Criminal Law – Murder - Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Appeal Against Conviction - Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident at 7:30 a.m., FIR at 10:15 a.m. – Delay Explained – Delay Not Fatal – The prosecution established that the FIR was lodged promptly after the informant parted from the deceased and travelled to the police station 10 km away – Medical and witness evidence corroborated time of death – Held: No unreasonable delay found, delay not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 28-30, 55, 65].

Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related Witnesses – Evidence Acceptable – No Contradictions – The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitnesses P.W.-2 (father), P.W.-3, and P.W.-4 despite being related to the deceased – Their testimonies were consistent, natural, and free of embellishments – Earlier affidavits denying presence were held to be manipulated – Held: Relatedness does not disqualify truthful testimony [Paras 31-34, 38-39, 47-54].

Medical Evidence – Compatibility with Ocular Testimony – No Conflict – The injuries described in the postmortem were consistent with use of a sharp and pointed weapon like tabbal – Witnesses described tabbal with pointed ends; doctor confirmed such injuries possible – Held: Medical and ocular evidence corroborate each other [Paras 20, 66-68].

Motive – Land Dispute Following Widow’s Remarriage – Motive Established – Though not essential due to direct evidence, motive was shown through land ownership conflict after informant’s nephew’s widow remarried accused – Held: Motive supported by documentary evidence and explained animus [Paras 56-57, 59-60].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The failure to recover the tabbal and pistol used in the attack was not fatal – The court accepted that accused fled with weapons and did not disclose their location – Held: Non-recovery did not undermine consistent and reliable eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 63, 66].

Affidavits Disowning Eyewitness Role – Discarded – P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 Denied Making Such Affidavits – The affidavits allegedly denying their presence were found to be manipulated – Witnesses provided plausible explanation, denied authoring them, and supported prosecution case in court – Held: Statements in court prevail over extrajudicial affidavits [Paras 54, 60].

Common Intention – Sections 302/307 r/w Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court held both accused guilty for acting in concert with shared intent – Attack was coordinated and aimed to kill – Held: Offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC proved beyond doubt [Paras 72-74].

Decision: Appeal – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Upheld – The court found no merit in the appeal – All evidentiary links complete – Held: Judgment and conviction by trial court sustained – Accused to surrender and serve sentence [Paras 73-74].

Civil Law - Usufructuary Mortgage – Redemption Rights – Mortgage Does Not Mature into Ownership by Lapse of Time – Plaintiffs’ Ownership Upheld – The plaintiffs sought declaration and possession over ancestral land, claiming merger of mortgage and ownership rights and redemption of mortgage – Held: The Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendants’ possession as mortgagees ripened into ownership – In light of Supreme Court ruling in Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram, a usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely by lapse of time; redemption rights of mortgagor do not extinguish unless limitation is triggered under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 6–7, 11].

Revenue Record – Value of Long-standing Entries – Fard-Badar Cannot Overturn Long-standing Mutation – The High Court held that jamabandi entries consistently reflected the plaintiffs as owners until they were changed by fard-badar after more than 20 years – Such unilateral alteration without valid basis cannot displace the plaintiffs' title, especially in absence of legal redemption or transfer [Paras 10–11].

Appellate Court’s Error – Misreading of Evidence – Cross-examination Misinterpreted – The Lower Appellate Court placed undue reliance on a stray admission in cross-examination without reconciling with consistent revenue records and judicial proceedings affirming plaintiffs' ownership – Such selective reliance was held unsustainable [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of Appellate Court Set Aside – Trial Court’s Decree Restored – The High Court allowed the second appeal, restored the decree of the Trial Court declaring plaintiffs as owners of their respective 1/3rd shares free from encumbrance, and set aside the contrary findings of the Appellate Court [Paras 12–13].

Civil Writ – PIL - Public Infrastructure – Disruption Due to Highway Widening – Incomplete Work – Litigation Delayed Civic Amenities - Petitioners, residents of Byadgi Town, sought directions for restoring roads, drainage, sewerage and potable water disrupted during the construction of State National Highway No.136 – Held: Road and civic work were interrupted due to quashing of land acquisition notifications by Dharwad Bench – State has recommenced acquisition proceedings – Authorities directed to act promptly after litigation ends [Paras 3–6.2].

