Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Direct Evidence – FIR Delay – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Report – Role of MLA Accused – Appeals Dismissed – Jai Prakash Singh, father of the informant (PW-8), was abducted and murdered on 20.08.2015 by a mob of over 20 persons allegedly associated with a caste-based political meeting – PW-8 provided a detailed and consistent eye-witness account identifying all key accused, including Manoj Manzil (a sitting MLA) as the main assailant – Corroboration from PWs 1-4 confirmed the assault and motive – Delay in FIR held immaterial as police reached the spot within 20–25 minutes and search continued overnight – FIR was lodged next morning and delay duly explained [Paras 2–5, 30–34].

Eyewitness Testimony – Sole Testimony – Natural Conduct – PW-8’s Testimony Accepted as Wholly Reliable – Court found PW-8’s narration natural and consistent with other evidence – His presence at the scene with his father was undisputed – Supported by PWs 1–4, his evidence formed the backbone of the prosecution case – Testimony found credible despite absence of independent witnesses – Held: Sole testimony of a trustworthy witness can sustain conviction [Paras 35–44].

Medical Jurisprudence – Identification of Decomposed Body – DNA Test Not Produced – No Adverse Inference Drawn – Appellants challenged the identification of the body recovered after 7 days, claiming mismatch in age and postmortem findings – Court held identification by scar and dyed hair acceptable – Cause of death (strangulation) corroborated with ocular evidence – Held: Failure to produce DNA report does not vitiate trial in light of other cogent evidence – Relying on Pattu Rajan, S. Kaleeswaran and Vadivelu Thevar, Court held DNA is opinion evidence and absence does not negate otherwise proved facts [Paras 46–56].

Delay in FIR – Explained and Justified – No Concoction or Fabrication Found – Police investigation began immediately post-incident – FIR delay caused by overnight search and immediate police arrival – FIR handed to Chaukidar next morning – No questions raised in cross-examination to challenge genuineness – Delay not fatal per Chotkau and Hariprasad rulings [Paras 31–34]

Mob Violence – Identification – Role of Each Accused Clearly Established – Specific roles attributed to Manoj Manzil and others in eyewitness testimonies – Defence plea of vague allegations rejected – Presence and participation of accused clearly narrated – Motive (revenge for earlier caste killing) held proved [Paras 38–41, 45].

Independent Witnesses – Absence Not Fatal – Explanation Accepted – Court noted fear and political influence (accused was an MLA) as factors deterring neutral witnesses – Relatives’ testimony not discarded for being ‘interested’ – Held: Credibility, not relationship, determines evidentiary weight [Paras 42–43].

Postmortem and Artefacts – Decomposition Effects Not Inconsistent With Assault – Court relied on Modi’s Textbook to explain how decomposition distorts signs of external trauma – Foul smell, bloating, liquefaction common in delayed recovery – Observed that absence of external injuries does not negate assault in decomposed state – Postmortem corroborated strangulation, consistent with cause of death [Paras 53–55].

Appeal – Dismissed – Convictions and Sentences Upheld – Bail Cancelled – Accused Directed to Surrender – Appeals dismissed – Court upheld conviction under Sections 302/149, 364/149, and 201/149 IPC – Life sentence and fines confirmed – Accused on bail directed to surrender within one week; failure to attract coercive action [Paras 57–59].

Criminal Law – Forgery and Cheating – Loan Fraud – Proof of Partnership and Entrustment – Petitioners (A1 and A2) convicted for conspiring with absconding co-accused Sethuraman to obtain Rs.25.95 lakh loan from Central Bank of India by submitting forged mortgage deeds and fake valuation certificates – A1 claimed false implication and absence of proof of partnership – A2 contended no link to forgery or conspiracy – Held: Documentary and oral evidence of Bank Manager (PW1), Sub-Registrar (PW5), VAO (PW6), and Advocate (PW4) established that forged documents were produced and mortgage executed to secure loan – Signatures, stamp denominations, and vendor details differed from originals – Prosecution proved conspiracy and fabrication beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–16].

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients and Proof – Court reiterated that criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires evidence of agreement between parties to commit unlawful act – Direct proof rarely available; can be inferred from conduct, documentary links, and chain of circumstances – In present case, joint execution of loan documents, mortgage deeds, and submission of false valuation certificates proved common intention [Paras 7–10, 15–16].

Forgery – Use of Forged Documents – Responsibility of Makers – Petitioners argued that forgery not attributed to them as makers – Held: A1 and A2 actively used forged documents to avail loan and stood as partners/guarantors – Liability attaches to those who use forged instruments knowing them to be forged – Supported by Sub-Registrar’s testimony confirming discrepancies in stamp papers and seals [Paras 5–6, 15–16].

