POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Proof – Conviction under Section 6 of POCSO Act requires proof of penetrative sexual assault of aggravated nature – Prosecution failed to produce medical examination report of the victim though examination was allegedly conducted – No forensic or medical evidence corroborating penetration – Held: Essential ingredients of Section 6 not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–13, 21–23].

Criminal Trial – Best Evidence – Adverse Inference – Non-production of medical examination report of the victim, despite victim being taken to hospital immediately after incident – Investigating Officer offered no explanation – Held: Adverse inference drawn against prosecution under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–13, 22].

Delay and Lapses in Investigation – FIR though registered on date of incident was not promptly forwarded to Court – Statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded after substantial delay – Investigating Officer who registered FIR not examined – Held: Lapses create doubt regarding prosecution version [Paras 10, 13].

Evidence of Victim and Mother – Sexual Assault – Testimony of victim and her mother established removal of undergarments and sexual touching – Evidence insufficient to establish rape or penetrative assault but sufficient to prove sexual assault – Held: Offence under Section 8 of POCSO Act made out [Paras 14–23].

Statutory Presumption – Sections 29 & 30 POCSO Act – Accused failed to rebut presumption with respect to offence of sexual assault – Explanation given to medical officer that he removed undergarment insufficient to displace presumption under Sections 29 and 30 for Section 8 offence [Para 24].

Sentencing – POCSO Act – Modification – Incident occurred in 2015 – Trial Court imposed 20 years’ imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act – Held: Conviction under Section 6 unsustainable; conviction modified to Section 8 POCSO Act – Sentence reduced to maximum of five years considering nature of offence and period already undergone [Paras 5, 23–24].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – Evidence sufficient to establish threat extended to victim – Conviction and sentence under Section 506 IPC upheld [Para 25(ii), (vi)].

Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused already undergone incarceration exceeding maximum sentence under Section 8 POCSO Act – Entitled to set-off – Direction issued for immediate release if not required in any other case [Para 25(viii)–(ix)].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act set aside – Conviction modified to Section 8 POCSO Act with sentence of five years’ simple imprisonment and fine – Conviction under Section 506 IPC confirmed – Sentences to run concurrently – Accused directed to be released.

Service Law – Seniority – Foresters – Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme – Petitioners originally appointed as Village Forest Workers (VFWs) and later redesignated and merged into Forester cadre w.e.f. 10.02.2009 under 2009 Amendment Rules – Private opposite parties appointed as Foresters under Odisha Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and sent for Foresters’ training from 16.06.2008 – Seniority lists prepared by counting training period of RA appointees – Held: Appointment under RA Rules precedes training and is not contingent upon completion of training – Date of joining training constitutes entry into service [Paras 9.6–9.17, 10].

Rehabilitation Assistance – Nature of appointment – RA Rules are a welfare and compassionate measure intended to provide immediate succour to family of deceased Government servant – Appointment under RA Rules is an exception to normal recruitment – Such appointees hold substantive posts subject to training and probation – Held: Training is not sine qua non for appointment as Forester under RA Rules [Paras 9.1–9.9].

Seniority – Rule 13 of RA Rules – Interpretation – Rule 13 mandates that persons appointed under RA Rules shall be placed below persons recruited and appointed in the same year – Private opposite parties treated as appointed in 2008 on joining training – Petitioners merged into cadre only in 2009 – Held: Petitioners cannot claim seniority over RA appointees of earlier year [Paras 8.1–8.2, 10.17].

Training Period – Whether counts for seniority – Evidence showed RA appointees were relieved from divisions, joined training school, and were paid salary and allowances during training – Appointment already made before training – No rule excluding training period from service – Held: Training period rightly counted for seniority [Paras 7.3, 9.14–9.17].

Executive Instructions – Supersession – Effect – Government Letter dated 13.04.2017 fixing seniority from date of joining training later superseded, but subsequently reaffirmed by Letter dated 27.05.2019 in conformity with Rule 13 of RA Rules – Actions taken bona fide on basis of extant instructions and promotions already granted – Held: No ground to unsettle settled seniority [Paras 10.1–10.14].

Delay and laches – Challenge to seniority list – Seniority list dated 08.11.2016 not challenged within reasonable time – Belated challenge after publication of revised list impermissible – Settled seniority should not be reopened after lapse of time – Held: Petitioners disentitled to relief on ground of delay [Paras 10.3–10.8, 12.2].