Right to Basic Amenities – Article 21 – Public Duty Affirmed - Petitioners invoked their right to clean environment and basic civic infrastructure as part of the right to life under Article 21 – Court observed authorities are duty-bound to restore civic amenities including roads, drainage, and water supply after land acquisition proceedings conclude – Held: Expectation of swift action from officials post-litigation [Paras 3.4–6.1].

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notifications – Re-initiation of Proceedings - Original acquisition notifications dated 16.05.2020 and 26.07.2021 were set aside on technical grounds – New preliminary notification issued on 27.02.2023 – Objections heard and process underway – Held: Completion of acquisition critical to resume and complete civic works [Paras 5.3–6].

Final Decision – PIL Disposed of – Direction to Expedite Civic Restoration - The PIL was disposed of with direction to complete acquisition and resume civic works without delay – Pending interlocutory applications also stood disposed of [Paras 6.2–7].

Criminal Law - Foreigners Act – Misapplication of Section 14B – Charge Modified – Petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, accused of overstaying a valid visa and creating false Indian identity documents – Trial court erroneously framed charge under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act alleging use of forged passport to enter India – Held: Prosecution case itself confirms entry was on valid Sri Lankan passport and visa – Section 14B applies only where forged passport is used for entry – Petitioner’s act of overstaying and obtaining false identity documents attracts Sections 14(a) and 14(b), not 14B – Charge modified accordingly [Paras 1–5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – Ineligibility Due to Incorrect Charge – Application for plea bargaining under Section 290 BNSS was dismissed due to framing of charge under Section 14B, which prescribes punishment up to 8 years – Held: Once charge is properly reframed to Section 14(b), where maximum punishment is 5 years, petitioner becomes eligible for plea bargaining – Impugned dismissal order of CMP quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider plea bargaining application [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 14B Foreigners Act – Scope and Ingredients – Section 14B mandates knowledge and use of a forged passport for entry into India – Mere overstay or illegal stay without such entry condition does not fall within scope of 14B – Interpretation reaffirmed in light of precise charge language and admitted facts [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charge under Section 14B deleted – Replaced with Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act – Impugned order dated 11/03/2025 rejecting plea bargaining application quashed – Trial court to reconsider the application on basis of modified charge [Paras 8–9].

Civil Writ – PIL - Storm Water Drain – Retaining Wall Height – Flood Prevention – PIL Allowed - Petitioner Association sought completion of a 15-foot retaining wall to prevent flooding near 10th Cross, S.R. Layout – BBMP’s technical report supported the need for retaining wall of 3 to 3.5 metres (approx. 10 to 11.5 feet) – Held: Reduction of height for crossover access by private apartment (Respondent No.6) would compromise flood protection and was scientifically unsound – Direction issued to BBMP to complete retaining wall as planned [Paras 2–10, 14–17].

Access Rights – Alternative Entry – Lack of Sanctioned Road – No Right to Crossover - Respondent No.6 claimed need for crossover via 10th Cross to access their apartment – BBMP’s sanctioned plan and technical report confirmed existing access through 9th Cross – Held: No sanctioned road exists through 10th Cross; request for crossover is unnecessary and unsupported – Petitioner's apprehension of flooding justified [Paras 11–13, 15].

Scientific Basis – Engineering Assessment Prevails – Height Determination Upheld - The BBMP report established that reducing wall height to 1.10 metres for a culvert would nullify the purpose of the 3–3.5 metre retaining walls built along the entire SWD path – Held: Technical inputs from BBMP affirm need for uniform wall height to ensure flood safety – Court declined to interfere with planned specification [Paras 10, 14–15].

Final Decision – PIL Entertained – Directions Issued – BBMP Ordered to Complete Retaining Wall - Considering monsoon urgency and public safety, BBMP directed to complete remaining 15-metre stretch of retaining wall within six weeks – Petition disposed of with binding directions [Paras 16–19].

Criminal Law – Sections 323, 325, 341 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced - Petitioners were convicted for causing hurt and wrongful restraint – Sentenced to 2 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fines – Revision petitions filed after dismissal of appeals – Held: Findings of conviction not perverse – However, considering that petitioners underwent over 3 months in custody and faced trial for more than 7 years, sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 3, 7, 10–11].

Sentencing – Discretion in Non-Mandatory Sentences – Period Already Undergone Considered Sufficient - No minimum sentence prescribed for the offences under Sections 323/325/341 IPC – Court exercised discretion guided by principles laid down in Deo Narain Mandal v. State of U.P. and Ravada Sasikala v. State of A.P. – Held: When sentence is discretionary, it must be proportionate, mindful of rehabilitation and passage of time – Petitioners' conduct since conviction considered [Paras 8–9].