Sentencing – Modification Considering Gender and Age – While affirming conviction under all charges, Court modified sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year in view of A1’s gender and both petitioners’ age and health condition – Fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence maintained – Sentences to run concurrently [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revisions partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence – Sentences to run concurrently.

Criminal Law – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Prevention of Corruption – Recruitment fraud in TRC-ICMR – A1 (Administrative Officer) manipulated recruitment process to secure appointment of his son (A2) – Suppressed A2’s ineligibility, leaked question paper, and altered recruitment procedure – Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under IPC and PC Act; State sought conviction under conspiracy – Held: A1 misused official position for personal gain; A2 knowingly participated in deception – Offence of cheating (S.420 IPC) proved against both; Criminal breach of trust (S.409 IPC) and offences under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act established against A1 – Criminal conspiracy (S.120-B) proved only to the extent of S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – Sentences modified to simple imprisonment; institutional corrective directions issued to ICMR [Paras 5, 5.2–5.16, 7].

Recruitment Fraud – Misrepresentation and Suppression – A2 possessed M.A. (Public Administration) obtained through open university system, without basic degree or prescribed subjects – Falsely declared “M.A.” and claimed proficiency in Telugu – A1, being Administrative Officer, deliberately suppressed A2’s specialization during scrutiny and presentation before the Selection Committee – Held: Concealment and false representation were deliberate and material – Offence of cheating made out beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.9].

Evidence – Question Paper Leakage – Circumstantial and Technical Proof – Question papers and answer keys stored in floppy entrusted to A1 with strict confidentiality; metadata revealed unauthorized modifications on 17 & 19 July 2005; corroborated by approver (PW-15); only A2 and approver’s son scored full marks (25/25) – Defence plea of “easy paper” rejected – Held: Leakage established; breach of trust and cheating proved against A1; active participation of A2 inferred from exclusive benefit gained [Paras 5.6–5.8].

Service Law – Manipulated Circular – A1 issued internal circular for Technician post in deviation from amended recruitment rules – Omitted public advertisement and reversed “essential” and “desirable” qualifications to fit A2’s eligibility – Held: Fraud on recruitment process; vitiated selection of A2; acts amounted to misuse of official authority for personal benefit [Paras 5.10–5.15].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Court reiterates that every irregular appointment does not amount to criminal misconduct unless dishonest intention and unlawful gain are proved – In present case, cumulative circumstances and technical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion insufficient, but prosecution evidence met legal standard [Para 5].

Conspiracy – Scope and Limitation – Evidence showed A1 and A2 acted in concert to cheat organisation by dishonest concealment and manipulation – However, no wider conspiracy involving other officials proved – Held: Guilt under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC sustained; conspiracy for other substantive offences not established [Para 5.18].

Sentence – Modification – A1: Convictions under S.420 IPC, S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed; sentence modified to one year’s Simple Imprisonment on each count, with fine maintained; three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC added – A2: Conviction under S.420 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to three months’ SI; additional three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently; eight weeks to surrender; medical direction issued for A1 – “Being mentioned” order dated 15-10-2025 corrected A1’s age to 76 and imposed additional fine of Rs 1,000 [Para 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Institutional Accountability – Systemic Failures – Court expressed concern over ethical decline in recruitment integrity – Directed ICMR to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against A1 (including post-retirement, if permissible) and to conduct discreet audit of employee-kin appointments – Directed forwarding of judgment to DG, ICMR and Secretary, MoHFW for systemic corrective action [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of A1 under S.420 & S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed with modified sentence of Simple Imprisonment – Conviction of A2 under S.420 IPC maintained with reduced term – State appeal partly allowed by including S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC against both – Sentences to run concurrently – Medical and procedural directions affirmed [Paras 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Criminal Law – House Trespass – Assault with Firearm – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC for unlawfully entering complainant’s residence at night and threatening with a country-made pistol – Prosecution established recovery of firearm, live and fired cartridges – Eyewitness accounts by daughter (PW-2) and complainant (PW-10) corroborated by police witnesses – FSL report confirmed the firearm and ammunition fell under Arms Act – Held: Trial Court rightly convicted appellant based on reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 2–11]

Witness Testimony – Identification of Accused – PW-2 positively identified the appellant and detailed sequence of events – PW-10 (complainant) unable to identify appellant in court due to passage of time, but had identified him at the time of incident – Police witnesses confirmed arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution not discredited merely because one witness could not identify the accused after long delay – Conviction sustainable on basis of other credible witnesses [Para 9]

Sentencing – Probation – Reformative Justice – Long Pendency – Appellant was 18–19 years old at the time of incident and has no prior record – Trial concluded after 22 years and appeal pending for 20+ years – Appellant married with six children and sole breadwinner – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Mohammad Giasuddin, Pramod Kumar Mishra, K. Pounammal) emphasizes reformative approach in long-pending matters – Held: While conviction upheld, sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year under bond of ₹10,000 with one surety [Paras 12–15]

