Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist Claim – Fabricated Ownership Documents – Application Dismissed – The Applicant, son of the original judgment debtor, filed an obstructionist notice in an execution proceeding based on a sale deed dated 26.11.1990 – Both Trial and Appellate Courts found the sale deed to be unregistered, unstamped, and supported by inconsistent and manipulated records – Held: The Applicant failed to establish any independent right or title, and the Courts rightly dismissed the obstructionist application [Paras 14-18, 25].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Advocate – Bar Council Rules – Enquiry Ordered – Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle sought adjournment after arguments were concluded and judgment was to be passed – Despite being aware of proceedings, he attempted to delay the matter by filing vakalatnama at a late stage – Held: Conduct was prima facie misconduct, violating Bar Council rules – Directed: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate enquiry [Paras 3-10].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Abuse of Process – Fabricated Pleadings – Dismissal Justified – The Applicant suppressed material facts, relied on contradictory sale deeds, and attempted to delay proceedings – Held: Courts are not to be misused to perpetuate falsehoods – Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Eviction Decree – Delay in Execution – Obstructionist Proceedings – Court Receiver Appointed – Despite decree passed in 2016, execution was delayed for 9 years due to obstructionist proceedings filed by son of judgment debtor – Held: Obstructionist proceedings based on fraudulent documents were abuse of process – Receiver appointed to take immediate possession and hand over to decree-holder [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against conviction - Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Confession Voluntarily Made – Conviction Upheld – Appellant confessed to killing his wife before village chowkidar and other witnesses, then surrendered at the police station with blood-stained Gandasa and a country-made pistol – Such conduct falls under Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Supported by forensic evidence showing human blood on the weapon and clothes – Held: Extra-judicial confession corroborated by surrounding circumstances and forensic evidence is reliable and valid for conviction [Paras 3-9, 35-37, 43-48, 56-58].

Prompt FIR – Importance in Criminal Trial – FIR Lodged by Chowkidar – Validity Maintained – FIR lodged within two hours of the incident by the village chowkidar on oral information received – Head constable corroborated the lodging of FIR – Despite the chowkidar turning hostile, the court accepted the FIR as valid and prompt – Held: Timely FIR lends credibility to the prosecution case and cannot be discarded due to hostility of informant if otherwise corroborated [Paras 4-6, 37-38, 50, 53-54, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Forensic Corroboration – Conviction Based on Chain of Events – Deceased was last seen with the appellant, and appellant was seen returning alone – Appellant admitted guilt and provided murder weapon and clothes stained with blood – Forensic reports confirmed human blood on items – Held: Circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 9-14, 35-36, 43-47].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Partial Testimony – Acceptance of Supporting Depositions – Several prosecution witnesses including complainant and key witnesses turned hostile – However, relevant portions consistent with prosecution’s case accepted by the court – Held: Hostility does not invalidate entire testimony; courts may rely on corroborative parts [Paras 20-22, 51-55].

Refusal to Provide Signature – Adverse Inference – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Accused refused to provide specimen signature to verify written confession – Held: Refusal permits drawing adverse inference against the accused, particularly when confession and recovery of incriminating material stand otherwise proved [Paras 47-48].

Police Witness Testimony – Reliability – Admissible When Trustworthy – Recovery memos and confessional reports prepared in presence of police officers found consistent and truthful – Courts held that police testimony, if credible, can form basis of conviction – Held: No requirement that police witness must be independently corroborated in every case [Paras 25-28, 40-42].

Decision – Conviction confirmed – Appeal dismissed – High Court held that the trial court rightly convicted the accused based on extra-judicial confession, forensic evidence, and circumstantial facts – Accused directed to surrender and undergo life imprisonment as sentenced [Paras 61-62].
 

Insurance Law - Insurance Coverage – Interpretation of Contract – Security Guard Not Covered – Appeal Allowed – The deceased was working as a security guard in a transport company and died in an accident during the course of employment – The insurance policy obtained by the employer listed coverage for cleaners and supervisors, but not for security personnel – Held: Security Guard did not fall within the specified categories in the policy and hence the insurer is not liable [Paras 9-11, 34].

Employee’s Compensation – Pay and Recovery – Not Applicable to Contractual Policies – Request Rejected – The claimants argued for applying the 'pay and recovery' principle despite insurer not being liable under the contract – Held: The doctrine of pay and recovery, though applicable in statutory motor vehicle insurance, cannot be extended to contractual policies under the Employees’ Compensation Act – Employer alone liable [Paras 12-14].

