Criminal Law  – Grievous Hurt – Conviction under Section 326 IPC – Reduced to Section 324 IPC – Lack of Radiological Evidence - The prosecution failed to produce radiology reports or examine the radiologist to corroborate the claim of fracture injuries – Medical evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 326 IPC as per legal requirements – Held: Conviction modified to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) [Paras 12-22].

Evidence Law – Medical Evidence – Requirement of X-ray and Radiologist Testimony – In absence of radiological evidence, mere wound certificate is insufficient to establish fracture injuries constituting grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC – Court relied upon precedents including Karnataka High Court in Sathya Deva v. State of Karnataka and Rajasthan High Court in Bholu v. State of Rajasthan – Conviction under Section 326 IPC unsustainable [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Procedure – Sentencing – Delay as Mitigating Factor – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution invoked – Considering the 11 years delay in trial and revision, and the fact that petitioner already served over four months in custody, sentence reduced to period already undergone with enhanced fine – Fine of ₹25,000 imposed to be paid to the victim under Section 357 CrPC [Paras 24-26].

Decision – Revision Allowed in Part – Conviction under Section 326 IPC set aside – Conviction altered to Section 324 IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as compensation to victim; in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment [Para 25-27].

Civil Suit – Maintainability – Suit for Bare Injunction – Title in Dispute – Not Maintainable - The plaintiffs filed a suit for bare permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title, despite serious title disputes – The vendor's title was already negatived in previous proceedings under the Estates Abolition Act – Held: When title is under cloud, a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable; declaratory relief is necessary [Paras 24-29, 45].

Civil Procedure – Substantial Question of Law – Interference in Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings Found Perverse - Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court failed to consider crucial documentary evidence including Ryotwari patta and settlement proceedings – Findings are perverse, contrary to law, and liable to be interfered with under Section 100 CPC [Paras 26-29].

Estates Abolition – Binding Effect of Tribunal Orders – Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred – The grant of Ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer and confirmation by the Estate Abolition Tribunal is binding on Civil Courts – Plaintiffs’ vendor’s claim having been rejected earlier, cannot be reopened in a civil suit [Paras 22-24, 29].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Not Maintainable in Second Appeal – Documents relating to separate suits involving different parties and properties cannot be admitted as additional evidence at the second appellate stage – Application rejected [Paras 34-38].

Contempt – Alleged Violation of Status Quo Order – No Interim Injunction – Writ Petitions Filed by Both Parties – In absence of conclusive material and with the matter sub judice in writ proceedings, contempt application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC dismissed [Paras 40-44].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed – Each party directed to bear their own costs [Para 45].

Motor Accident – Criminal Liability of Vehicle Owner – Registered Owner Held Liable – Petition for Quashing Rejected – The petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.2, sought quashing of proceedings on the ground that he had sold the scooter involved in the accident – Held: Despite the claim of sale, the Registration Certificate continued in the name of the petitioner – In law, the registered owner remains liable for responsibilities attached to ownership until formal transfer – Prima facie material exists against the petitioner – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected, leaving the petitioner free to raise his defence during trial [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Exists – Petition Dismissed – Allegations indicate that the deceased was permitted to drive the scooter without holding a valid driving license, attracting criminal negligence – Held: Whether the petitioner was no longer the owner or whether he permitted the deceased to drive without a license are matters of trial – The petition for quashing is premature and devoid of merit [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of FIR No.19/2023 of Cubbon Park Traffic Police Station is rejected – Trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law – A copy of the order is directed to be sent to the trial court through email [Order].

Criminal Law  – Withdrawal of prosecution – Section 321 CrPC – Application moved in National Lok Adalat without hearing victim and without independent application of mind – Public Prosecutor acted mechanically on government order – Court consented without scrutiny – Orders illegal and irregular – Quashed – Trial restored [Paras 8–13, 28–35].

Lok Adalat – Jurisdictional limits – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Lok Adalat is conciliatory, not adjudicatory – Can only dispose cases on compromise or settlement – Application under Section 321 CrPC filed unilaterally by prosecutor not referable to Lok Adalat – Orders passed therein held without jurisdiction – Reference beyond orbit of Lok Adalat deprecated [Paras 8–12].

Section 321 CrPC – Scope – Prosecutor’s independence – Initiative lies with Public Prosecutor, Court’s role supervisory – Consent not formality, requires satisfaction that withdrawal serves public justice – Prosecutor cannot act as post office of Government – Rajender Kumar Jain v. State, (1980) 3 SCC 435; Subhash Chander, AIR 1980 SC 423; Bairam Muralidhar, (2014) 10 SCC 380 applied – Held: APP filed application mechanically under State directive, without independent mind [Paras 16–25, 28].

Court’s duty – Judicial discretion – Court must scrutinize grounds, not accept ipse dixit of prosecutor – Abdul Karim v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 8 SCC 710 followed – Here, trial court gave consent without reasons, appellate court wrongly affirmed – Orders unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 28].