Judicial Review – Limits – Court will not interfere with fixation of seniority unless contrary to statutory rules or vitiated by arbitrariness – Seniority fixed in consonance with RA Rules having overriding effect under Rule 15 – Held: No illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 10.16–10.18, 12].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Fixation of seniority of Foresters appointed under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme upheld – Seniority lists dated 08.11.2016 and 24.06.2017 sustained – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Acquittal – Offences under Sections 504, 323, 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (PoA) Act – Appellants convicted by Special Court for assault and grievous hurt allegedly caused to complainant belonging to Scheduled Caste – On appeal, High Court finds material inconsistencies in testimonies of PW1 to PW3 who are interested witnesses – Independent witnesses turned hostile and did not support prosecution case – Medical evidence did not corroborate ocular version – X-ray reports not produced and no radiologist or specialist examined to prove grievous injury – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 12–31].

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(2)(v) – Applicability – Requirement that offence must be committed solely on the ground that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe – Evidence on record showing pre-existing dispute relating to aquaculture between parties – Held: Mere proof that victim belongs to Scheduled Caste is insufficient – Prosecution failed to establish that offence was committed on account of caste identity – Charge under Section 3(2)(v) not made out [Paras 26–27].

Evidence – Interested Witnesses – Reliability – Evidence of complainant and her parents suffering from inconsistencies regarding role of accused and manner of assault – Independent eyewitnesses not supporting prosecution – Absence of corroboration – Held: Unsafe to base conviction solely on such evidence [Paras 20, 27].

Medical Evidence – Grievous Hurt – Proof – Doctor deposed fracture based on X-ray but X-ray plates and reports not produced – Neither radiologist nor orthopedic/ENT specialist examined – No external injuries noted by doctors – Held: Prosecution failed to prove grievous hurt within meaning of Section 320 IPC – Offences under Sections 324 and 326 IPC not attracted [Paras 29–30].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Incident alleged at 8.30 p.m. – Complaint lodged at about 12.30 a.m. – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Adds to doubt regarding prosecution version when evidence otherwise weak [Paras 8–9, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 17.10.2014 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled – Fine, if any, to be refunded [Order clauses i–vi].

Quashing of Proceedings – Scope under Section 528 B.N.S.S. – At the stage of quashing, Court is required to see whether allegations in FIR and material collected disclose prima facie commission of offence – Detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudication of disputed facts impermissible – Where allegations disclose ingredients of offences, proceedings cannot be quashed [Paras 11–12, 22].

Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means – Section 69 B.N.S. – Section 69 is a new penal provision criminalising sexual intercourse obtained by deceitful means, including false promise of marriage – Distinction between breach of promise and false promise made without intention to marry reiterated – Prima facie allegations that accused was already married and induced victim into sexual relationship on promise of marriage sufficient to attract Section 69 B.N.S. [Paras 15–17, 21–22].

False Promise of Marriage – Married Accused – Where accused was admittedly already married at the inception of relationship, promise of marriage made to victim prima facie constitutes deceitful means – Question whether victim was aware of accused’s marital status is a matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated at quashing stage [Paras 17, 22].

Consensual Relationship – Long Duration – Effect – Long-standing relationship by itself does not negate allegation of deceit or false promise of marriage – Consent allegedly obtained on misconception of fact arising from promise of marriage cannot be conclusively termed consensual at threshold stage [Paras 12, 21–22].

Contradictory Defences – Marriage Certificate and False Promise – Plea that victim claims both false promise of marriage and existence of marriage raises disputed questions of fact – Such contradictions require evidence and cross-examination and cannot be resolved in proceedings under Section 528 B.N.S.S. [Paras 18–19, 22].

Role of Accused as Teacher – Position of Trust – Allegations that accused was a teacher and victim was his student bring the case within the broader framework of abuse of position of trust – Relevant while examining culpability under B.N.S. provisions – Reinforces need for trial [Paras 17, 20].

Prior Complaint and Alleged Compromise – Earlier complaint allegedly withdrawn by victim and departmental enquiry report relied upon by accused – Such material not part of charge-sheet and disputed by victim – Cannot be basis for quashing criminal proceedings at threshold [Paras 12, 22].

Reliance on Precedents – Limited Applicability – Judgments relating to consensual relationships and breach of promise under IPC regime cannot be mechanically applied to Section 69 B.N.S., which introduces a distinct statutory offence – Each case must be examined on its own prima facie facts [Paras 16, 21–22].

