Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Single Fatal Blow – Applicability of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC – Held: Intentional infliction of a fatal blow aimed at a vital part of the body establishes intention to cause death – Use of dangerous weapon (iron rod) and absence of provocation confirmed premeditated intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Sole Testimony of Related Witness – Reliability – Held: Testimony of PW9, the deceased’s daughter-in-law, was consistent, natural, and credible – Relationship with the deceased does not render her testimony unreliable when supported by circumstances – Conviction can be based solely on such reliable testimony [Paras 15-22].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliability – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses PW2 and PW3 partially relied upon to establish motive – Courts are not bound to discard entire testimony of hostile witnesses but may accept parts that inspire confidence [Paras 21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment for Murder – Proportionality – Held: The sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for trespass is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the offences – No leniency warranted [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC upheld.
 

Motor Accident – Negligence of Driver – Award Upheld – The respondent (injured) alleged negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle leading to grievous injuries – Court upheld the finding of negligence based on unchallenged testimony, corroborated site plan, and chargesheet under Sections 279/338 IPC – Filing of a chargesheet was deemed sufficient proof of negligence, as per precedent in National Insurance Co. v. Pushpa Rana [2009 ACJ 287] [Paras 7-11].

Income and Loss of Future Income – Revision – Injured's monthly salary proved as ₹32,500 based on salary slips and employer’s testimony – Functional disability reduced from 40% to 20% due to lack of loss in salary despite permanent disability of 76% in the lower limb – Compensation for loss of future income recalculated accordingly [Paras 14-21].

Medical Expenses – No Reduction – Medical bills amounting to ₹6,75,096/- were presented – Tribunal awarded ₹7,70,000/- considering permanent disability and the likelihood of future medical expenses – High Court upheld the amount, observing that the injured’s condition warranted additional treatment beyond documented bills [Paras 22-24].

Non-Pecuniary Heads – Compensation Upheld – The Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- each for pain, suffering, mental and physical shock, disfiguration, and loss of amenities – High Court found no basis for reduction given the nature of injuries and permanent disability [Para 25].

Interest Rate – No Change – The Tribunal awarded 9% per annum interest – High Court upheld this as reasonable and consistent with prevailing rates [Para 26].

Decision – Compensation revised from ₹36,04,000/- to ₹25,12,000/- – Interest at 9% per annum upheld – Excess statutory deposit ordered to be returned to the insurance company [Paras 29-31].
 

Termination of Government Counsel – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry Based on Unverified Video – Termination Set Aside – The petitioner, who was serving as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) in District Hathras, was removed from his post by an order of the Joint Secretary, Law Department, based on an inquiry report alleging objectionable remarks against Mahatma Gandhi – The inquiry committee’s report failed to establish the authenticity of the video relied upon, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to present his defense – The court found the action against the petitioner to be malicious and unsupported by substantive material – Held: The termination order is unsustainable in law and is set aside – The petitioner is directed to be reinstated within three weeks [Paras 6-11].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Modification of Punishment – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Appellant/Bank challenged the order of the learned Single Judge directing inclusion of the compulsory retirement period (07.01.2002 to 17.09.2009) in total service for computation of retiral benefits – Employee also appealed seeking additional benefits denied by the Single Judge – High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, finding that the compulsory retirement was unjustified and modified punishment applied retrospectively – Held: Employee entitled to full benefits including pension and gratuity based on total service [Paras 24-28].

Service Benefits – Period of Exclusion – Consequential Benefits – Learned Single Judge directed inclusion of the period of compulsory retirement in total service and payment of retiral benefits accordingly – High Court found no justification to exclude the period during which the employee was out of service due to the disproportionate punishment of compulsory retirement later modified to reduction in basic pay – Held: Employee entitled to all arrears, with interest at 8% p.a. if not paid within the stipulated period [Paras 24-28].

Proportionality of Punishment – Modification by Appellate Authority – Supreme Court’s Affirmation – Appellate authority substituted the harsh punishment of compulsory retirement with reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Junior Management Scale-I – Supreme Court upheld the appellate order – Held: Modified punishment takes effect from the original date of compulsory retirement, entitling the employee to full consequential benefits [Paras 25-27].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Appellate Authority’s Order – Bank contended that employee’s challenge to the 2009 appellate order was time-barred – High Court rejected the contention, finding the employee’s claim meritorious in light of the judicial direction modifying the punishment and reinstating the employee [Para 12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Single Judge’s order affirmed – Appellant/Bank directed to comply with the order within four weeks – Employee entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears, gratuity, and pension based on the full length of service, including the excluded period [Paras 28].