Victim’s right to be heard – Although CrPC silent, jurisprudence (Sheonandan Paswan, 1987; Abdul Wahab K., 2018; Purshottam ‘Vijay’, 1983 MPLJ 694) recognized locus of victim/complainant – BNSS 2023 now expressly mandates victim’s hearing before withdrawal – Trial court’s preponement of hearing date deprived victim of opportunity to oppose – Violation of principles of natural justice [Paras 29–33].

Procedural irregularity – Order dated 30.11.2013 captioned as passed in National Lok Adalat, but not in regular trial course – Preponement of case from 05.12.2013 to 30.11.2013 solely to permit withdrawal amounted to irregular proceeding – Vitiated by illegality [Paras 7, 10–13].

Legal principle – Withdrawal of prosecution permissible only when bona fide and in furtherance of public justice – Not to shield accused from trial – Society has right to demand punishment of offender – Abdul Wahab K. (2018) 18 SCC 448 reiterated [Para 26].

Disposition – Orders of JMFC (30.11.2013) and Appellate Court (27.08.2014) permitting withdrawal set aside – Criminal Case restored on original number – Trial to proceed from stage prior to withdrawal – Parties to appear before trial court on 26.09.2025 [Paras 34–36].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302, 304 Part II, 394, 452, 120B, 397 of the IPC - Conviction Altered – Presumption under Section 114(a) Evidence Act – Recovery of Stolen Gold Ornaments – Held: Circumstantial evidence proved that accused 1 robbed the deceased’s gold ornaments and caused her death while committing robbery – However, absence of intent to kill or cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine imposed [Paras 31-38].

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Distinction – Death Caused During Robbery by Smothering – Held: No intention to cause death proved – Death resulted from knowledge that act of smothering is likely to cause death – Act does not fall under 'Fourthly' clause of Section 300 IPC – Hence culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 34-37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery and Call Data Records – Approver’s Testimony – Validity – Held: Testimony of approver PW1 corroborated by recovery of stolen gold, identification by witnesses, and mobile call records – Compliance with Section 65B of Evidence Act regarding electronic records affirmed – Call data admissible [Paras 25-29].

Evidence Act – Section 65B Certificates – Validity – Challenge to the sufficiency of electronic evidence certificate rejected – Certificates specifying server and software met statutory requirements – Court relied on precedent in Lijo Joy v. State of Kerala [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 25201] to uphold admissibility [Para 26].

Approver Testimony – Legality of Tender of Pardon – Held: Procedure under Section 306 CrPC does not require confession under Section 164 CrPC – Once pardon is tendered, approver becomes a prosecution witness – Contention against admissibility of approver’s testimony rejected [Paras 27-28].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Interference by Appellate Court – Principles Reiterated – Held: Acquittal of accused 3 by trial court based on lack of corroborative evidence upheld – Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstantial evidence – Presumption of innocence strengthened post-acquittal – No interference warranted [Paras 39-45].

Decision – Crl.A No. 827/2023 partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC altered to Section 304 Part II IPC with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹25,000 – Crl.A No. 943/2023 filed by State against acquittal of accused 3 dismissed [Final Para].

Labour Law - Employees’ Compensation – Course of Employment – Fall from Tree – Employment Relationship Established – Appellant contended that the respondent fell from a jackfruit tree while plucking fruit, not from a palm tree in the course of toddy tapping – Held: Based on the totality of evidence, including admission of the presence of a palm tree on the relevant property and the respondent’s regular toddy tapping activity, the Commissioner rightly found that the accident occurred in the course of employment – No perversity in appreciation of evidence – Substantial Question of Law No.1 answered against the appellant [Paras 12-15].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probability – Strict rules of evidence not applicable in welfare legislation – Court reiterated that once employment as toddy tapper is admitted and presence at site is linked to work, claim is maintainable – Followed Ravi Madhavan v. Shekhara Panicker, 2003 (2) KLT SN 38 and Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2023 (4) KLT 1174 (SC) [Paras 13-15].

Quantification of Compensation – Remand Direction Ignored – Held: Commissioner erred by awarding the same compensation as in the earlier set-aside order without independent adjudication – No reasoning recorded for quantum under various heads – Remand order was for fresh consideration, not limited to cause of accident alone – Award set aside for limited purpose of quantifying compensation afresh with reasons – Substantial Question of Law No.2 answered in favour of appellant [Paras 16-17].

Documentary Evidence – Wound Certificate – Non-availability Not Fatal – Despite remand for production of wound certificate, same could not be produced due to its destruction by the hospital – Held: Applicant made reasonable efforts; adverse inference cannot be drawn – Commissioner rightly proceeded on other available evidence [Paras 12].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Finding on occurrence of accident in the course of employment upheld – However, award set aside to the limited extent of quantification of compensation – Matter remanded back to the Commissioner to compute amounts under different heads with detailed reasoning [Paras 17-19].