Decision: Application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. dismissed – Charge-sheet, cognizance order and criminal proceedings allowed to continue – No case made out for quashing at pre-trial stage.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference under Section 378 Cr.P.C. – Principles reiterated – Presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal – Appellate court can interfere only when trial court’s view is perverse or based on misreading of evidence – If two views are possible, appellate court cannot substitute its own view [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Illegal Gratification – Demand and Acceptance – Essential Ingredients – Mere recovery of tainted money and positive phenolphthalein test not sufficient – Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 20 PC Act arises only after proof of foundational facts [Paras 15, 16].

Official Favour – Pendency of Work – Failure to Prove – Evidence showed that mutation entries were already made prior to trap – No clear proof that any official work was pending with the accused on the date of complaint or trap – Delay attributable to non-compliance by complainant – Held: Pendency of official work not established [Paras 14, 15].

Trap Proceedings – Reliability of Evidence – Voice Recorder Evidence – Non-compliance with legal requirements – Specimen voice of accused not taken nor subjected to voice spectrographic analysis – Recorded conversation not reliable in evidence – Cannot be used to prove demand [Para 16(3)].

Confessional Statement – Inadmissibility – Explanation obtained from accused after trap and arrest – Statement inculpatory in nature – Hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Cannot be relied upon by prosecution [Para 16(4)].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Evidence of complainant and related witnesses inconsistent regarding dates, demand, and pendency of work – Absence of independent corroboration – Trial court justified in disbelieving prosecution witnesses [Paras 15, 16].

Decision – State Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2014 upheld – No perversity or illegality found in trial court’s appreciation of evidence – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 9, 10].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC maintainable only on discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record or analogous grounds – Review not an appeal in disguise – Re-appreciation of facts or re-argument on merits impermissible – Settled principles reiterated [Paras 5–6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Limitation – COVID-19 Extension Orders – Plea Raised for First Time in Review – Ex-parte decree dated 11.02.2020 – Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC filed on 27.01.2022 – Benefit of Supreme Court’s suo motu extension of limitation during COVID-19 not pleaded before Trial Court or in appeal – Ground raised for first time in review – Held: Not an error apparent on face of record – Review cannot be used to introduce new grounds not urged earlier [Paras 7–7.4].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Knowledge of Proceedings – False Plea of Lack of Notice – Record showed repeated appearances of police officials even after suit transferred to District Court – Notices issued and appearances recorded post ex-parte order – Petitioners also served with caveat after decree – Plea that knowledge arose only on receipt of execution notice found false – Findings based on admitted and undisputed material – No error apparent [Paras 8–8.6].

Governmental Delay – Public Authorities – Liberal Approach – Not Automatically Applicable – Plea of institutional delay and systemic lapses not raised in appeal – No case of breakdown of communication or administrative delay pleaded earlier – Mere claim of impression that no further steps were required after filing written statement rejected – Reliance on Sheo Raj Singh (2023) SCC misplaced – No ground for review [Paras 9–9.1].

Review vs Appeal – Finality of Judgments – Review cannot be invoked to fill lacunae, improve pleadings or raise entirely new arguments – Findings in impugned appellate judgment based on pleadings and record suffer from no infirmity – No patent error demonstrated [Paras 6.1–6.3, 10].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on face of record – Judgment dated 28.11.2025 dismissing FAO No. 53/2023 upheld – No order as to costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Corruption and Economic Offences – Public Servants – Stringent Scrutiny – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act alleging forged work orders, manipulated estimates and illegal release of payments – Petitioners were public servants posted in Municipal Corporation Accounts Branch – Allegations disclose abuse of official position, criminal conspiracy and wrongful loss to public exchequer of more than ₹12 crores – Held: Anticipatory bail in corruption cases can be granted only in exceptional circumstances – No prima facie case of false implication or frivolous prosecution made out [Paras 6–7].

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Economic Offences – Petitioners contended that case rests solely on documentary evidence and custodial interrogation is unnecessary – Held: In cases involving forgery of official records, manipulation of electronic data, audit processes and multi-layered conspiracy, custodial interrogation is often indispensable to ascertain knowledge, intent, trace money trail and identify other beneficiaries – Grant of pre-arrest bail likely to hamper effective investigation [Paras 7–9].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Abuse of Official Position – Societal Impact – Corruption by public servants held to be an offence not merely against an individual but against society at large – Economic offences erode public confidence in public administration – Courts required to exercise greater caution while considering anticipatory bail in such matters [Paras 7–8].

Multiple FIRs – Same Transaction – Plea Not Decidable at Bail Stage – Petitioners argued that multiple FIRs on same set of work orders amounted to abuse of process – Prosecution asserted that each FIR pertained to distinct forged work orders unearthed at different stages of investigation – Held: Whether FIRs arise out of same transaction or constitute distinct offences is a mixed question of law and fact to be examined at trial – Plea cannot be conclusively adjudicated at anticipatory bail stage [Para 8].

