Protection of Children from Sexual Offences – Conviction under POCSO – Credibility of Child Witness – DNA and Medical Evidence – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Appeal Dismissed.

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Minor Victim – Appellant, maternal uncle of the survivor aged 5 years, convicted under Sections 376(2)/506 IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5 of POCSO Act – Trial Court sentenced him to 11 years RI with fine under POCSO and 3 years RI under IPC Section 506 – Conviction based on consistent testimony of the child survivor (PW-1), corroborated by her medical examination (MLC) and FSL report indicating presence of appellant’s genetic material on jute bag recovered from scene [Paras 2, 17, 21-22, 42-43].

Child Witness – Competency and Tutoring Allegation – Survivor’s testimony held reliable despite minor discrepancies due to age (5 years) and time gap – Court found survivor’s version consistent on key allegation of penetrative assault – Allegation of tutoring rejected in light of corroborative evidence including MLC and FSL report – [Paras 28-29, 35].

Corroborative Testimonies – Sister (PW-2), mother (PW-6), and father (PW-3) of the survivor corroborated the sequence of events including seeing the accused in compromising position, immediate complaint and recovery – Minor discrepancies in the account regarding breaking of door/window held immaterial – [Paras 18-20, 34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – MLC confirmed bruise and hymenal tear on survivor – DNA from jute bag matched with appellant’s blood sample – Chain of custody of forensic samples established – FSL report deemed reliable and corroborative of survivor’s allegations – [Paras 21-22, 30-33].

Presumption under POCSO – Court upheld statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act – Held that appellant failed to rebut presumption beyond reasonable doubt – Allegation of false implication due to property dispute not supported by credible evidence – [Paras 36-37].

Sentencing – Appellant was 19 years old at the time of offence – Trial Court considered mitigating factors but held offence severe, justifying 11-year sentence under POCSO – [Para 43].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court found no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence – Directions issued to jail authorities and legal services for further assistance to appellant – [Paras 44-48].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Conviction – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act based on allegation of forcible intercourse with minor cousin – Trial court sentenced appellant to 10 years RI – High Court finds survivor’s testimony inconsistent and school record of age unsupported by valid documents – Held: Prosecution failed to prove minority of survivor beyond reasonable doubt as per Section 94 JJ Act – Relationship found consensual – Conviction set aside [Paras 1, 2, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31].

Age Determination – Inadequacy of School Records – Survivor’s school admission register showed DOB as 03.08.1999 but no birth certificate or parental affidavit produced – School principal (PW-2) admitted date of birth was as conveyed by parents without verification – Survivor herself asserted she was born on Holi in March 1998 – Ossification test not conducted – Court holds prosecution failed to follow mandatory procedure under Section 94(2) JJ Act – Age not proved [Paras 24.1 to 24.5, 25, 26, 27, 29].

Survivor's Testimony – Contradictory Statements – Survivor initially alleged force but later under Section 164 CrPC and during trial, asserted consensual relationship initiated by her – Denied coercion or inducement – High Court accepts this version noting absence of pressure or contradiction on this point by prosecution – Testimony supports defence version [Paras 19, 20, 28, 30].

DNA and Paternity – FSL Report – Appellant accepted paternity of child through FSL report admitted under Section 294 CrPC – Issue before court was not paternity but minority of survivor – Consent immaterial only if minority proven – Since age not proved, consent becomes relevant [Para 21].

Charge Framing – Wrong Substantive Charge – Trial court framed charge under Section 5(m) POCSO Act applicable to child below 12 – Survivor admittedly not below 12 – Court holds wrong charge affects legality of conviction – Adds weight to appellant’s acquittal [Para 10].

Parental Credibility – Unreliable on Age – Survivor’s parents (PW-4 and PW-5) inconsistent on DOB – Gave contradictory statements – Admitted no birth certificate produced at admission – Court finds no credible evidence from parents on age [Paras 7, 24.3, 24.4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released unless required in any other case – Copy of judgment to be sent to Jail Superintendent and uploaded on court website [Paras 31, 32, 33, 34].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Share Apportionment – Preliminary Decree Modified in Part – Trial Court passed preliminary decree dividing properties A, B, and C into specific shares among the plaintiff and legal heirs of two deceased members of the family – Appellants (wife and minor son of predeceased son) contended misallocation in A schedule shares – Held: Trial Court wrongly allotted 4/15 share each to plaintiff and defendants 1–3 instead of 3/15 to defendants 1–3 – Decree corrected accordingly; other divisions upheld [Paras 2–5, 7, 10].