Decision:  Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC upheld – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year – All pending applications disposed of

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x) of Divorce Act – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Ill-treatment of husband’s children and attempt to commit suicide by wife constitute mental cruelty – Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month considering husband’s income abroad [Paras 10–14].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x), Divorce Act, 1869 – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Cruelty contemplated under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act must be understood in the same sense as under other personal laws – The law cannot recognise different degrees or types of cruelty based on religion – Right to live free from matrimonial cruelty is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution – Courts must interpret matrimonial cruelty under all personal laws in an identical manner to uphold constitutional equality [Para 11].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Ill-treatment of husband’s children – Conduct of wife towards husband’s children causing humiliation, agony and psychological trauma to the husband constitutes mental cruelty – Continuous harassment, neglect and abusive behaviour towards children justifies dissolution of marriage – Held, evidence of husband, children (PW2 & PW6) and corroborating witnesses (PW3–PW5) conclusively establish mental cruelty [Paras 10–12].

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Effect – Attempt by wife to commit suicide without reasonable cause, or threatening self-harm, amounts to cruelty – Such conduct causes emotional distress and apprehension of harm in the husband’s mind – Justifies decree of divorce [Para 13].

Cruelty – Interpretation – Constitutional Scheme – Courts must construe statutory provisions in harmony with Articles 14 and 21 – All citizens have equal right to live without matrimonial cruelty irrespective of religious denomination – Personal law cannot dilute this constitutional protection [Para 11].

Maintenance – Quantum – Criteria – While fixing maintenance, income, status and living standard of husband must be considered – Husband working at U.S. military base in Afghanistan earning more than ₹2,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹6,000 per month inadequate – Enhanced to ₹15,000 per month from date of petition [Para 14; Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, AIR 2025 SC 3268].

Family Law – Evidence – Appellate Interference – Where Family Court’s findings on cruelty are based on credible and corroborated oral and documentary evidence, appellate interference is unwarranted [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month – Mat. Appeal No.596/2019 and RP(FC) No.149/2023 dismissed – RP(FC) No.384/2019 partly allowed [Para 14].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment – Validity of Sanction under Section 151 – ITAT quashed reassessment on ground that approval for reopening by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was mechanical – Approval merely recorded “Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case” – Held: Such wording amounts to valid approval satisfying requirement of Section 151 – Distinction drawn with N.C. Cables Ltd., where only word “approved” was used – Approval here involved expression of satisfaction and thus meets statutory mandate [Paras 13–20].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition of Share Capital – Assessee alleged to have received ₹25,00,000/- as accommodation entry from S.K. Jain Group – AO relied on investigation wing report and added sum under Section 68 – ITAT did not adjudicate merits and quashed proceedings solely on approval defect – Held: Since approval under Section 151 was proper, ITAT erred in quashing reassessment without examining merits [Paras 6–10, 19–20].

Precedent – N.C. Cables Ltd. – Applicability – ITAT and Assessee relied on N.C. Cables Ltd., (2017) 391 ITR 11, where only “approved” was recorded as sanction – Held: Distinction exists as present case used more detailed language reflecting satisfaction – Earlier decision not attracted – Also relied on Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. where similar approval held valid [Paras 13–19].

Assessment Procedure – Use of Investigation Wing Reports – AO reopened assessment based on incriminating material from investigation into S.K. Jain Group’s shell companies and accommodation entry operations – Challenge by Assessee to authenticity and non-supply of documents rejected – High Court did not interfere with the reliance placed on such reports for initiating reassessment [Paras 3–8].

Appellate Procedure – Deference to Prior ITAT Order – ITAT followed its earlier order in Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010–11 – High Court noted that earlier ITAT decision was not appealed due to low tax effect – Held: Lack of appeal in prior case does not preclude adjudication on merits when substantial question of law is framed [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s order dated 07.07.2023 quashing reassessment set aside – Reassessment proceedings restored – Substantial question of law decided in favour of Revenue.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Acquittal under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appeal by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 (Jaison) under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Biju and Mohanan) under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment – Held: Trial court rightly appreciated the absence of premeditation and lack of sufficient evidence regarding intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC – Evidence showed single stab during a scuffle following a verbal altercation – No second attempt by accused to inflict fatal injury – Hence, acquittal under Section 307 IPC justified [Paras 4, 23-25].

