Bail Petitions in FIR No.437 – Assault and Robbery – Petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No.437 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 307, 365, 379-B, 427, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 25 of Arms Act. [Para 1]

FIR Details – Assault and Snatching Incident – FIR based on a complaint by Sohail, alleging assault by 20-30 persons including petitioners, resulting in injuries and snatching of ₹60,000. Incident occurred around 02:00 AM; assailants armed with rods and dandas, with shots fired. [Para 2]

Investigation and Arrests – Arrest of co-accused and recovery of crime-related items. Shots fired by co-accused Ashok and petitioner Jaihind @ Jaihind Bhadana. MLR of complainant indicated four injuries, including a grievous one. [Para 3]

Petitioners' Defense – False Implication and Questionable FIR – Argued that petitioners falsely implicated; questioned the number of injuries relative to the alleged assault by many; highlighted complainant's alcohol influence and absence of firearm injury for Section 307 IPC. [Para 4]

State and Complainant's Objection – Opposed bail citing the serious nature of injuries and pending witness statements. [Para 5]

Decision – Noted suspicious circumstances, including time and place of the incident, and the nature of injuries. Granted bail to petitioners considering filed challan and expected trial duration. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Bail granted to petitioners Deepak and Jaihind @ Jaihind Bhadana under specific conditions set by the court. [Para 8]

Protection for Live-in Couples - Constitutional Right - Petitioners in a live-in relationship seeking protection for their life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution - Emphasis on the constitutional right to life and liberty, which includes the right to live with a partner of one’s choice, whether in a formal marriage or a live-in relationship. [Para 10, 14]

Previous Legal Precedents Cited - Reliance on past judgments from the same court recognizing and granting protection to individuals in live-in relationships, irrespective of the formal marital status of the parties involved. [Paras 3, 4, 5]

Representation to Police for Threat Assessment - Direction to respondent no.2 (Police) to consider the representation of the petitioners regarding their threat perception and take appropriate action as per law. [Para 6, 15]

Legal Protection Irrespective of Marital Status - Court's stance on providing protection without delving into the legality of the relationship, focusing on the immediate need to safeguard life and liberty. [Para 11, 13, 14]

Court's Discretion in Granting Protection - The court's decision to grant protection based on prima facie satisfaction of threat to petitioners, without commenting on the legality of their relationship or precluding legal action against them for any unlawful activities. [Para 14, 17]

Decision: Petition disposed of with directions to respondent no.2 to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The court’s order does not prevent legal actions against the petitioners if warranted by their conduct. [Para 15, 17]

Land Acquisition - Apportionment of Compensation - Regular First Appeal - Appellants contested Reference Court's award of 75% compensation to respondent as tenant - Held, Co-sharer can occupy more than their share as a tenant under other co-sharers - However, respondent failed to prove payment of rent - Reference Court's decision modified, respondent entitled to 1/3rd share of compensation, remaining 2/3rd to other co-sharers - Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 8, 9].

Proof of Tenancy - Analysis - Held, Revenue entries only presumed rate of rent, not payment - Respondent's failure to provide evidence of rent payment led to adjustment of compensation share - Lack of correction of long-standing revenue entries supported respondent's tenant status but limited to 1/3rd share [Para 8].

Decision - Modification of Reference Court's Award - Court modified the apportionment, granting respondent 1/3rd share and others 2/3rd - Recognition of long-term possession and revenue entries as supportive but not conclusive of full tenant status [Para 10].

Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Acquittal – Appellant challenging the acquittal of respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 302, 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act – Allegation of dowry death and murder of the appellant's sister, Sumalatha, by setting her on fire. [Para 1, 6]

Dowry Death – Evidence of Dowry and Harassment – Insufficient evidence to establish the demand for dowry or harassment related to dowry – Defence contention of accidental death not effectively countered by prosecution – Failure to establish linkage between the death and dowry demand. [Para 20, 26, 27, 31]

Homicide versus Accidental Death – Prosecution's inability to establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondents poured kerosene and lit fire to the victim – Contradictions in testimonies regarding the alleged oral dying declaration of the deceased. [Para 32, 33, 34, 35]

Beneficial Doubt in Acquittal – The principle of double presumption in favor of the accused in cases of appeal against acquittal – High Court's obligation to thoroughly scrutinize evidence before reversing a trial court's acquittal. [Para 15, 36]

Decision – High Court finds no perversity or improbability in the Trial Court's judgment – Acquittal of respondents upheld due to insufficient evidence of dowry demand, harassment, and homicidal death – Appeal dismissed. [Para 37]

Criminal Appeal – Challenge Against Acquittal in Robbery Case - State of Karnataka's appeal against the acquittal of respondents for an offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. The incident involved hijacking the complainant's car and stealing valuables on the night of November 4-5, 2010. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, leading to this appeal by the State. [Para 1-5]

Evidence and Identification of Accused – Test Identification Parade and Reliability - Issues raised regarding the identification of the accused. The complainant identified the accused in the CPI's office without a formal test identification parade, raising questions about the identification's reliability. Initially, the case was registered against unknown persons without a clear description of the assailants in the complaint. [Para 24-25]