Construction of Insurance Contracts – Strict Interpretation Required – Security Personnel Not Implied – The policy was interpreted strictly according to its terms – Held: As the policy did not expressly include security guards, they cannot be presumed covered – Broader interpretation rejected as being contrary to contract law [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Insurer Exonerated – The insurer’s liability under the impugned award was set aside – The employer alone was held liable to pay compensation with interest and penalty – Insurer entitled to refund of deposited amount after 8 weeks [Paras 8, 11, 14].

Bail - Rape Allegation – Consensual Relationship – Bail Granted - Alleged victim, a 25-year-old educated woman, claimed she was raped after intoxication and later coerced with a forged marriage – Court noted delays in FIR, consensual travel and cohabitation, and contradictions in victim's statements – Found prima facie indications of a soured relationship rather than criminal conduct – Bail granted [Paras 4–10, 30–32, 42].

False Promise to Marry – Not Always Rape – Legal Principle Affirmed - Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Deepak Gulati, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Sheikh Arif) emphasizing that consensual relationships, even if based on failed marriage promises, do not always amount to rape – Held: No evidence that the promise was false from inception [Paras 23–24, 34–35].

Delayed FIR – Adverse Inference – Relationship Timeline Considered - FIR filed nearly five months after the alleged initial offence, despite multiple interactions and trips with the applicant – Court noted the absence of immediate complaint undermined the rape narrative [Paras 12, 42].

Morality vs Criminality – Immorality Not Penal – Social Commentary - Court reflected on societal shifts and increasing misuse of penal provisions post emotional fallout – Held: Not all unethical conduct amounts to crime – Case viewed as fallout of failed personal relations, not rape [Paras 30–33].

Right to Liberty – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – No Flight Risk - Court reiterated constitutional protection under Article 21 – Found no risk of accused absconding or influencing witnesses – No prior criminal record except related case – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 37–41].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Conditions Imposed - Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties, with directions to appear on key trial dates – Breach of conditions to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 42–44].
 

Rent Law - Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Section 11(3) of Kerala Rent Control Act – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Rent Control Courts wrongly placed burden on landlord – Held: The burden of proof to establish existence of alternate vacant premises lies on the tenant, not landlord – Landlord need not plead or prove non-availability of other premises – Orders set aside and eviction granted [Paras 4-6, 9].

Tenant's Pleadings – Requirement to Specify Vacant Premises – First Proviso to Section 11(3) – Not Satisfied – The tenant vaguely stated availability of other rooms but failed to identify or prove any specific vacant building in landlord's possession – Held: Failure to discharge burden under first proviso to Section 11(3) disqualifies tenant from opposing eviction – Eviction allowed [Paras 5-6].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Misdirection in Applying Law – Both courts below misdirected themselves by imposing burden on landlord – Held: Interference under Section 20 of the Act justified due to legal error and misapplication of precedents [Paras 4, 9].

Decision – Eviction Decreed – Six Months’ Time Granted to Vacate – High Court reversed concurrent findings and allowed eviction – Tenant granted six months’ time to vacate subject to filing affidavit and clearing rent arrears – Conditions imposed for continued occupation during interim period [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Evidence – Medical Corroboration – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows – The conviction was challenged on the ground of false implication and contradictions in witness testimony – Held: Testimonies of three eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were consistent with medical evidence – Recovery of blood-stained knife corroborated prosecution’s version – Trial court’s reliance on their statements was justified despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Acquitted – No Impact on Main Accused – The co-accused Bhim Singh was not named in FIR but added in testimony later – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him and acquitted – Held: Mere acquittal of co-accused due to doubt does not vitiate the case against appellant when sufficient evidence exists against him – Prosecution version against main accused Vinod Kumar remained intact [Paras 10, 14-15].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Interference Not Warranted – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings – All essential elements of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Directions issued for arrest and recovery of remaining sentence [Paras 16-17].
 

Criminal Procedure – Quashing FIR – Co-Accused’s Statement – Premature to Interfere – Applicant named in liquor seizure case solely based on co-accused’s statement – Held: Statement under Section 10 of Evidence Act relevant during investigation though inadmissible at trial – At FIR stage, admissibility not determinative – Court cannot scuttle investigation prematurely under Section 482 CrPC – No abuse of process made out [Paras 6–8, 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Scope of Section 482 CrPC – Interference in Ongoing Investigation Discouraged – Referring to Skoda Auto Volkswagen v. State of U.P., and Mohd. Malek Mondal v. Pranjal Bardalai – Held: High Courts must exercise restraint in quashing FIRs unless allegations are palpably absurd – Investigation not concluded, charge-sheet not filed – Petition dismissed as premature [Paras 10–12].

