Civil Law - Will Execution – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof Not Discharged – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff relied upon an unregistered Will dated 09.03.2009 allegedly executed by Santra Devi to claim ownership over her estate – The Lower Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s findings, holding that the Will was not validly proved – The High Court affirmed this, finding serious contradictions in the statements of attesting witnesses and the scribe, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s own deposition – Held: Will execution was shrouded in suspicious circumstances which the plaintiff failed to adequately explain, thus failing to discharge the burden of proof as required under Section 63 of the Succession Act [Paras 17-26].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Not Maintainable – The Court reiterated that while framing of substantial question of law is not required under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, existence of a legal question is still necessary – The appeal was found to merely seek re-appreciation of evidence already examined by the Lower Appellate Court – Held: No misreading or perverse appreciation of evidence found – Appeal not maintainable [Paras 16, 26-28].

Inconsistent Testimony – Role of Attesting Witnesses and Scribe – Will Disbelieved – The statements of attesting witnesses Ved Prakash and Raj Kumar as well as scribe Anil Kumar Srivastava were materially inconsistent with each other and the pleadings – The plaintiff himself contradicted his previous statements made during mutation proceedings – Held: Evidence on record failed to satisfy the judicial conscience of the Court regarding the Will’s authenticity – Will rightly disbelieved [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Lower Appellate Court’s Findings Affirmed – The Court upheld the findings of the Lower Appellate Court and found no grounds to interfere – Held: Appeal stands dismissed [Para 28].
 

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].

Life Imprisonment – No Automatic End at 20 Years – Remission Must Be by Government – Petition Dismissed - The Court clarified that life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life – Rule 320(A) and Section 57 IPC cannot reduce the sentence to a fixed term – Remission requires specific order under Section 432 CrPC – No indefeasible right arises without such remission [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Remission – Rule 320 Prison Rules Not Sufficient – Requires CrPC Compliance – Policy of 2018 Not Applicable - Remission under Rule 320 cannot operate autonomously to secure release – Government must exercise power under Section 432 with procedural checks – G.O.Ms.No.8 bars remission for death convicts whose sentence was commuted and those convicted of offences against minors – Petitioner’s father falls under both categories [Paras 24-26, 34-36].

Applicability of Remission Policy – Law at Time of Commutation Applicable – Not at Sentencing – Clarified - Court rejected argument that remission policy applicable at time of conviction (1995) should govern consideration – Held: Relevant date is the commutation of sentence (1998) when remission became relevant [Paras 35-36].

Parole – Must Be Considered Fairly – No Absolute Bar – Case Referred Back - Though past parole requests were rejected citing threat and staff shortage, Court found no incident occurred during four prior paroles – Directed respondents to consider parole on par with similarly situated prisoners per Asfaq guidelines [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Liberty to Apply for Remission under Section 432 – Parole to Be Considered - Writ petition dismissed but liberty granted to file application under Section 432 CrPC – State to assess eligibility as per law and prevailing policy – Any parole application to be judged in light of reformative jurisprudence and fairness [Paras 41-42]

Bail - Terror Funding and Secessionist Conspiracy – Section 43D(5) UAPA – Prima Facie Bar to Bail – Bail Denied – Appellant alleged to be part of a larger conspiracy with Hurriyat Conference members and banned terrorist outfits to orchestrate unrest and violence in Jammu & Kashmir – Evidence includes sting operations, letters from militant commanders, protected witness statements, and digital materials showing coordination of protest calendars, funding via hawala, and association with terrorist leaders – Court found prima facie material linking appellant to conspiracy and application of Section 43D(5) of UAPA, warranting rejection of bail [Paras 72-94].

Sting Operation – Relevance and Admissibility – Incriminating Admissions – Despite objections regarding entrapment and inadmissibility, Court held that at bail stage, admissibility is not the test – Prima facie, appellant’s admissions on terror funding, stone pelting, and inducing unrest cannot be ignored – Held: Alleged confessions in sting operation supported by protected witness testimonies and voice sample analysis justified reliance at this stage [Paras 78-80].