Partition Suit – Will – Earlier Declaratory Decree – Will Validated – The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming Palaniammal died intestate – Defendants relied on an unregistered Will dated 05.08.1996 bequeathing life interest to first defendant and remainder to his sons – The Will was upheld in prior decree in O.S.No.549 of 2004 which attained finality – Another declaratory decree in O.S.No.8 of 2010, though allegedly set aside, did not impact the finality of the earlier decree – Held: Will valid – Plaintiffs cannot claim share ignoring the Will [Paras 14-24].

Res Judicata – Prior Declaratory Decree – Ex Parte Decree – Binding Effect – The ex parte decree in O.S.No.549 of 2004 declaring life interest based on the Will was not challenged – It attained finality and is binding on the plaintiffs – Subsequent claims challenging the Will are barred [Paras 16-19, 24].

Limitation – Ouster – Continuous Possession by Defendants – The trial court correctly held that plaintiffs were ousted from possession since 1994 when the first plaintiff separated – Defendants proved continuous and exclusive possession – Suit for partition is barred by limitation [Paras 11, 24].

Property Law – Life Interest and Alienation – Whether Sale Valid – Though the Will only conferred life interest to the first defendant and his wife, the sale deed dated 16.02.2012 (Ex.B1) was not challenged by the co-remainderman (second defendant) – The sale in favour of third defendant stands validated under the circumstances [Para 23].

Appeal – Second Appellate Interference – No Error Found – The trial court correctly relied on documentary evidence including Will, earlier decrees, and continuous possession – No perversity in the trial court findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Writ – Sect. 396 of the BNSS - Custodial Death – Judicial Inquiry – Already Conducted – Request Declined – The petition sought a judicial inquiry into the custodial death of the petitioner’s son, who died following a gang fight inside Tihar Jail – Held: An inquest was conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, and FIRs were registered – Trial concluded with acquittal of all accused – In view of the passage of 12 years and completion of prior inquiry, no further judicial inquiry warranted.

Victim Compensation – Definition of ‘Dependent’ – Inclusive Interpretation – Relief Granted – The petitioners, siblings and grandchildren of the deceased, sought compensation under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme – Respondents contended that ‘Dependent’ includes only wife, husband, parents, grandparents, unmarried daughters, and minor children – Held: The definition of ‘Dependent’ in Clause 2(b) DVCS is inclusive, not exhaustive – Applying principles of beneficial interpretation, the Court held siblings (whether married or unmarried) and their children are eligible dependents – Compensation cannot be denied merely on account of marital status.

Victim Compensation – Right Independent of Conviction – State Liability Affirmed – Relying on judgments including Suresh v. State of Haryana and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, the Court held that compensation is a public law remedy under Article 21 – It is independent of conviction or acquittal and aimed at rehabilitation of victims or dependents – The failure of the State to prevent custodial violence imposes a constitutional obligation to compensate.

Decision – Judicial Inquiry Declined – Compensation Directed – The Court declined the prayer for fresh judicial inquiry but directed that the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) assess and grant compensation to the petitioners as eligible dependents under the DVCS within two months – Petition partly allowed .

Custom Law - Section 112(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 – Revocation of Customs Broker License – Misdeclaration in Bills of Entry – Violation of Regulation 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), 10(m), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018 – License Revocation Upheld – Appellant misdeclared consignor details as 'Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abu Dhabi' to facilitate clearance of gold smuggled under diplomatic cargo cover – Investigations revealed knowledge on part of appellant that consignor was a private individual and not the Ministry – Gross negligence and breach of obligations under CBLR – Revocation justified [Paras 13-14].

Natural Justice – Denial of Cross Examination – Not Sustainable Ground – Appellant requested cross-examination only at the final reply stage, not earlier – Tribunal held officers involved merely in routine clearance based on declared documents and not witnesses to the offence – No right to cross-examine such officers when no statement from them forms the basis of proceedings – Held: Refusal of cross-examination valid, not violative of Regulation 17(4) [Para 9].

Delay in Enquiry Report – Regulation 17(5) of CBLR – Directory Not Mandatory – Tribunal held that delay in submission of enquiry report beyond 90 days did not prejudice appellant since license was not suspended and business operations continued – Held: Timeline in Regulation 17(5) is directory in nature under facts of this case [Paras 10-11].

Documents and Procedural Fairness – Supply of Documents – Appellant received all documents referred to in show cause notice and enquiry report – No violation of natural justice – Tribunal rightly held appellant not entitled to additional documents beyond what was relied upon by the department [Para 12].

Economic Offence – Customs Broker's Role – Breach of Trust – Customs Brokers occupy fiduciary position requiring high degree of diligence – Tribunal and High Court emphasized that relationship between Customs and Broker is one of utmost trust – Once broken due to involvement in serious offences like gold smuggling, reinstatement of license not warranted – Appeal dismissed, revocation upheld [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Customs Appeal Dismissed – Questions of law answered in favour of Revenue and against the appellant – Tribunal's order revoking license and imposing penalty confirmed [Final Para].