POCSO – DNA Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Acquittal Upheld – The State challenged the acquittal of the accused under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act – The prosecutrix and her family turned hostile and denied sexual assault – DNA report (Ex.P33) confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child – Held: DNA evidence is expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot alone establish guilt without corroboration – Hostile testimony rendered the prosecution case unreliable – Trial court rightly acquitted the accused [Paras 6–10, 16].

Evidentiary Value – DNA Profiling – Limitations of Sole Reliance – The Court emphasized that while DNA reports are strong indicators of biological relationship, they are not infallible and must be weighed with caution – DNA evidence alone cannot override direct oral evidence especially when it contradicts the scientific conclusion – Held: In criminal jurisprudence, conviction must rest on clear, cogent and consistent evidence – DNA report without supporting testimony fails that test [Paras 11–15].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Review Limited – The Court reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or perverse – Since the trial court had taken a plausible and reasoned view, the High Court declined to interfere – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The High Court held that DNA evidence, though indicating biological paternity, could not solely sustain a conviction under POCSO and IPC when the prosecutrix and witnesses denied sexual assault – The trial court’s judgment was found to be a plausible and legally sound conclusion based on available evidence – No interference warranted in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Law - Appeal challenging conviction - False Implication in Sexual Offence – Conviction Based on Unreliable Testimony – Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act – Conviction Reversed – The appellant, a 45-year-old man, was convicted under IPC and POCSO for allegedly raping his minor cousin – The FIR and victim’s statements were riddled with inconsistencies, including contradictory accounts of the incident’s timing, location, and manner – Crucial discrepancy noted in medico-legal examination report which showed no recent sexual activity or bodily injury – Held: Serious contradictions and absence of corroborative medical evidence render the prosecution case unreliable, justifying acquittal [Paras 1-53].

Medico-Legal Evidence – Significance of Scientific Findings – Weightage Over Oral Testimony – Section 376 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – The trial court erroneously disregarded conclusive medico-legal findings which negated recent sexual intercourse – Pathological reports found absence of spermatozoa and any physical injury – Court held such scientific evidence must prevail when oral evidence contains major discrepancies – Reiterated that conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, which was absent in this case [Paras 21-22, 39-42, 50-52].

Witness Credibility – Inconsistent Testimonies – Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Law – Multiple inconsistencies in statements of victim and her parents regarding crucial facts like time of incident, role of police, and conduct during the incident – No independent witnesses examined despite alleged presence of neighbours – Held: Where testimonies are contradictory on core aspects and unsupported by objective evidence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused – Conviction reversed [Paras 26-30, 43-50].

Prolonged Incarceration – Procedural Lapses – Human Rights Violation – Bail Denied – Procedural Failure Noted – The appellant languished in jail since 2016 without proper legal assistance – Amicus Curiae failed to file bail or substantiate defence – Court took judicial notice of systemic failure and deprivation of rights – Directed immediate release, restoration of residence, and return of fine imposed – Held: Justice demands rectification of miscarriage caused by institutional neglect [Paras 12-17, 54-56].

Possession of Property – Protection of Rights of Accused Post-Acquittal – Court acknowledged realistic threat of land/property dispossession during appellant’s incarceration – Directed police authorities to ensure restoration of peaceful possession of appellant’s house – Held: Judicial duty extends beyond release to securing post-acquittal rehabilitation of falsely implicated accused [Para 56].

Final Decision – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted – Court found material irregularities in trial court’s findings – Conviction under Section 376(3), 342 IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act set aside – Sentence of 20 years imprisonment quashed – Ordered immediate release with refund of fine amount and protective directions – Appeal allowed in entirety [Paras 52-53].