Attendance at Pro-ISIS Rally – Open Source Video Evidence – Judicial Caution – Video evidence showing appellant participating in a rally with slogans and symbols allegedly supporting ISIS taken into consideration – Court held that distinction between religious flags and ISIS insignia is a matter of trial, but prima facie presence at rally corroborated by witnesses [Paras 81-82].

Protected Witnesses – Strategic Meetings and Protest Coordination – Statements of several protected witnesses (Alpha, Gamma, Jack, etc.) corroborated allegations of appellant’s participation in Hurriyat meetings, incitement to violence, and coordination with Pakistan-based operatives – Their statements supported by seized documents and digital evidence including protest calendars and communications [Paras 86-88].

Length of Incarceration – Not Sufficient for Bail – National Security Implications – Despite seven years of custody, Court emphasized seriousness of charges, presence of prima facie evidence, and threat to national unity as overriding factors – Trial had commenced and was being expedited; hence, prolonged incarceration not sufficient ground for bail [Paras 95-101].

Possibility of Witness Tampering – Relevance in Bail Refusal – Appellant’s continued influence over witnesses cited as a concern – Protected witnesses had expressed fear – Held: Grant of bail may jeopardize trial and endanger safety of those willing to testify [Para 102].
 

Civil Law - Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants failed to show any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Held: High Court cannot re-evaluate findings of fact where concurrent findings of two courts exist and evidence has been properly appreciated [Paras 13-14, 22-23].

Execution of Promissory Note – Attestation and Proof – Consideration Established – Plaintiff established execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note and passing of consideration through P.W.1 and P.W.2, the attestor – Held: Defendants failed to rebut presumption under Section 118 NI Act or produce contrary evidence [Paras 6, 16-17, 21-22].

Allegation of Forgery – No Proof or Expert Evidence – Defence Rejected – Appellants claimed Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated but did not take steps to send the document to handwriting expert or file police complaint – Held: Mere plea of forgery without substantiation is insufficient to displace legally presumed validity of promissory note [Paras 7, 15-17, 21-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Corroborative Evidence of Debt – Section 138 NI Act Proceedings – Plaintiff filed cheque bounce case as parallel enforcement of debt – Held: Issuance of cheque for partial discharge of debt supports claim of enforceable liability under promissory note [Paras 6(a), 16].

Legal Presumption – Section 118 NI Act – Rebuttable Only by Preponderance – Courts Reaffirm – Held: Plaintiff enjoys presumption of consideration and valid execution which can only be rebutted through cogent contrary evidence—mere denial insufficient [Paras 18-19, citing G. Vasu v. Syed Yaseen].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Both trial and appellate court decrees upheld – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage without costs [Para 23].

Matrimonial Law - Permanent Alimony – Absence of Application or Evidence – Decree Set Aside – Appellant challenged the Family Court’s direction to pay ₹70 lakhs as permanent alimony despite absence of written or oral application by wife under Section 25 HMA – High Court held that permanent alimony, though discretionary and equitable, must be supported by pleadings, framing of issues, and evidence on financial condition of parties – Held: Award of alimony without any such foundation unsustainable in law [Paras 2.1-2.6, 4.7, 5-6].

Maintenance – Mandatory Framing of Issue and Financial Assessment – Court held that without framing issue or assessing oral and documentary evidence regarding earning capacity, conduct, and living standard of both parties, permanent alimony cannot be granted – Reliance solely on U.S. court’s child support order was impermissible – Matter remanded for proper adjudication [Paras 2.5, 3.7, 4.7, 5].

Oral Application – Permissible but Not Made – Equitable Relief Requires Legal Foundation – Though the Court accepted that application under Section 25 need not be written, it found that no oral prayer was made either – Respondent-wife’s failure to disclose income details and evidence of financial independence also weighed against grant without trial [Paras 2.2, 2.5, 4.7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Alimony Order Quashed – Matter Remanded – Family Court directed to reconsider alimony based on oral and documentary evidence from both sides and complete adjudication within ten weeks – ₹15 lakhs deposited by appellant to be transferred to Family Court and kept in FDR pending outcome [Paras 6-7].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Eyewitness Testimony – Conviction Upheld – Presence Proved – Appellant assaulted his brother with a trident and bamboo lathi, packed the body in a gunny bag, and disposed of it in a jungle – Held: Evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16, corroborated by recovery of the body and medical testimony, proved the crime beyond doubt [Paras 6, 8-10].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility of Verbal Shout – Res Gestae Covered – Victim’s last words calling for help and naming his assailant, heard by P.W.16, admissible as a dying declaration and as part of the same transaction under Section 6 of the Evidence Act – Held: Statement reliable and can form basis for conviction [Paras 9, 35].

