Criminal Law – Section 326 IPC – Stabbing with Knife – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted for causing grievous hurt by stabbing neighbour in drunken state – Defence argued that witnesses were related and contradictory, no independent witnesses or recovery of weapon – Held: Evidence of injured witness (PW2) and his son (PW1), corroborated by medical officer (PW3), consistent and trustworthy – Relationship of witnesses does not render testimony unreliable – Conviction sustained [Paras 14–18].

Evidence – Related Witnesses – Credibility – Testimony of injured witness carries greater weight – Father and son’s version consistent on material points and corroborated by medical records – Minor contradictions and delay in lodging FIR immaterial in light of established facts – Non-examination of wife of victim not fatal – Non-recovery of weapon also not fatal when ocular and medical evidence are credible [Paras 17–20].

Contradictions – Insignificant Variations – Minor discrepancies about place of occurrence and sequence of events do not negate core prosecution case – Witnesses not expected to recall details with photographic memory after years – Law recognises minor variations as natural [Paras 19–20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of three years’ simple imprisonment with fine under Section 326 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within 30 days, failing which trial court to issue warrant [Paras 21–22].

Company Law – Transfer of Assets During Pendency of Winding-Up Proceedings – Section 536(2) & 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 – Transfer Held Void – The applicant entered into a registered sale deed on 03.01.2018 for a property belonging to the 1st respondent company after the presentation of a winding-up petition on 20.11.2015 but before the order for winding-up dated 06.12.2019 – Held: Disposition of property made after commencement of winding-up proceedings without leave of court is void unless validated by court – In the absence of publication of notice or due diligence by the applicant, the court rejected the plea that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser – The sale was declared in violation of Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Application dismissed [Paras 27, 28, 33, 36].

Winding-Up – Discretion to Validate Post-Petition Transactions – Judicial Principles – Court may validate transactions post-petition if they are bona fide and in the interest of company and creditors – However, burden lies on transferee to prove good faith – In this case, absence of public notice and suppressed knowledge of winding-up petition led court to conclude lack of bona fides – Judicial discretion not exercised in favour of the applicant – Transaction not validated [Paras 22, 23, 33, 36].

Real Estate Transaction – Bonafide Purchaser – Duty of Due Diligence – Applicant failed to issue public notice or exercise caution despite knowing of mortgage and SARFAESI involvement – Court held such conduct unconvincing and indicative of collusion – Applicant’s claim of resale to third party at a lower price was also disbelieved – Not a bonafide purchaser [Paras 12, 28, 33, 35].

Final Decision – Application Dismissed – The sale deed dated 03.01.2018 between the applicant and the respondent company was held invalid under Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Applicant not entitled to relief as transaction was void and lacked bona fides – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 37].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Election Petition – Maintainability – Requirement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and arbitral awards by the returned candidate and sought invalidation of the election – The Court held that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and failed to show how the alleged omissions materially affected the election result – As per law, pleadings must establish cause of action and fully disclose factual foundation for challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – In absence of such foundation, the petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Non-disclosure of Loan and Property – Allegation of Suppression – Not Sustainable – The allegation regarding Rs.90 lakh housing loan taken jointly with daughter was held to be devoid of merit – Respondent No.1 was merely a co-applicant; property was solely owned and loan serviced by his daughter – No obligation arose for the Respondent to disclose such loan in Form No.26 – Accordingly, this ground of challenge was rejected [Paras 8.1, 10].

Arbitral Award – Pending Litigation – Non-Disclosure – Not Material – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – Dismissal Upheld - The award of Rs.2.72 crore against the Respondent had been stayed by the Court and was under challenge – Court held that liability under a stayed award is not a "government due" requiring disclosure – Suppression not established – Petition failed to show how this affected electoral outcome [Paras 8.2, 9.3, 10, 16].

Form No.26 Disclosure – Loans, Guarantees, Financial Liabilities – CRIF/CIBIL Reports Not Originally Filed – Deficiency in Pleading – Petition Dismissed – Documents relied upon by petitioner, such as CRIF and CIBIL reports, were not annexed with petition but produced later – Court found this impermissible and held that pleadings cannot be improved through replies – Material facts must be stated in the petition itself [Paras 8.4, 9.5, 12, 15-17].

