Rani (2020) 18 SCC 247 and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 – Divorce granted also on ground of cruelty [Paras 13–14, 15].

Family Law – Breakdown of Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown – Separation of over 13 years – No efforts for reconciliation by either party – Parties estranged emotionally and physically since 2012 – Held: Marital bond broken beyond repair – Reuniting parties would serve no purpose – Decree of divorce appropriate [Paras 8, 12, 15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Desertion – Wife failed to discharge burden under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act to prove justifiable withdrawal – No contemporaneous complaint or effort to resume cohabitation shown – Inference drawn against respondent [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Divorce granted on grounds of both cruelty and desertion – Impugned judgment and decree dated 05.12.2019 set aside – Marriage between parties dissolved by decree of divorce [Paras 15–16].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Age Determination – Essential Requirement – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecutrix claimed to be 13 years old but no documentary proof (school record, birth certificate) or medical evidence (bone ossification test) produced by prosecution – Investigating Officer admitted failure to collect age proof – Held: In absence of reliable age determination, accused could not be convicted under charges involving a minor – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-compliance with mandatory protocols [Paras 17–27]

Criminal Trial – Sexual Assault – Refusal of Medical Examination – Investigating Agency’s Failure – Prosecutrix’s mother refused internal gynecological examination, despite serious nature of charges – No MLC report available – Held: Absence of medical corroboration substantially weakened prosecution’s case – Investigating Agency failed to discharge duty to collect essential evidence in sexual assault cases [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Consent and Elopement – Public Travel and Cohabitation – Evidence of Voluntary Accompaniment – Prosecutrix travelled over 300 km in public transport with accused and stayed at his home for 2–3 days without raising any alarm – She admitted in cross-examination that she wanted to marry accused and had prior relationship with him – Child Welfare Committee also recorded voluntary elopement – Held: Circumstances indicated consensual relationship and belied theory of abduction or force – Consistency and credibility of deposition not established [Paras 32–38]

Appellate Review – Scope in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal of Acquittal – When Permissible – Acquittal not found perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court rightly found prosecution failed to prove essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal against acquittal must show perversity or manifest illegality – No compelling reason found to overturn acquittal [Paras 40–42]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court upheld – No interference warranted in absence of perversity or manifest illegality – Respondent stands acquitted of all charges

Labour Law – Reinstatement – Illegal Termination – Voluntary Resignation Not Proved – Tribunal directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages – Employer challenged award citing alleged resignation and full and final settlement – Held: Photocopies of alleged resignation and cheque were not proved through admissible evidence – Workman denied receiving settlement beyond salary dues – Tribunal rightly rejected employer’s plea and held termination illegal for non-compliance with Section 25-F of I.D. Act [Paras 5–11].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Employer’s Burden to Prove Gainful Employment – Management challenged grant of 50% back wages arguing absence of claim of unemployment by workman – Held: Burden was on employer to prove gainful employment during the period of termination – In absence of such evidence, Tribunal’s award of back wages sustainable – Relief consistent with Hindustan Tin Works and Deepali Gundu Surwase decisions of the Supreme Court [Paras 12–14].

Industrial Law – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Date of Appointment – Tribunal found actual date of appointment as 05.09.2013 based on management’s own record – Held: Mere discrepancy in dates across multiple demand notices immaterial where employment and termination were otherwise established – Finding of Tribunal affirmed [Para 4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Tribunal’s award of reinstatement with 50% back wages upheld – Management failed to prove resignation or settlement and failed to discharge burden of proving gainful employment – No interference warranted under Article 226.

Criminal Law - POCSO Act – Age Determination – Mandatory Compliance – Conviction set aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 448, 323 IPC and Sections 8, 12 of POCSO Act for alleged trespass and sexual assault on a minor girl – No school certificate, birth certificate or ossification test produced as required under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act – Held: Age of victim not proved as per statutory requirements – Conviction under POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 17-20, 26].

Witness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – Contradictory Statements – Sole Testimony Unreliable – Mother of victim (PW2) and neighbours (PWs 3, 4, 6) turned hostile – Victim (PW1) gave court testimony contradicting original complaint, stating the injury occurred during a public quarrel regarding money – Held: Sole testimony of victim insufficient and unreliable when contradicted by medical and witness evidence [Paras 21-24].