Death of Plaintiff Pending Appeal – Succession Dispute – Final Decree Deferred – Appellants argued that plaintiff Thankamani died intestate, affecting share devolvement – Respondents claimed existence of will – Held: Since application for supplementary preliminary decree is pending in trial court, appellate court refrains from adjudicating succession issue – Directed trial court not to pass final decree until disposal of supplementary application [Paras 8, 9, 11].

Procedural Safeguards – Appellate Directions to Prevent Prejudice – Court acknowledged appellant's concern over possible prejudice if final decree passed without addressing succession application – Issued binding direction to trial court to sequence proceedings appropriately – Ensures fair adjudication without procedural disadvantage to parties [Paras 9, 11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified regarding A schedule property shares – Final decree proceedings stayed until disposal of supplementary preliminary decree application concerning plaintiff’s share – No order as to costs – All IAs closed [Paras 10, 11].

Bail – NDPS Act – Possession of Intermediate Quantity – Long Incarceration Without Trial – Bail Granted – The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, alleging recovery of 16.01 grams of heroin – He has remained in custody since 31.07.2023 – Co-accused released on bail – Trial not commenced; no witness examined despite lapse of over 1 year and 9 months – Held: Though petitioner has prior conviction, the prolonged incarceration without progress in trial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to speedy trial paramount – Criminal antecedents not sufficient to deny bail in absence of timely trial – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1, 18-29].

Service Law – Promotion – Articles 226 and 227 – Challenge to Tribunal's direction for reconsideration of promotion – Petition Allowed – The respondent, an IRS officer, was denied promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for vacancy year 2008–09 due to “Good” grading in ACR for 2006–07 – On challenge, Tribunal directed communication of the ACR and reconsideration – Review DPC upheld “Unfit” status – Tribunal then directed consideration of ACR for 2001–02 instead of 2006–07 – Held: Such substitution of criteria was beyond the jurisdiction of Tribunal – Communication and representation processes were duly followed – Respondent had right to be considered, not a vested right to promotion – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 2-6, 9-15].

Civil Law - Debts Recovery – Cross-Examination – Denial of Opportunity – Tribunal Order Set Aside – The petitioner, a partner of the 1st defendant firm, contested liability for crop loans claimed by the bank and sought to cross-examine the bank’s witness – DRT rejected the application citing delay and the non-necessity of oral evidence from a bank official relying on records – Held: Given the contested liability and criminal proceedings against a former bank manager for fraud, denial of cross-examination violated principles of natural justice – Tribunal’s order quashed [Paras 1–13].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Procedural Fairness Required – The Court held that though DRT proceedings are summary in nature, when core facts are disputed and liability is denied, cross-examination becomes essential to ensure fair adjudication – Discretion under Rule 12(9) of DRT Rules must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily – The Tribunal failed to consider relevant facts and misapplied delay as a ground to deny a substantive right [Paras 10–13].

Delay – Not Sole Ground to Deny Cross-Examination – Absence of Prejudice – The Court observed that the O.A. was pending since 2006, and no specific delay was attributable to the petitioner – The finding of delay as a tactic to protract proceedings was not supported by record – Court emphasized that delay alone cannot override the need for fair hearing when substantial prejudice is shown [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Permit Cross-Examination – The High Court set aside the DRT’s order and directed it to allow cross-examination of the bank’s witness – Tribunal was further directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously, with final orders to be passed on or before 31.12.2025 [Para 13].

Civil Law - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - Delay Condonation – Exorbitant Delay – Lack of Bona Fides – Delay Not Condoned – The petitioner sought to condone a delay of 4864 days in filing a revision petition against the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs in a suit for specific performance – The only ground cited was ignorance of earlier proceedings due to residing at her matrimonial home – Held: No sufficient cause was made out – Delay attributed to a casual and negligent approach without due diligence or urgency to pursue legal remedy [Paras 2–6].