Cause of Action – Materially Affected Result – Mandatory Requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition failed to plead and demonstrate how the result was materially affected by alleged omissions – Mere allegation of non-disclosure is insufficient – Petition does not disclose cause of action – Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition dismissed in limine for want of cause of action and failure to plead material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act – No triable issue made out under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act [Para 31].

Matrimonial Law – Title over Joint Property – Claim of Exclusive Ownership – Allowed – Husband sought declaration of exclusive ownership over 85 cents purchased jointly with wife – Evidence including Ext.B1 Sale Deed, bank withdrawals, and father’s loan established that consideration flowed from husband – Wife’s claim of contribution by sale of trees and loan unsupported by evidence – Family Court erred in overlooking documentary proof – Held: Sale consideration proceeded from husband – Husband declared exclusive owner – Family Court judgment set aside [Paras 9-11].

Matrimonial Appeals – Claim for Damages – Defamation and Mental Agony – Rs.5,00,000 Award Upheld – Wife alleged persistent false accusations of illicit relationships by husband with colleagues, doctor, students, and others – Evidence showed husband made baseless allegations causing wife to quit employment and suffer mental trauma – Husband failed to substantiate charges – Family Court awarded Rs.5,00,000 damages for mental agony – Held: Findings justified and decree warrants no interference – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12].

Decision – Mat.Appeal No.674/2018 allowed – Judgment of Family Court set aside and O.P. No.5/2014 allowed – Husband declared absolute owner of property – Mat.Appeal No.675/2018 dismissed – Award of Rs.5,00,000 damages to wife affirmed – Parties to bear own costs [Paras 11-12].

Income Tax Law - Income from House Property – Determination of Annual Value – Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act – Annual Value Held Justified - The Assessing Officer determined the annual letting value of office premises at ₹22,00,000/- by considering comparable rent of similar premises and notional interest on a large interest-free security deposit – Held: The AO is not bound to accept the municipal rateable value if it does not reflect market rent – Tribunal and CIT(A) rightly upheld the AO’s assessment – Notional interest, though not decisive alone, was relevant contextually – No interference called for [Paras 14–20, 24–26, 35–38].

Notional Interest on Security Deposit – Cannot Solely Determine Annual Value – Legal Principle Affirmed – The Court reiterated that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be considered independently to determine fair rent under Section 23(1)(a) – However, such deposits may provide context for assessing tax avoidance attempts through deflated license fees – Findings in Tip Top Typography and Moni Kumar Subba upheld [Paras 17–20, 36].

Municipal Rateable Value – Not Binding – AO’s Independent Enquiry Permissible – The Court held that municipal valuation is not determinative where there is a wide disparity with actual or reasonable market rent – AO is entitled to conduct enquiry and assess ALV based on market comparables – Rateable value of ₹10,200/- held “ridiculously low” and rightly ignored [Paras 21–26, 30].

Standard Rent – Inapplicability Where Rent Control Not Invoked – The argument that standard rent ought to cap the annual value under Section 23 was rejected as premises were not governed by Rent Control Act – No tenancy created in favour of the licensee – Hence, standard rent provisions held inapplicable [Paras 31–34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Annual value assessed by AO upheld – Tribunal and CIT(A) found to have correctly applied Section 23(1)(a) by considering fair rent and ignoring irrelevant documents and inadmissible claims – Question of law answered against the assessee [Para 39].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Sexual Offences – Testimony of Victim Not Reliable – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 452/354/323/34 IPC for allegedly assaulting and molesting a woman – Trial Court acquitted them under Section 376(D) IPC – High Court found the victim’s testimony riddled with material improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions with police and medical evidence – Held: Victim's version failed to meet the standard of a "sterling witness" – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Material Improvements and Contradictions – Testimony Discredited – Allegation of sexual assault (finger insertion) was introduced only in the third supplementary statement after delay of several days – Testimony inconsistent with initial FIR and police statements – Tenant witness found to be untrustworthy and not corroborated by record – Court found witness to be planted and testimony unreliable – Resulted in total discrediting of prosecution's version [Paras 14–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Delay in Disclosure – No Corroboration – Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt – Though delay in naming assailants can be explained in sexual assault cases, such explanation must be reasonable and consistent – In present case, delay of 10 hours in naming known neighbours without plausible reason – Absence of medical injuries or forensic support further weakens case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 12–14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Standard of 'Sterling Witness' – Not Met in Present Case – Court reiterated that uncorroborated testimony can lead to conviction only if it is cogent, consistent and natural – Victim’s evidence failed on this test – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Held: Inconsistencies in victim’s statements, and contradictions with police and tenant evidence made her testimony unreliable – Acquittal justified [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted – All four appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2016 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Judgment to be uploaded and communicated to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 19–21].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Validity of Family Settlement – Registration Not Required – Partition Upheld – The Appellants contended that the Family Settlement was superseded by a Builders’ Agreement and required registration – Court held that the Memorandum of Family Settlement merely delineated enjoyment rights and did not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property – Hence, registration was not necessary – The Family Settlement had already been acted upon, and estoppel applied – Partition decree upheld [Paras 11, 16-19, 23, 25].