Recovery of Weapon – Disclosure Under Section 27 – Trident Seized – Admissible Evidence – Appellant’s disclosure led to recovery of the murder weapon (trident) concealed near a well – Doctor opined injuries were possible by the recovered weapons – Held: Discovery valid, despite absence of blood on trident [Paras 4, 8-10, 31-33].

Minor Contradictions – Eyewitness Versions Consistent – Discrepancy Not Material – P.W.13 and P.W.16 gave slightly different versions of what was heard but corroborated each other on material facts – Held: Discrepancies minor and immaterial, consistent with age and perception variations [Paras 9, 30-32].

Motive – Familial Dispute Over Mango Tree – Sufficient Background – Motive established through testimony about dispute between appellant and deceased over falling mangoes from a tree – Held: While motive is not necessary in all cases, it supports prosecution story [Para 36].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment with fines upheld – Held: Trial court rightly relied on credible eyewitnesses, corroborating medical and forensic evidence [Paras 10, 37].
 

Unlawful Activities – Bail under UAPA – Long Incarceration – Bail Granted - Appellant, accused of involvement in ISIS-related recruitment and conspiracy, was in custody since 02.08.2023 – Charge not yet framed and further investigation ongoing – Court considered prolonged incarceration, bleak chances of trial commencement, and parity with similarly placed co-accused who was granted bail by Apex Court – Held: Incarceration of over 8 months without trial violates right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 6-8].

Grounds of Arrest – Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Pankaj Bansal Doctrine – Not Applicable Retrospectively – Appellant challenged arrest as illegal due to non-supply of written grounds – Court held that Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively – Since arrest occurred before the judgment date (02.08.2023 vs 03.10.2023), protection under the precedent not available – Arrest upheld [Para 5].

Jurisdiction of NIA – FIR Registration – Section 6(5) of NIA Act – Validity Upheld - Challenge to FIR on ground that NIA registered it directly without prior State referral – Court relied on prior ruling in Ali K. v. Union of India to affirm that Central Government can direct investigation under Section 6(5) even without prior case registration – No illegality found in FIR registration [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Bail granted to appellant subject to stringent conditions including travel restrictions, regular reporting, and non-interference with evidence or witnesses – Breach of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail [Para 8].
 

Criminal Law - Arms Act – Conviction under Section 7 vs Section 3 – Prohibited Arm Not Proven – Conviction Modified - Appellant was initially convicted under Section 7/25 of the Arms Act for possession of a country-made revolver – Trial court relied on a District Magistrate's report but no ballistic report or scientific evidence was produced to prove it was a prohibited arm – Held: In absence of proof that seized arm was automatic or met other criteria under Section 2(1)(i), conviction under Section 7 not sustainable – Conviction altered to Section 3 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Proof of Weapon Type – No Expert or Technical Evidence Produced – Prosecution Failed to Prove Prohibited Nature of Weapon – No ballistic expert opinion or technical data was produced to confirm the nature of the firearm as “prohibited” – Armourer was a field constable without expert credentials – Held: Failure to meet evidentiary threshold required under Arms Act to convict under Section 7 [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Sentencing – Reformative Justice – Probation Principles Applied – Sentence Reduced - Appellant was 21 years old at time of offence, with no prior criminal record and had already undergone over 2 years in custody – Maximum punishment for Section 3 offence is 3 years – Held: Sentence reduced to period already undergone and benefit of reformative principles under Probation of Offenders Act considered appropriate [Paras 5.7–Conclusion].

Appeal – Partial Allowance – Conviction Modified – Appellant Acquitted of Section 7 Charge - Court set aside conviction under Section 7/25 – Convicted instead under Section 3/25 of Arms Act – Sentence modified to time already served – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith [Conclusion].