Criminal Law – Rape – Appeal against conviction – Delay in FIR and Unexplained Silence – Conviction Set Aside – The prosecutrix reported repeated sexual assault months after the alleged incidents, only after pregnancy was discovered – No complaint made earlier despite residing with family – Held: Unexplained delay in filing complaint and absence of disclosure affects prosecution's credibility [Paras 27–29, 36–37].

Consent and Relationship – Affection and Voluntary Visits Undermine Coercion – Prosecutrix admitted to continued visits and developing feelings for appellant – First mention of threats came during deposition, absent in FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement – Held: Improvements in testimony and lack of contemporaneous fear suggest possibility of consensual relationship [Paras 13–15, 31–34].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Paternity Established but Not Rape – DNA proved appellant was father of child but did not establish non-consensual intercourse – No signs of force or injury found – Held: Proof of intercourse without proving lack of consent insufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC [Paras 35, 38].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – No Allegation in Initial Statements – Threats alleged for first time at trial – Held: Uncorroborated improved statements lacking contemporaneous evidence not sufficient for conviction – Section 506 charge unsustainable [Paras 40–43].

Decision: Appeal – Standard of Proof – Conviction Not Sustainable – Cumulative inconsistencies, unexplained delay, and absence of corroborative medical or forensic evidence raised serious doubts – Held: Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court erred in convicting the appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges [Paras 44–48].
 

Criminal Trial – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Conviction Modified - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC without being confronted with incriminating evidence relatable to Section 302 charge – Statement under Section 313 CrPC confined only to dowry death allegations under Section 304-B IPC – Held: Serious prejudice caused to accused by failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC resulting in violation of right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, conviction maintained under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 44-52].

Dowry Death – Hostile Witnesses – Use of Partial Testimony – Conviction Supported - Evidence of P.W.-1 (father) though partly hostile, accepted to the extent it corroborated prosecution case regarding demand of dowry – FIR narration supported by hostile witness’ statement during examination-in-chief – Held: Conviction under Section 304-B IPC sustainable despite witnesses turning hostile, as their admissible portions corroborated the prosecution case [Paras 27-33].

Presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Failure of Defence – Conviction Confirmed - Appellant failed to rebut presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act regarding unnatural death inside matrimonial home – Defence offered no explanation or evidence – Prosecution established homicidal death by throttling – Held: Prosecution successfully discharged initial burden leading to appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 23-25].

Fair Trial – Section 313 CrPC – Fundamental Right - The Court reaffirmed that under Section 313 CrPC, accused must be confronted specifically with adverse evidence regarding each charge to enable fair defence – Non-compliance amounts to violation of natural justice and Article 21 – Held: Appellate court modified conviction appropriately to ensure fair trial principles are upheld [Paras 34-52].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC Confirmed - Sentence Modified - Appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC quashed – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC affirmed with sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine maintained – Appellant to be released after serving modified sentence if not wanted in other cases [Paras 52-55].

RERA Jurisdiction – Complaint maintainability against unregistered projects – Jurisdiction of RERA upheld - Petitioners contended that in the absence of registration under Section 3 of the RERA Act, the authority could not entertain complaints – Held that Section 31 vests jurisdiction in RERA to entertain complaints even against promoters of unregistered projects – Further held that registration is not a condition precedent for RERA's jurisdiction, especially when the statutory duties under Section 31, read with the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk), are wide enough to cover such promoters – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-28].

Alternative Remedy – Availability of Statutory Appeal under Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Writ Petition Not Maintainable - Court held that the proper remedy available to the petitioners was to file a statutory appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(5) – Writ jurisdiction refused, as statutory appeal is the efficacious remedy [Paras 24-28].

Promoter Definition – Government Bodies and Statutory Authorities are also Promoters under RERA – Provisions Explained - The Court clarified that State Government agencies like Improvement Trusts, Development Authorities (HSVP, GMADA, PUDA) are deemed promoters under Section 2(zk)(iii) of the Act – Therefore, complaints against such authorities are maintainable before RERA [Paras 6-10].

Retroactivity of RERA – Applicability to ongoing projects - Supreme Court in “Newtech Promoters” approved retroactive application - Held that projects without completion certificate prior to RERA enforcement are subject to the Act – Ongoing projects covered under RERA even if commenced before the Act [Paras 12].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court rejected the petition challenging RERA’s jurisdiction – Petitioners given liberty to prefer statutory appeal under Section 43(5) with possible benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings [Paras 28-29].
 