Specific Performance Suit – Legal Heirs and Procedural Diligence – Dismissal for Delay – Earlier revision filed by co-legal heirs was dismissed in 2020 for non-compliance of court directions – The petitioner, despite knowledge, did not act promptly even post-dismissal – Held: The conduct revealed a callous and indifferent attitude – Relief in equity-based suits like specific performance demands timely, diligent participation – Petition dismissed [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court held that the explanation offered for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory and indicative of negligence – Delay of over 13 years (4864 days) was not condonable in the absence of genuine reasons – The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected and the unnumbered revision suit stood dismissed without costs [Para 6].

Service Law – Regularisation – Omission from Earlier List – Entitlement Established – The Travancore Devaswom Board sought permission to regularise the services of three additional respondents who had completed five years of service as on 31.03.2012 – Their omission from the list regularised pursuant to judgment dated 31.05.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 6021/2011 was inadvertent – Held: The omission was administrative in nature and did not affect their entitlement to regularisation – Petition allowed [Paras 1–9, 22–23].

Irregular vs Illegal Appointments – Application of Uma Devi Doctrine – Irregular Appointments Covered – The Court considered the doctrine in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and clarified that the appointments of the applicants were not illegal but irregular – Citing Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo (2024 SCC OnLine 3826), Vinod Kumar (2024) 1 SCR 1230, and Shripal (2025 SCC OnLine SC 221), the Court held that long-serving employees on sanctioned posts are entitled to regularisation – Backdoor entries distinguished from legitimate irregular appointments [Paras 10–16, 22–23].

Constitutional Principles – Parity and Fairness – Equal Treatment Mandated – Other similarly situated employees were already regularised pursuant to the 2012 judgment – Held: Denial of regularisation to the petitioners while others were regularised constitutes violation of the principle of parity and equal treatment – The constitution of the Devaswom Recruitment Board post-2012 cannot retrospectively affect their claims [Paras 10–12, 21–23].

Decision – Application Allowed – Regularisation Directed – The Court allowed the Travancore Devaswom Board to regularise the services of additional respondents 3 to 5 – Their appointments, being on sanctioned posts with more than five years’ continuous service as of 31.03.2012, were held to be irregular but not illegal – Omission from the earlier list was inadvertent – Regularisation ordered in parity with 28 others previously regularised under the same criteria [Paras 22–23].

Criminal Law - Dishonor of Cheque – Acquittal by Trial Court – Opportunity to Examine Bank Manager Denied – Matter Remanded – The complainant filed a case under Section 138 of the NI Act which was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the dishonor memos (Exts.P2 and P3) did not contain the cheque number – Held: As per Section 146 of the NI Act, bank’s dishonor memo is prima facie evidence, but it must contain the cheque number and related details – Trial Court erred in denying the complainant’s request to examine the Bank Manager to prove this crucial fact – Acquittal set aside – Matter remanded for fresh disposal after granting the complainant opportunity to examine the Bank Manager [Paras 6, 9-13].

Section 146 NI Act – Presumption of Dishonor – Applicability Explained – The Court clarified that while Section 146 creates a presumption based on the bank’s slip or memo, the memo must contain specific details like the cheque number, date, and amount to be effective evidence – In absence of these details, oral evidence through the Bank Manager is necessary to prove dishonor – Failure to permit such evidence amounts to violation of fair trial principles [Paras 9-11].

Natural Justice – Denial of Right to Adduce Evidence – Judgment Unsustainable – The dismissal of the complainant’s petition to summon the Bank Manager deprived him of a fair opportunity to prove his case – Held: Such denial vitiates the trial – Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and remand the case for proper adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Judgment of Acquittal Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The judgment dated 06.02.2014 in S.T. No.10 of 2012 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Karunagappally is set aside – The complainant is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 01.07.2025 at 11:00 a.m. – Trial Court to dispose of the case afresh after permitting examination of the Bank Manager – Appeal allowed [Paras 13].