Bail – Non-appearance of Accused – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Bail Restored – The appellants, accused under Section 353 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, were earlier released on regular bail but remanded to custody due to non-appearance on a hearing date – High Court held absence was not deliberate, matter was pending for charge framing, and appellants were already on bail – Keeping them in custody for single absence unjustified – Bail restored subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Non-Bailable Warrant – Non-Appearance on Charge Hearing Date – Bail Revocation Improper – The trial court issued NBWs for the appellants’ absence without recording reasons or considering whether their presence was essential for charge hearing – High Court set aside order, held framing of charges does not mandatorily require accused’s personal appearance if duly represented – Orders quashed and bail granted [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Custody – Exercise of Discretion – Rejection of Bail Set Aside – High Court reiterated that judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously considering case stage, nature of allegations, and absence history – Found that continued custody of appellants was unwarranted given prior bail and stage of proceedings – Orders under challenge set aside [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Appeals Allowed – The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the rejection order, and granted bail to the appellants on execution of personal bonds with sureties – Ordered closure of all pending miscellaneous petitions [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Rape - Section 376(3), 342, 504 of the IPC - Section 3, 4(2) of the POCSO Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Acquittal - False Rape Allegation – Discrepant Testimony – Medico-Legal Contradictions – Conviction Set Aside – The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 3/4(2) POCSO Act on charges of raping his minor cousin – The Court found major contradictions in the testimonies of the victim and her parents regarding the time of incident, manner of alleged offence, and involvement of neighbours – Medical examination showed no recent sexual activity or injury, contradicting the prosecution’s narrative – Held: Serious inconsistencies and absence of corroborative evidence raise reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable, appellant acquitted [Paras 18-52].

Weight of Medical Evidence – Medico-Legal Reports Prevail Over Oral Testimony – Despite victim’s allegations, medical reports indicated absence of injury and recent intercourse – The Court held that when medical and pathological evidence contradict oral testimonies, courts must exercise caution – Allegations not corroborated by scientific evidence, acquittal warranted [Paras 21-22, 42].

Animosity as Motive for False Implication – Minor Property Dispute – The Court noted the background of animosity between the families due to a trivial dispute over burning of a saree – Such disputes, though minor, have increasingly led to false accusations of serious crimes like rape – Held: Prosecution failed to establish motive strong enough to justify conviction, particularly given inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence [Paras 9, 25, 48].

Judicial Duty Towards Unrepresented Accused – Protection of Fundamental Rights – The Court observed with concern that the appellant, a poor person with no legal representation, was incarcerated for over nine years without proper legal assistance – Emphasised the duty of courts to safeguard rights of such individuals and prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: In such circumstances, independent judicial scrutiny of evidence is imperative to prevent wrongful conviction [Paras 10-17, 54-56].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The Court set aside the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant and ordered immediate release – Directed the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi to ensure the appellant’s safe return to his home and restoration of possession – Also ordered refund of any fine amount paid by the appellant [Paras 53-56].

Civil Writ - Service Law – Recruitment – Minimum Qualifying Speed in Shorthand Test – Rule 10 of 1986 Rules – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner applied for Stenographer Grade-III post under PH category, secured 121.142 marks including shorthand, speed and efficiency tests – Failed to meet mandatory speed of 70 WPM in Hindi shorthand test (secured only 50.167 WPM) – Held: Mere aggregate marks irrelevant without meeting mandatory qualification—Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 13].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule – Mandatory Requirement Cannot Be Diluted – Rule 10 Interpretation – The petitioner argued for reading 'must have passed' as 'might have passed'—Court rejected contention citing clear and unambiguous language of Rule 10 prescribing passing speed of 70 WPM – Applied literal interpretation principle emphasizing legislative intent and statutory compliance—Held: No scope for dilution of mandatory eligibility criteria [Paras 10, 14-15].

Recruitment Process – Vacancy Does Not Confer Right to Appointment – Even if category vacancies remained unfilled, absence of requisite qualification disqualifies petitioner – Held: Petitioner has no vested right to appointment merely because of vacant posts or higher marks – Eligibility conditions sacrosanct [Paras 16].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Guidelines on Statutory Interpretation – Court relied on Raghunath Rai Bareja case affirming that clear statutory mandates must be implemented without judicial alteration—Held: Courts cannot rewrite statutes under guise of interpretation [Para 15].