Contract Novation – Builders’ Agreement vs Family Settlement – No Substitution Found – Builders’ Agreement did not result in novation of the Family Settlement – As the agreement was with third-party developers and not inter se between family members, it did not override or modify the Family Settlement – No intention or agreement to substitute the earlier arrangement was found under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act [Paras 19-22].

Admissibility Objection – Stamp Act Barred – Section 36 of Indian Stamp Act – Late Objection Overruled – The Appellants’ objection to admissibility of the Family Settlement on the ground of improper stamping and registration was rejected as not raised at the correct stage – Once the document was admitted in evidence, Section 36 barred retrospective objection [Paras 26].

Mesne Profits – Unauthorized Possession – Use and Occupation Charges Awarded – The Appellants had occupied the fourth floor, depriving Respondents of their share – Court upheld direction to pay mesne profits of ₹48,000 per month with 6% p.a. interest from the date of suit till physical possession is delivered [Paras 10, 27].

Criminal Complaint – False Claim Regarding Family Settlement – Section 379 BNSS Invoked – The Appellants falsely alleged the Family Settlement to be forged and practiced fraud – Court upheld Single Judge’s direction to Registrar General to initiate complaint under Section 379 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 340 Cr.P.C.) due to dishonest conduct of Appellants [Para 28].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Validity of Family Settlement Affirmed – Builders’ Agreement did not affect partition rights – Decree of possession, mesne profits, and criminal complaint direction sustained [Paras 29].

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction Restored – The trial court had convicted the accused for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹30 lakhs, finding that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Sessions Judge reversed the conviction on the ground of absence of documentary proof of loan and by considering unrelated case records – Held: Sessions Judge committed perversity by relying on extraneous material and inventing a defence not raised by the accused – Since execution of cheque was admitted and there was no rebuttal evidence or cross-examination disputing the debt, the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted – Conviction restored against respondent no.2 only [Paras 1-25].

Cross-examination – Effect of Omission – Section 138, Evidence Act – Defence Not Put to Witness – The accused failed to put any suggestion during cross-examination that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt – Held: In absence of cross-examination, testimony remains unimpeached and must be accepted – Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving such evidence without challenge or contradiction [Paras 17-20].

Personal Knowledge by Judge – Illegality – Judgment Based on Facts from Another Case – Reversal Set Aside – Sessions Judge erred in taking judicial notice of findings from another complaint case between the parties without placing it on record or giving opportunity to the complainant to rebut – Such reliance amounts to grave violation of fair trial principles and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Para 21].

Money Lending without Licence – Presumption Not Rebutted – Accused’s Defence Absent – Though complainant admitted money lending without licence, no question was put to link that the cheque was issued in such context – Held: Without specific plea or cross-examination, court cannot assume cheque was issued in course of illegal money lending – Presumption under Section 139 not rebutted [Para 23].

Final Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Restored Against Respondent No.2 – As the other two accused had died and Respondent No.3 was not party to the original trial or appeal, conviction restored only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 24-26].