False Implication – Suppression of Counter-Complaint – Misuse of POCSO Act – Accused sustained head injuries during quarrel and lodged complaint against victim’s family – FIR (Ex.D1) against complainant’s family closed after POCSO case was registered – Held: Likely misuse of POCSO Act to neutralize genuine complaint by accused – Courts must remain vigilant to prevent misuse of special legislation [Paras 29-31].

Injury – Section 323 IPC – No Clear Evidence – Acquittal Warranted – Injury to victim found to be simple – No consistent or credible evidence linking it to accused – Held: Conviction under Section 323 IPC not safe – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25, 28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under IPC and POCSO Act set aside – Accused acquitted – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 32].

Civil Law – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Applications Must Be Decided With Appeal – Appellate Court dismissed application for additional evidence and another under Section 151 CPC during pendency of appeal – Held: As per binding precedent of Supreme Court (State of Rajasthan v. T. Sahani and K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama Reddy), applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC should be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal – Impugned order set aside on this limited ground [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Application Under Section 151 CPC – Improper Prejudgment – Application filed by defendants/petitioners for summoning death record of respondent/plaintiff decided prior to hearing of main appeal – Held: Application under Section 151 CPC also to be heard together with appeal – Impugned order set aside by consent of both parties, without going into merits [Paras 5–7].

Judicial Discretion – Fair Procedure – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court have consistently held that premature adjudication of applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and Section 151 CPC undermines the appellate process – Both applications restored and to be decided on merits at time of appeal hearing – No adjudication on merits by High Court [Paras 4–7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 12.10.2022 set aside – First Appellate Court directed to consider application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC (by respondent/plaintiff) and application under Section 151 CPC (by petitioners/defendants) along with main appeal – No opinion expressed on merits of either application.

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Dishonour of Cheque – Maintainability – Applicant filed for leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against acquittal in complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act – Held: In view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, complainant in a cheque dishonour case is a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC – Such victim has an unconditional right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without needing leave of the High Court – Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 1–5].

Victim’s Right to Appeal – Section 372 CrPC – Supreme Court clarified that a complainant in a Section 138 N.I. Act case qualifies as a "victim" and thus can file appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC – Requirement of special leave under Section 378(4) does not apply – Reiterated by High Court in Satish Kumar v. Jugal Kishore, Ajmer Kundu (deceased) through LRs v. Pardeep Sharma, and Raj Kumar v. Rajender [Paras 2–4].

Criminal Procedure – Jurisdiction – Appeal Transferred – Application treated as appeal under Section 372 CrPC and directed to be placed before Sessions Judge, Ambala – Registry directed to transmit record and paper-book – Applicant directed to appear before Sessions Court on specified date – No opinion expressed on merits [Paras 5–7].

Decision: Application disposed of – Treated as an appeal under Section 372 CrPC – Ordered to be transferred to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication in accordance with law – Applicant directed to appear on 14.11.2025 – Registry to transmit complete record.

Criminal Law – Cognizance – Quashing of Summoning Order – Dispute Related to Temple Management – Complaint alleged encroachment, criminal intimidation, and physical assault by petitioner due to a temple management dispute – Petitioner’s father had been appointed trustee of Kali Mandir by Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts – Prior civil litigation in favour of petitioner – Petitioner claimed complaint was mala fide, lodged out of vengeance after losing civil dispute – Held: Magistrate failed to consider material background facts and prior civil proceedings while taking cognizance – Allegations general and lacking specificity – Order of cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside [Paras 1–17].

Abuse of Process – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – Apex Court decisions in Paramjeet Batra and Kailashben Patel applied – Criminal proceedings not to be used to settle scores arising from temple trustee appointments – Complaint revealed civil dispute dressed up as criminal allegations without sufficient criminal ingredients – Revisional Court and Magistrate both erred in not examining background circumstances – Magistrate directed to reconsider matter afresh with notice to all parties and full application of judicial mind [Paras 12–17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Magistrate’s Cognizance Order on Remand – Revisional Court had earlier remanded matter for reconsideration due to procedural lapses – Magistrate again took cognizance without addressing civil context or mala fides – Quashing application allowed – Magistrate to issue fresh order after hearing all parties and evaluating complete factual background [Paras 6–9, 16–18].

Decision:

Order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2024 set aside – Contesting parties directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dalsinghsarai – Magistrate to issue notices, apply judicial mind, and pass a fresh order considering all relevant facts and background circumstances – Quashing application disposed of accordingly.