Parity in Bail – Earlier Anticipatory Bail Orders – No Automatic Right – Reliance placed on grant of anticipatory bail in earlier FIRs on similar allegations – Held: Each bail application must be decided on its own facts and circumstances – Grant of bail in other FIRs does not ipso facto entitle accused to anticipatory bail in subsequent FIR involving expanding conspiracy [Para 8].

Anticipatory Bail – Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Court reiterated need to balance personal liberty with societal interest in fair and effective investigation – Over-solicitous approach towards liberty in corruption cases may defeat public justice – At this stage, material on record discloses reasonable grounds for accusations – Anticipatory bail declined [Paras 8–9].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Anticipatory bail refused – Observations confined only to bail consideration and not to influence merits of investigation or trial – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Civil Law – Appeal – Maintainability – Section 96 CPC – Appeal lies only against a decree and not against mere findings – Defendant in whose favour decree was passed could not maintain a separate appeal only to challenge adverse findings – Proper remedy was filing cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC – Appeal filed by defendant against findings of Trial Court held not maintainable – Lower Appellate Court erred in entertaining such appeal and reversing findings [Paras 12–14].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Default in Payment of Rent – Sections 12(1)(a) and 13, M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Tenant failed to deposit rent as determined by Court and remained in default for prolonged period without sufficient cause – Application for condonation of delay filed belatedly and without bona fide explanation – Held: Protection under Section 13(5) not available – Landlord entitled to decree of eviction on ground of default [Paras 23–29].

Professional Use vs. Commercial Activity – Advocate’s Office – Office of an advocate does not constitute a commercial activity when situated in a residential building – Legal profession is a professional activity based on personal skill and intelligence and not trade or commerce – Trial Court committed material illegality in treating advocate’s office as commercial use to deny eviction for residential requirement – Finding answered in negative [Paras 15–17].

Bona Fide Requirement – Residential Purpose – Section 12(1)(e), M.P. Accommodation Control Act – Plaintiff proved genuine residential requirement for study needs of his son – Merely because premises were used as an advocate’s office could not defeat landlord’s bona fide residential need – Trial Court erred in refusing decree despite proof of bona fide requirement [Paras 5, 15–17, 27].

Concurrent Findings – Interference in Second Appeal – Where lower appellate court’s judgment is founded on entertaining a non-maintainable appeal and erroneous legal assumptions, High Court justified in setting aside such judgment under Section 100 CPC – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of appellant [Paras 9–14, 26–30].

Eviction Decree – Execution – Expeditious Disposal – Decree for eviction granted under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the Act – Tenant directed to vacate within one month – Executing Court directed to conclude execution proceedings within six months, in line with Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 34–35].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Eviction decree passed in favour of plaintiff – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within one month.

Bail – Murder Case – Conspiracy – Accused Not Present at Scene of Crime – Petitioner (Accused No.11) alleged to have only intimated the movement of the deceased to principal accused – No overt act of assault attributed to him – Petitioner not present at the place of occurrence – Role limited to prior intimation – Held: Case distinguishable from main assailants and comparable to co-accused granted bail [Paras 7–9].

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Accused Nos.8 and 9, who were present at the spot but not armed and had not assaulted the deceased, already granted bail – Petitioner’s role held to be similar or lesser in gravity – Ground of parity applicable – Bail cannot be denied when similarly placed co-accused are enlarged on bail [Para 9].

Bail – Prolonged Custody – Delay in Trial – Petitioner in judicial custody since 28.07.2021 (over 4½ years) – Charge sheet cites 111 witnesses – Only some witnesses including major eye-witnesses examined – About 80 witnesses yet to be examined – Trial likely to take considerable time – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Continued incarceration held unjustified [Paras 10–12].

Bail – Suppression of Earlier Bail Petition – Effect – Though petitioner had earlier bail petitions dismissed, subsequent circumstances including long incarceration and delay in trial constitute change in circumstances – Suppression alone not sufficient to deny bail when liberty under Article 21 is implicated [Paras 4, 6, 13].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Prosecution failing to secure witnesses on scheduled dates – Adjournments granted for want of witnesses – Prolonged trial infringes right to personal liberty – Bail granted without expressing opinion on merits [Paras 10–13].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Principles laid down in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1268 applied – Long incarceration and delayed trial justify grant of bail [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Petitioner granted bail subject to conditions including execution of bond, non-tampering of witnesses, regular appearance before trial court, and non-involvement in further offences.