Civil Procedure – Order XXXVII CPC – Scope of Leave to Defend – The appellant issued a post-dated cheque for ₹6,50,000/- as security but claimed it was not meant for encashment. The Trial Court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to defend, holding the defense frivolous and lacking substance. The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, finding no substantial defense or triable issues raised by the appellant Paras3−4.

Negotiable Instruments – Concurrent Remedies under Civil and Criminal Law – The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also filed a civil suit for recovery. The appellant argued that the respondent could not pursue both remedies. The High Court rejected this contention, affirming that remedies under civil and criminal law can be pursued concurrently Para7.

Judicial Discretion – Leave to Defend – Frivolous or Vexatious Defense – The appellant's explanations for not reclaiming the cheque after the sale deed execution and the lack of any written communication to demand its return over three years were deemed implausible. The defense was considered vexatious, justifying the denial of leave to defend Paras5−6.

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment and decree, dismissing the appeal and associated applications 
Para8.
 

Property Law – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Validity of Sale Deed Executed by Power Agent – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Property originally owned by the plaintiffs through inheritance and subsequent acquisition – Plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favor of the first defendant as security for a loan – G.P.A. revoked by a registered Cancellation Deed, which was communicated to the Sub-Registrar – First defendant executed a Sale Deed in favor of the second defendant, which was presented for registration after the revocation of the G.P.A. – Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed – Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs – Trial Court decreed the Suit, holding the G.P.A. as a security document and its cancellation valid – First Appellate Court confirmed the decision – Held: Sale Deed was executed after the cancellation of the G.P.A. came to the notice of the defendants; sale was incomplete in the absence of registration – Second Appeal dismissed, with liberty to the second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed [Paras 6–19].

Agency Law – Power Coupled with Interest – Revocation and Termination – Plaintiffs contended that G.P.A. was executed as security for a loan and revoked through a Cancellation Deed – Defendants argued that the G.P.A. was irrevocable as it was coupled with interest, and revocation was not validly communicated – Held: G.P.A. was not coupled with interest as possession of the Suit Property was not handed over to the power agent – Revocation was validly communicated to the Sub-Registrar and came to the notice of the power agent before the registration of the Sale Deed – Sale Deed executed without a valid G.P.A. is invalid [Paras 14–18].

Sale Deed – Incomplete Sale Without Registration – Sale Deed executed by the power agent was presented for registration after the G.P.A. was revoked – Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale is incomplete without registration – Held: The Sale Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and does not convey any title to the second defendant – Remedy available to the second defendant is to seek specific performance [Paras 17–18].

Procedural Compliance – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Cancellation Deed was registered at a Sub-Registrar Office (S.R.O.) different from where the G.P.A. was registered – Plaintiffs sent a letter of objection to the Jurisdictional S.R.O. – Held: Registration of Cancellation Deed at a different S.R.O. is valid as per the Registration Act, 1908, and it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar to communicate the cancellation to the concerned Jurisdictional S.R.O. – No evidence suggests procedural non-compliance by the Sub-Registrar [Paras 15–16].

Liberty to File Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiffs retain possession and title to the Suit Property – Second defendant granted liberty to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed – Parties directed to raise all available contentions in the said Suit, including seeking exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Para 18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs' title and possession upheld – Sale Deed declared invalid – Liberty granted to second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Regular Bail in Cases Involving National Security – Held: Not Granted – Petitioner accused of provoking unrest in Punjab by writing Khalistani slogans and disseminating anti-national content on social media – Court emphasized that such actions threaten national sovereignty and public order – Mere delay in trial is not sufficient to justify bail when charges involve acts of sedition and cyber terrorism – Petition dismissed [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Relevance of Multiple FIRs in Bail Consideration – Held: Relevant Factor Against Bail – Petitioner facing similar charges in multiple FIRs across Punjab and Himachal Pradesh – Court held that pending cases with identical allegations strengthen the prosecution's argument against bail – Cited as a prima facie indicator of continued engagement in anti-national activities – Bail refused [Para 9].