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistencies and Evidential Challenges - The prosecution's claims on the recovery of the complainant's car and mobile phone at the instance of the accused were challenged due to inconsistencies in the recovery process and evidence. The failure to establish a direct link between the accused and the recovered items led to doubts about the prosecution's version. [Para 19-23, 26]

Standards for Appellate Review of Acquittal - The principles guiding the appellate court in reviewing an acquittal include the double benefit of doubt in favor of the accused: the presumption of innocence and the reinforcement of this presumption by the trial court's acquittal. The appellate court should refrain from disturbing the trial court's findings if two reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the evidence. [Para 14, 17, 26]

Upholding Trial Court's Judgment of Acquittal - Based on the assessment of the evidence and the principles for appellate interference in an acquittal, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's judgment, affirming the acquittal of the accused. The trial court's decision was considered to be based on substantial evidence. [Para 26]

Final Order – Appeal Dismissed - The criminal appeal was dismissed due to lack of merits. The High Court directed the registry to transmit the judgment and the trial court's records to the concerned Sessions Judge's Court. [Order]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in Robbery Case – Appeal by State against acquittal in a robbery case involving accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Incident involving carjacking and theft of cash, gold chain, and mobile phone – Trial court's acquittal based on insufficient evidence and discrepancies in prosecution’s case. [Para 1-6, 15-26]

Evidence and Witnesses – Issues in Recovery and Identification – Discrepancies in recovery of stolen items and identification of accused – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses' testimonies regarding recovery of complainant’s car and mobile phone – Complainant’s identification of accused not corroborated by prior descriptions or test identification parade. [Para 19-25]

Principles of Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence and Acquittal – Emphasis on the double presumption in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal – Appellate court's interference only for substantial and compelling reasons – Reference to relevant Supreme Court judgments establishing principles guiding appeal against acquittal. [Para 14, 17, 24]

Decision – Upholding Trial Court’s Judgment of Acquittal – Trial Court’s judgment based on careful consideration of evidence and legal principles – Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 upheld due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 26]

ORDER – Dismissal of Criminal Appeal – Criminal Appeal No. 565 of 2017 (A) dismissed due to lack of merit, affirming Trial Court’s decision.

Property Dispute – Title and boundary dispute over a 15.89 cents of land – Plaintiff claimed ownership and possession of specific plots in the land – Defendants contested the claim – Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, confirming his title and directing boundary fixation – First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Appeal to the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Substantial questions of law framed.[Para 1-10]

Interpretation of Rules – Rule 56 of Kerala Survey & Boundaries Rules, 1964 – Applicability of Rule 56 to recorded areas of fields or sub-divisions – Dispute not categorized as a ‘boundary dispute’ under the Act – Survey results not affecting the right and title acquired by parties through valid title deeds and possession.[Para 15-17]

Possession and Boundary – Narrow strip of land in dispute – Presumption of possession in favor of the plaintiff based on pleadings and evidence – Previous decisions supporting this presumption.[Para 19]

Decision – High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts – Regular Second Appeal dismissed.[Para 20]

Alleged Dowry Death and Murder – Acquittal of Accused - appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents in a case involving the alleged dowry death and murder of Sumalatha, sister of the appellant. The trial court acquitted the respondents, and the appellant seeks to overturn this decision. [Paras 1, 6]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Inconsistencies and Lack of Corroboration - The prosecution's case largely relied on the testimony of PWs 4 to 8, which the trial court found inconsistent and lacking in corroboration. The evidence regarding the alleged dowry demand and the circumstances of Sumalatha's death was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 11, 20-32]

Dying Declaration – Credibility and Acceptance - The trial court did not accept the alleged oral dying declaration of Sumalatha, finding inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses who claimed to have heard it. [Paras 33-35]

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal - The principles governing the appellate court's approach in appeals against acquittal were considered, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of the trial court’s judgment. [Paras 15, 37]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed: The High Court found no perversity or improbability in the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused. [Paras 37, Order]

Non-Filing of Written Statement – Striking off Defense – Order dated 06.10.2023 by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, in CS No. 94 of 2021, struck off petitioners’ defense due to non-filing of written statement within 90 days from the service date. [Para 1]

Petitioners' Ex Parte Proceedings and Subsequent Appearances – Petitioners proceeded ex parte on 21.03.2022, reappeared on 09.01.2023, and had the ex parte order set aside, subject to costs. Multiple adjournments granted for filing the written statement. [Para 2]

Analysis of Procedural Law – Application of Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. Supreme Court's interpretation in Kailash vs. Nanhku and others (2005) and subsequent cases – emphasizing the need for expeditious trials, while also acknowledging the courts' discretion for extension beyond the 90-day period in exceptional circumstances. [Paras 5-7, 9-11]

Grant of Last Opportunity to File Written Statement – Petitioners granted one last opportunity to file the written statement by 15.01.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 to the plaintiff. [Para 12]

Order Modification and Notice to Respondents – Modification of the order dated 06.10.2023. Respondents may approach the court for recalling of this order if dissatisfied. [Para 13]

Decision:

Revision petition allowed; the order dated 06.10.2023 modified; petitioners granted last chance to file the written statement with a cost imposition.