Service Law – Public Recruitment – Technical Defect in Caste Certificate – Candidature Wrongly Rejected – Petitioner’s Scheduled Caste certificate was found valid but rejected for lacking registration number and date – The certificate had been issued before the cut-off date and the petitioner qualified through all stages – Held: A technical defect in a valid caste certificate beyond the candidate’s control cannot justify rejection – Such irregularities are procedural and not substantive [Paras 6-9].

Substantial Justice vs. Procedural Rigidity – Rule of Law with Equity – Court stressed that when procedural lapses and substantial rights conflict, justice must prevail – Reiterated that the role of courts is to ensure fairness, not let technicalities frustrate rightful claims – Held: Possession of eligibility is material, not mere technical form of proof [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Power under Article 226 – The High Court held that in writ jurisdiction, the Court has the duty to intervene where rejection is arbitrary or unjustified – Reiterated that procedural norms must not override the objectives of equity and justice [Para 7].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Rejection of petitioner’s candidature by HPSC quashed – Direction issued to consider her result and appointment on merits subject to final selection process – Delay in document rectification due to technical reasons held insufficient to deny legitimate consideration [Final Relief Paragraph].

Minor Minerals – Power of State under Section 15 MMDR Act – Auction-Based Grant of Lease Permissible – Challenge Rejected – Petitioners argued the auction model exceeded powers under Section 15 and retrospectively invalidated pending applications – Court held: State has full authority under Section 15 to regulate minor minerals, including auction methodology – Auction model is within legislative competence and not ultra vires [Paras 13–15].

Pending Applications – No Vested Right – Rejection Not Retrospective – Applications Without Letter of Intent Rightly Ineligible – Petitioners lacked any statutory or accrued right to grant of lease – Applications are subject to prevailing law at time of disposal – Held: Rule 9 validly saves only those cases where Letter of Intent had been issued – No retrospectivity [Paras 17–25].

Granite and Marble Rules – No Override of State Rules – GCD and MDC Rules Deal with Mining Conduct, Not Lease Grant – Petitioners argued conflict with central rules – Court held: No overlap exists; State Rules continue to govern lease grant process for granite/marble [Paras 26–27].

Equality – Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Not Excluded – Rule 2(h) of 2022 Auction Rules Defines Them as Eligible – Alleged discrimination under Article 14 rejected – No irrational exclusion found [Para 28].

Security Deposit – Three-Year Dead Rent – Policy Matter – Not Arbitrary – Court refused to interfere with the increase in security deposit, holding it falls within State’s discretion unless proven excessive or unconstitutional – No such proof offered [Paras 29–30].

Alleged Misuse of Rules – Not Ground for Invalidating Legislation – Petitioners failed to produce any specific instances of abuse – Mere potential misuse is not sufficient to strike down a statutory rule [Para 31].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.14 upheld as constitutionally valid – Auction-based lease system held permissible under Section 15 of the MMDR Act – Pending applications without Letter of Intent rightly rendered ineligible – Court finds no arbitrariness or unconstitutionality – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed [Para 32].

Land Acquisition – Non-Award of Solatium and Interest – Compensation Deficient – Petition Allowed - Petitioners sought extension of statutory benefits under the 1894 Act (solatium, additional compensation, and interest) for land acquired in 2010–2012 under the National Highways Act – The Court held that failure to grant such benefits violates Article 14 of the Constitution – Relied on SC judgments in Tarsem Singh and Golden Iron & Steel Forgings – Directed authorities to extend benefits to petitioners on parity with others similarly situated [Paras 2–17, 25–28].

Statutory Arbitration – Lack of Consensual Clause – Remedy Held Ineffective – Section 3G(5) Invalidated – Petition Allowed - The Court held that arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act lacks legal sanctity due to absence of a consensual arbitration clause – Described statutory arbitration as unilaterally imposed and incompatible with established arbitration principles – Such structure cannot override landowners’ rights to fair adjudication under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 18, 29–30].

Section 3J NH Act – Declared Unconstitutional – Solatium and Interest Restored – Petition Allowed - Following Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh, the Court declared Section 3J (which excluded 1894 Act benefits) unconstitutional – Affirmed retrospective and prospective applicability of solatium and interest for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015 – Held: Arbitrary exclusion violated Article 14 – Ordered computation and disbursal of dues by NHAI [Paras 26–27].