Trial Delay – Impact on Bail Decision – Whether Delay Justifies Bail in Serious Offences – Held: No – Petitioner argued that trial was delayed since his arrest in September 2022 – Court noted that sanction from the Central Government was awaited, which contributed to the delay – Additionally, key prosecution witnesses had already been examined, contradicting the petitioner’s claim that evidence had not begun – Held that trial delay alone cannot be a ground for bail in cases involving national security concerns [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail application citing serious allegations, national security concerns, and pending cases in other states – However, clarified that observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of the trial [Paras 10-11].

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Husband’s Meager Income Not a Ground for Denial – Obligation of Able-Bodied Husband – Held: Maintenance Upheld – The applicant challenged the Family Court’s grant of ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance – Held: An able-bodied husband cannot escape his obligation to maintain his wife merely on the ground of low income – The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha ruled that a husband's limited earnings do not absolve him from paying maintenance – Husband must earn to support his wife [Paras 5, 7].

Adultery as a Ground for Denying Maintenance – Distinction Between Adultery and Emotional Affair – Held: No Bar to Maintenance – The applicant alleged that the wife had a love affair and was therefore not entitled to maintenance – Held: Under Section 125(4) CrPC, maintenance can be denied only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery – Mere love or emotional affection without proof of sexual relations does not constitute adultery – Maintenance rightly granted [Para 6].

Judicial Interpretation – Effect of Restitution of Conjugal Rights on Maintenance – Whether Husband’s Section 9 HMA Petition Bars Wife’s Claim – Held: No – The applicant contended that he had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which the wife refused, and hence she was not entitled to maintenance – Held: Even if a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is passed, the wife is still entitled to maintenance unless she voluntarily deserts her husband without reasonable cause (Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto) – Since no proceedings for restitution were pending, the contention was irrelevant [Para 5].

Allegations of Wife’s Independent Income – Absence of Documentary Proof – Held: No Justification to Deny Maintenance – The applicant claimed that the wife was running a beauty parlour and earning sufficiently – Held: No documentary evidence was produced to establish the claim – Mere allegations without proof cannot be a basis to deny interim maintenance [Para 7].

Public Notice by Husband’s Father Dispossessing Him – Legal Impact on Maintenance Obligation – Held: Irrelevant – The applicant placed reliance on a public notice by his father stating that he had been disowned from family property – Held: The applicant was still residing at the same address, proving that the notice was merely a legal formality with no actual effect – Such notices cannot be used as a shield to avoid maintenance liability [Para 8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Maintenance Upheld – The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order granting ₹4,000 as interim maintenance, noting that the trial court already considered the maintenance under Section 24 HMA – No interference warranted – Criminal revision dismissed [Paras 9-12].

Specific Relief – Possession under Section 6 – Requirement of Settled Possession – Suit Dismissed – The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, claiming illegal dispossession by the petitioner from two rooms on the ground floor of the suit property – High Court held that the respondent failed to prove settled physical possession or dispossession without due process of law – Possession of the plaintiff in the remaining portions of the property was not disputed – Held: Section 6 relief denied as joint possession with the deceased owner was unsubstantiated [Paras 40, 44-46].

Rights of Legal Heirs – Class II Heirs – Defendant's Occupation – The petitioner, as a Class II legal heir, occupied the suit property after the demise of the original owner, Smt. Shanti Rani Gupta – High Court emphasized that any claim to title or share in the property should be pursued in appropriate legal proceedings – Possession after the owner’s death was not unlawful under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 44-45].

Documentary Evidence – Insufficient Proof of Possession – Voter ID and correspondence addressed to the plaintiff’s daughter at the suit property were produced – High Court held these insufficient to prove settled possession of the two rooms on the ground floor, which were exclusively occupied by the deceased [Paras 42-43].

Will and Separate Suit for Title – Impact on Section 6 Proceedings – Plaintiff referenced a registered Will claiming 1/3 ownership of the property – High Court observed that the Will’s validity and title were not issues in the Section 6 suit – Plaintiff’s separate title suit for ownership was already pending [Paras 34, 44].

Trial Court's Misapplication of Section 6 – Trial Court presumed dispossession and settled possession without cogent evidence – High Court reversed the decision, emphasizing the burden on the plaintiff to prove settled possession and illegal dispossession [Paras 28, 46].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – The impugned judgment and decree dated 05/08/2023 passed by the Trial Court is set aside – The respondent’s suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is dismissed – Held: Parties may pursue ownership claims through appropriate legal proceedings [Paras 47-48].