Multiple Petitioners – Parity in Sentencing – No Distinction Made Despite Prior Cases - Though State opposed relief citing prior involvement of two petitioners – Court found no basis to deny relief as sentence was not mandatory and time factor weighed heavily – Sentence reduced for all petitioners [Paras 6–7].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Modified - Trial Court’s conviction findings affirmed – Sentence of two years modified to period already undergone (3 months and 16 days) – Petitioners to be released if not wanted in any other case – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 11–13].

Civil Writ - Society Membership – Balija Community – Eligible Applicants Denied Consideration – Appeals Allowed - Petitioners seeking membership in a community society were denied consideration despite eligibility – District Registrar directed the society to consider requests, but the society failed to act – Held: Petition maintainable, registrar’s directive valid, and existing Governing Council is legally functional and bound to consider applications – Learned Single Judge's dismissal on ground of expired term of council set aside [Paras 1–6, 13–26].

Maintainability – Article 226 – Statutory Public Duty – Writ Lies Against Society - Though respondent No.3 is a registered society, its activities are governed by the Act and overseen by state authorities – Held: Writ petition maintainable under Article 226 as petitioners sought enforcement of a statutory public duty – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey [(1999) 1 SCC 741] [Paras 10–13].

Governance – Continuation of Governing Council – Powers Not Suspended – Membership Duty Remains - Society’s governing body, though past its term, continued under bye-laws and was not under suppression or restricted – Held: Governing Council retains authority to act and must consider membership applications – Single Judge erred in holding otherwise [Paras 14–18, 22–25].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Allowed – Directions to Admit Members and Hold Elections - Appeals allowed and writ petition restored – Society directed to consider membership applications within 4 weeks and conduct elections within 3 months thereafter [Paras 27–28].

Civil Writ - Stone Crusher Licence – Safer Zone Declaration – Validity of Licence – Cancellation Order Set Aside - Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their stone crusher licence on the grounds that the unit was allegedly within 100 meters of a Major District Road – It was held that the area had already been declared a safer zone in 2017 after proper inspection and grant of Form-C licence in 2019 – The subsequent conflicting reports on distance were deemed unreliable – Held: The cancellation order dated 31.03.2022 was quashed as being factually and legally unsustainable [Paras 3.1–5.4].

Statutory Interpretation – Deemed Licence Extension – Section 5(2) of Amended Act – Extension Granted - Petitioner sought a declaration that the Form-C licence be deemed extended for 20 years as per the amendment – The Court upheld that since the licence was valid on the date of the amendment, it attracted the benefit of the deeming provision – Held: Licence deemed extended for 20 years from 02.02.2019 [Paras 5.5–6.1].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance – Contempt Petition Not Surviving - Since the licence cancellation was stayed via interim order dated 28.04.2022 and ultimately quashed, the contempt petition for non-compliance lost relevance – Held: Contempt petition does not survive in light of the judgment in writ petitions [Paras 3.3.1, 7].

Final Decision – Both writ petitions allowed – Licence cancellation set aside and deemed extension of 20 years granted – Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 6–7].

Criminal Revision – Conviction Under Sections 465, 471, 409, 120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Petitioners convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, for offences involving criminal breach of trust and forgery – Appeals dismissed by Sessions Judge – Revision petitions filed and kept pending for over 16 years – Held: Conviction well-founded based on material on record – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts [Paras 2–4, 12].

Sentence – Reduction on Ground of Delay and Mitigating Factors – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - FIR registered in 1997; conviction in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2009; revision petitions heard in 2025 – Petitioners Nanak Singh and Darshan Singh had undergone only about two and a half months in custody – Held: Considering age, time lapse of over 28 years since FIR, and partial incarceration, sentence reduced to period already undergone on condition of paying ₹50,000 each to Gram Panchayat – Sentence of fine and default term unchanged [Paras 9, 13–14].

Death of Co-Accused – Abatement of Proceedings – Proceedings Abated - During pendency of revision petitions, petitioners Gura Singh and Dharam Singh passed away – Proceedings abated in respect of the deceased accused as per order dated 14.05.2025 [Para 8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Revision Petitions Disposed - Court found no merit to disturb conviction – However, in exercise of discretion under revisional jurisdiction, modified sentence considering long passage of time and limited custody – Revision petitions disposed of on these terms [Paras 12–14].