Decision – Eligibility Deficiency Fatal – Petition Rejected – Petitioner’s failure to achieve minimum shorthand speed rendered him ineligible—Petition dismissed, no interference warranted under writ jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

RTI Disclosure – Applicability of Exemptions – SEBI's Fiduciary Duty – CIC Order Modified – Court held SEBI justified in denying information relating to internal file notings and correspondence on framing policies for appointment of Public Interest Directors (PIDs) under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act since such information is held in fiduciary capacity – Disclosure of such policy deliberations is exempt from RTI when obtained in confidence without larger public interest warranting disclosure [Paras 52-54].

Third Party Information – Section 11 of RTI – Disclosure Subject to Hearing of Affected Parties – CIC Order Partially Set Aside – For information on selected and rejected candidates for PID appointments and annual inspection reports, the Court remanded the matter to the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, to comply with Section 11 RTI procedure, granting opportunity to third parties to contest disclosure before decision is taken – CIC erred in ordering disclosure without compliance with mandatory Section 11 procedure [Paras 55-60].

Differentiation between Bank and Stock Exchange Regulation – Jayantilal N Mistry Distinction – Court clarified that the decision in Jayantilal N Mistry concerning disclosure of RBI inspection reports does not mechanically apply to SEBI inspections of stock exchanges – Due to nature of sensitive market information and regulatory dynamics, inspection reports concerning stock exchanges require distinct consideration and invocation of Section 11 safeguards [Paras 63-65].

Vague RTI Queries – Duty of Specificity – Queries for General Information Rejected – The Court refused to interfere with CIC's dismissal of vague queries seeking general inspection of files, noting that RTI Act requires requests to be made with reasonable precision to avoid disproportionate diversion of public resources – CPIO cannot be burdened with fishing or roving inquiries lacking specificity [Paras 66-67].

Decision – Partial Remand to CPIO – Court upheld CIC's decision on queries 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 – Set aside CIC's order on queries 3, 4, and 5 – Directed CPIO to consider those afresh after following due procedure under Section 11 of RTI Act, ensuring affected third parties' participation – Writ petitions of SEBI partly allowed and partly rejected; Mr. Agarwal’s petitions partly allowed, partly dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 68].

Civil law  – Declaration of Title and Possession – Failure to Prove Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant-plaintiff sought declaration of title over the ‘B’ schedule property and consequential relief of possession and injunction – Plaintiff failed to establish title by not producing foundational documents, including the prior sale deeds, and failed to prove encroachment by defendants – The High Court held that plaintiff must prove his own title without relying on weaknesses in the defendant’s case – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16-24].

Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings – No Interference Warranted – The Court reiterated that under Section 100 CPC, second appeals lie only on substantial questions of law – Appreciation of facts and evidence by lower courts, unless perverse or ignoring material evidence, does not justify interference – No such question arose in the present case – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-27].

Encroachment Claim – Absence of Proof – Case of Plaintiff Disbelieved – Plaintiff’s allegation of encroachment in 2007 was disproved by evidence showing compound wall constructed in 2003 by defendants – Boundaries described in sale deeds were inconsistent with plaintiff’s claim – Held: No basis to declare title or grant possession to the plaintiff [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law Found – The High Court dismissed the second appeal at admission stage, upholding concurrent factual findings of both lower courts – Plaintiff failed to prove title and possession – No merit in the appeal – No costs awarded [Para 28].

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Registered Owner – No Transfer of Ownership – Tribunal directed insurer to pay compensation and permitted recovery from registered owner and rider – Appellant claimed vehicle was sold before accident and relied on an indemnity bond – Held: Under Section 2(30), person in whose name vehicle stands registered is deemed owner – No official transfer under Section 50 proved – Tribunal’s direction upheld [Paras 5, 10–12].

Insurance – Recovery Rights – Rider without Valid Driving Licence – Tribunal correctly allowed the insurer to recover compensation from registered owner and driver due to policy violation – Indemnity bond claimed by appellant not produced before tribunal – No interference warranted [Paras 7, 13–14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Registered owner remains liable for recovery – Liberty granted to recover the amount from alleged transferee through legal proceedings [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].