Constitutional Rights – Article 300A – Compensation Must Be Just and Fair – Petition Allowed - The Court emphasized that deprivation of land must be compensated by just, fair, and equitable amounts – Differentiated methods in the 1894 Act, 2013 Act, and NH Act created irrational classifications among similarly situated landowners – Directed harmonization in compensation calculation [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Benefits to Be Paid Within Timeframe - The Court allowed both writ petitions – Directed NHAI to compute and pay solatium and interest as per the 1894 Act – Constitutionality of Sections 3G and 3J struck down to the extent they deny statutory benefits – NHAI directed to comply with directions from Tarsem Singh judgment [Paras 28–30].

Prevention of Corruption – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – The trial court acquitted the respondent, a public servant, of bribery charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution contended that the accused was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and that there was sufficient evidence to convict him – Held: Since the prosecution raised substantial grounds, the Court granted leave to appeal and listed the case for final arguments [Paras 4-7].

Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged Failure by Trial Court – The State argued that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, trap proceedings, and the validity of sanction – The Court found prima facie merit in the State’s contention that the acquittal required reconsideration – Held: The issue of evidentiary appreciation warranted full appellate scrutiny [Paras 4-5].

Sanction for Prosecution – Compliance with Legal Requirements – The prosecution submitted that proper sanction had been obtained before initiating proceedings – The Court noted that this aspect required a detailed examination in the appeal – Held: The question of whether the sanction was valid and properly considered by the trial court would be reviewed in the appeal [Para 5].

Decision: Leave to appeal granted. The matter was converted into a criminal appeal and listed for arguments on 24/03/2025.

Bail in Murder Case – Change in Charges Justifies Bail Consideration – The petitioner was initially charged under Section 302 IPC but was later charged under Sections 304(1), 308, and 34 IPC – The Court noted that the trial court had already dropped the murder charge, indicating the absence of premeditation – Held: Since the allegations now pertain to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, bail considerations must be assessed accordingly [Paras 5-6].

Delay in Arrest – Weak Evidentiary Link – The petitioner was not named in the FIR or in the statements recorded immediately after the incident – His arrest was based on an eyewitness statement recorded more than two months after the event – Held: Unexplained delay in naming the accused raises concerns regarding reliability, warranting bail [Paras 11, 19].

CCTV Footage – No Direct Evidence of Assault – The prosecution argued that CCTV footage placed the petitioner at the crime scene, but the defense contended that he was merely a passerby – The Court found that while the petitioner was present, there was no clear evidence of him assaulting the deceased – Held: Mere presence at the scene does not establish guilt beyond doubt, making bail appropriate [Paras 8, 21].

Parity with Co-Accused – Consistency in Bail Decisions – The co-accused, Aqdas, was granted bail on 04/03/2025 based on the trial court’s finding that there was no premeditation – The Court held that the petitioner’s role was not significantly different from that of Aqdas – Held: Bail should not be denied solely based on the severity of the offence when a similarly placed co-accused has been granted relief [Paras 12, 23].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards Against Interference with Trial – Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and regular police reporting – Held: Stringent conditions mitigate the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding [Para 24].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including reporting to the police station weekly, restriction on travel, and prohibition from contacting prosecution witnesses.

Regular Bail – Murder - Delay in Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Granted – Petitioner in custody for over 6 years with only 2 out of 17 witnesses examined since framing of charges in 2021 – Trial likely to take a long time – Held: Continued detention without substantial trial progress violates Article 21 rights – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 6-7].

Specific Allegations – Absence of Direct Role – No Specific Injury Attributed – Presence Alleged with Rifle – Bail Not Denied Solely on Suspicion – Court noted that no specific role or injury was attributed to the petitioner, and prolonged custody without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Bail not denied on ground of being armed alone [Paras 3-4].

Relevance of Precedent – Bail is Rule, Jail Exception – Reference to Supreme Court decision in Dataram v. State of U.P., 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131 – Held: Grant of bail is a rule, incarceration is an exception – Trial courts should exercise discretion with humane and constitutional considerations [Para 6].

Decision: Regular bail granted – Petitioner to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Court clarified that observations are not to influence trial on merits [Para 7].