Witness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW1 and PW2, both injured, consistently deposed regarding the incident and attributed the stabbing to accused No.1 – Their testimony corroborated by medical evidence (PW7, PW8) and injury certificates (Exhibits P3 & P5) – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3 but consistent and credible as against accused No.1 – Held: Injured witnesses’ evidence carries greater weight and no reason found to disbelieve them with respect to accused No.1 – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld [Paras 9-11, 13, 15, 31, 33-34].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Delay in implicating A2 and A3 – No mention of A2 and A3 in initial FIR (Exhibit P10) or doctor’s report (Exhibit P4) – Names added only later via Exhibit P15 – PW3 (independent witness) turned hostile and made no mention of A2 and A3’s presence – Delay and contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding involvement of A2 and A3 create reasonable doubt – Held: Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 12, 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Knife (MO1) allegedly recovered based on disclosure by accused No.1 – Recovery not reliable – Investigating Officer failed to depose exact words of the accused or prove the disclosure statement – No independent witnesses to recovery – Held: Recovery procedure did not satisfy requirements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Recovery evidence discarded [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Initial FIR (Exhibit P10) registered under Section 324 IPC based on hospital intimation (Exhibit P4) – No mention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Involvement of A2 and A3 added only six days later via Exhibit P15 – Delay in recording witness statements and no explanation for non-inclusion in initial documents – Held: Such delay and omissions fatal to prosecution case against A2 and A3 [Paras 16, 27-29].

Legal Principle – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law – Argument that PWs 1 and 2’s testimony should be discarded entirely because disbelieved in part (as to A2 and A3) rejected – Held: Indian courts do not apply this doctrine – Duty of court is to separate truth from falsehood and assess credibility on a case-by-case basis [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal filed by State against acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC dismissed – Appeal filed by accused No.1 against conviction under Section 324 IPC also dismissed – Conviction and sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 confirmed – Appeals dismissed in entirety [Paras 34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittals of accused Nos. 2 and 3 confirmed – Conviction of accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment upheld.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Assessment Order – Principles of Natural Justice – Writ Petition challenging assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B for A.Y. 2023–24 – Addition of ₹2.15 crores towards bogus purchases made without considering supplier’s detailed reply to notice under Section 133(6) confirming transaction and submitting supporting documents – Held: Clear breach of natural justice, assessment order unsustainable [Paras 4, 5(a), 8] –

Income Tax – Unsecured Loans – Peak Credit Addition – Addition of ₹22.66 crores made towards director’s loans including opening balances – Held: No show-cause notice issued regarding peak credit addition – Reliance placed on non-existent judgments – Grievance of lack of basis and computation found justified – Quasi-judicial function requires proper verification and diligence before relying on AI-generated content or sources [Paras 5(b), 9] –

Remand – Alternate Remedy – Despite availability of appellate remedy, interference under Article 226 warranted due to procedural violations – Assessment Order, Demand Notice under Section 156, and Penalty SCN under Sections 274/271AAC quashed – Matter remanded with directions to issue proper show cause, provide personal hearing, and pass a reasoned, speaking order by 31st December 2025 [Paras 10–12] –

Decision: Assessment Order, Demand Notice and Penalty Show Cause Notice quashed – Matter remanded for fresh assessment – Writ Petition allowed [Paras 11–14].

Civil Law – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing the suit for injunction upheld – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or contrary to law – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 5.16–6].

Transfer of Property – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Effect – Plaintiff sought injunction restraining defendant from transferring property on basis of unregistered Banachitthi dated 18.09.2008 – Original document not produced – Defendant denied execution and thumb impression – Held: As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, such document requires compulsory registration; unregistered document cannot confer any right, title, or interest in immovable property [Paras 5.3–5.4].

Specific Relief – Suit for Injunction on Unregistered Agreement – Maintainability – Plaintiff filed only for injunction without claiming specific performance – Following Balram Singh v. Kelo Devi, MANU/SC/1241/2022, and Devesh Metcast Pvt. Ltd. v. Girish Nagjibhai Savaliya (Guj HC, 03.07.2025), held that a party cannot indirectly secure injunction on basis of unregistered sale agreement when substantive relief of specific performance is not sought – Suit not maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 5.5–5.7].

Registration Act – Section 49 – Collateral Purpose – Unregistered agreement can be used only in a suit for specific performance or for collateral purpose not requiring registration – As plaintiff’s suit was solely for injunction, such use was impermissible – Unregistered Banachitthi could not be relied upon to protect possession or claim rights under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 5.8–5.12].

Judicial Precedent – Limited Scope of Interference – Reiterated principles from Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty (1996) 6 SCC 177 and Jaichand (Dead) through LRs v. Sahnulal (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3864): High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law [Paras 5.16–5.17].

Decision:

Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law arises – Both Courts below rightly held that the suit based on an unregistered and unproved Banachitthi was not maintainable – Connected Civil Application for Stay disposed of accordingly [Para 6].