Evidence Law – Statement of Co-Accused – Not Substantive Evidence but Investigative Lead – Held: Co-accused statement inadmissible unless corroborated, yet it can serve as clue to launch investigation – Decision in Mansing Shakarlal Mina v. State of Gujarat affirmed – Final determination on evidentiary value lies at trial stage, not FIR stage [Paras 6–10].

Criminal Investigation – Prior Antecedents Considered – Applicant had 22 previous cases – Held: Criminal history reinforces need for thorough investigation before considering quashment – No basis for presuming malice or false implication at this juncture [Para 6].

Decision: Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – Interim relief vacated – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek remedy post-charge-sheet, if solely based on inadmissible evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intention vs. Nature of Injuries – Conviction Upheld – Multiple injured sustained firearm and incised wounds on vital parts; even if injuries not “sufficient in ordinary course of nature” to cause death, intention of assailants decisive – Courts relied on SC precedents clarifying that minor or non-fatal injuries do not exclude Section 307 – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-36].

Self-Defence – Injuries to Deceased Accused Explained – Evidence showed deceased Lallan Singh fired first, causing firearm injuries; when he attempted to reload, prosecution witnesses disarmed and assaulted him, causing fatal injuries – Held: Prosecution explained injuries to accused; appellants were aggressors – Plea of self-defence rejected [Paras 37-40].

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – PW2 (injured) found reliable despite delay in recording statement; corroborated by medical evidence – PW1 and PW3 also consistent – Minor inability to assign specific roles in group assault not fatal – Testimonies accepted [Paras 41-45].

Sentencing – Leniency by Trial Court – Ten Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment – Sentence Upheld – Though Section 307 permits life imprisonment, trial court awarded 10 years; considering gravity of crime, assault on six victims with lethal weapons, sentence held appropriate despite passage of 40 years and old age of surviving appellants – Appeal dismissed [Paras 46-51].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellants under Sections 307/149, 147, 148 IPC upheld; appellants on bail directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Paras 51-53].

Banking Law – Fraudulent Withdrawal – Liability of Bank – Plaintiff firm’s Fixed Deposits of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs prematurely discharged within days of opening – Amounts fraudulently transferred to a current account falsely opened in plaintiff’s name by impersonation – Original FD receipts recovered from Bank custody – Trial Court decreed Rs. 39,67,922/- with interest and costs – Defendant Bank’s appeal dismissed – Held: Acts were committed in regular course of banking business by Branch Manager, thus Bank vicariously liable – Plaintiff not required to implead Branch Manager personally – Service rules of Bank do not bind customers – Suit for damages lies against the Bank [Paras 1, 18–20, 27, 31–36, 38].

Evidence Act – Handwriting Comparison – Trial Court compared signatures of Branch Manager across documents and found similarity – Challenge by Bank rejected – Held: Section 73 empowers court to compare handwriting on admitted documents – Court is the ‘expert of experts’ – No need to refer to handwriting expert in such case – No legal infirmity in Trial Judge’s approach [Paras 22–26].

Fraud – Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Bank argued fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – Rejected – Held: In civil proceedings, standard is ‘preponderance of probabilities’ – Evidence indicated gross negligence and collusion by Bank employees – Even if fraud not established beyond doubt, Bank’s conduct went beyond negligence and into realm of fraud [Paras 27, 30–34].

Vicarious Liability – Acts within Course of Employment – Branch Manager acted within scope of authority and regular banking functions – Held: Bank liable for fraud/acts of negligence committed by its officer during official duties – Reaffirmed that recourse against employee lies with Bank, not with customer – Citing Smt. Shyama Devi v. SBI inapplicable where act took place within bank premises and regular course [Paras 20, 34–35, 37–38].

Procedural Law – Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Bank argued Branch Manager was necessary party – Rejected – Held: Dispute is between customer and Bank – Branch Manager acted as agent of Bank – No relief claimed against Manager personally – Suit maintainable against Bank alone [Paras 11, 36].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court found no error in Trial Court’s fact-finding or legal conclusions – Affirmed decree with minor modifications regarding disbursement of decretal amount and additional interest – Held: No ground for interference where judgment is well-reasoned and lawful [Paras 39–41].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment and decree upheld – Bank directed to pay balance interest within 90 days failing which additional interest at 8% p.a. on such balance interest will apply – Bank Guarantee to be encashed and proceeds handed to plaintiff [Paras 41–44].