Murder – Conviction – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC while two co-accused acquitted on same evidence – Prosecution case based on eye-witness testimony of related witnesses – Material contradictions in statements of PW-1 regarding visibility and assault – PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that due to darkness he could not see assault by knife – Held: Ocular version unreliable and inconsistent – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 16-17, 23, 26-27].

FIR – Suspicion of Ante-timing – Alleged interpolation in date – Thumb impressions on FIR, inquest and other police papers appearing in same ink – FIR shown registered at 9:30 PM on 09.05.1987 whereas inquest conducted next morning at 5:30 AM – Possibility that FIR not in existence at stated time – Held: Serious doubt regarding authenticity and timing of FIR – Prosecution case rendered suspicious [Paras 11, 20].

Non-Examination of Material Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Named eye-witnesses Beche Lal, Ganga Ram, Jalil and Keshari not examined without explanation – Scribe of FIR not examined – Held: Withholding of material witnesses weakens prosecution case and creates doubt regarding truthfulness of version [Paras 14-15, 17].

Contradictory Eye-witness Testimony – PW-2 and PW-3 – PW-2 stated incident occurred in presence of villagers whereas PW-1 stated only family members present – PW-3 (wife of deceased) admitted she did not come out of hut on alarm yet claimed to have seen accused running away – Held: Material inconsistencies affecting credibility of prosecution witnesses [Paras 18-19].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Postmortem revealed incised wound on neck and contusions – Doctor opined death might have occurred around midnight – Medical evidence not sufficient to establish authorship of injuries in absence of reliable ocular evidence – Held: Injuries alone insufficient to sustain conviction without proof of assailant beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21-23].

Parity – Acquittal of Co-accused – Similar Evidence – Three accused tried under Section 302/34 IPC – Specific roles assigned to all – Trial court acquitted two co-accused but convicted appellant on same set of evidence – Relying on Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 164 and Ram Singh v. State of U.P. (2024) 4 SCC 208 – Held: When evidence against accused is identical, principle of parity applies – Conviction of one while acquitting others not justified [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion vs Proof – FIR lodged on suspicion due to prior scuffle – Suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt to appellant [Paras 17, 20, 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 17.05.1989 convicting appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Bail – UAPA – Long Incarceration – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 6 months – Only 4 out of 21 prosecution witnesses examined – Cross-examination of 3 witnesses pending – Trial not likely to conclude in near future – Held: Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 – Long custody by itself is a significant ground for grant of bail even in UAPA cases [Paras 3, 6, 11].

UAPA – Section 43-D(5) – Embargo on Bail – Statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional courts’ power to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights – Rigours of Section 43-D(5) melt down where trial is not likely to conclude within reasonable time and substantial incarceration already undergone – Held: Constitutional Courts can grant bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions where Article 21 is infringed [Para 6].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Pre-trial detention must be reasonable and proportionate – Continued incarceration cannot become punishment before conviction – Courts must balance gravity of allegations with constitutional mandate of personal liberty – Held: Lengthy and arduous trial process cannot be allowed to become punishment in itself [Paras 6-7].

Serious Allegations – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Allegations of being part of criminal gang with separatist ideology and conducting recce of Shiv Sena leader – No recovery of firearms, ammunition or incriminating material from appellant – Not involved in any other criminal case – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention pending trial [Paras 5, 8].

Constitutional Supremacy – Penal Statutes – Even in stringent penal statutes like UAPA, courts must lean in favour of constitutionalism and rule of law – Liberty is intrinsic to Article 21 – Held: Restrictive provisions cannot override constitutional guarantees [Para 9].

Purpose of Bail – Bail is to secure presence of accused at trial and not to punish – Continued incarceration without timely trial unjustified – Held: Appellant entitled to regular bail subject to stringent conditions [Paras 10-11].

Conditions of Bail – Appellant directed to furnish bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties – Surrender passport – Appear before Trial Court and Investigating Officer – Not influence witnesses – Not indulge in criminal activity – Periodic appearance before SHO – Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 22.11.2023 dismissing bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to conditions – Observations confined to bail and not to affect merits of trial [Paras 11-13].

Employees’ Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Jurisdictional Fact – Insurer challenged award contending absence of employer-employee relationship – Commissioner relied on oral evidence of applicant, admission of employer in written statement and union identity card – No contra evidence adduced by opposite parties – Held, finding based on evidence on record and not perverse – Findings of fact under Section 30 cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unsupported by evidence – Substantial question of law answered against insurer [Paras 9, 11].

Scope of Appeal – Section 30 of Employees’ Compensation Act – Interference with Findings of Fact – High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence merely to substitute a different view – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse or without evidence – Rejection of insurer’s applications to summon documents not illegal – No jurisdictional error established [Paras 7, 9].

Compensation – Functional Disability – Permanent Total Disablement – Commissioner assessed 50% loss of earning capacity based on certificate issued by Medical College Doctor – Claimant contended that disablement rendered him incapable of performing work as lorry worker – Held, as per law laid down in Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 217, relevant consideration is functional disability and not mere physical disability – If injury incapacitates workman from performing work he was doing at time of accident, it may amount to permanent total disablement irrespective of percentage of physical disability [Paras 10, 11].

Medical Evidence – Need for Assessment by Medical Board – Disability certificate issued by single doctor – In interest of justice, claimant to be examined by competent Medical Board of Government Hospital – Commissioner directed to reassess functional disability and determine compensation afresh based on medical board report [Para 11].

Decision: M.F.A.(ECC) No.22 of 2024 dismissed – Finding regarding employer-employee relationship upheld – M.F.A.(ECC) No.80 of 2024 disposed of by remitting matter to Employees’ Compensation Commissioner for assessment of functional disability through competent Medical Board and fresh determination of compensation – Parties directed to appear before Commissioner – Records to be transmitted expeditiously.

Contempt of Court – Non-Compliance of Supreme Court Directions – Arnesh Kumar Guidelines – Repeated filing of contempt petitions alleging violation of directions dated 02.07.2014 concerning arrest under offences punishable up to seven years – Court observes persistent non-compliance by States of Punjab and Haryana – Prima facie failure to ensure systemic adherence to Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. safeguards [Paras 1–3].

Arnesh Kumar Directions – Duty of State Authorities – Supreme Court had directed forwarding of judgment to Chief Secretaries and DGPs for ensuring compliance – Responsibility to implement institutional safeguards rests with highest administrative and police authorities – Filing of routine compliance affidavits indicating charge-sheeting of erring officers insufficient to purge contempt [Paras 3–6].

Administrative Accountability – Systemic Failure – Court holds that repeated violations demonstrate absence of effective steps by States to implement binding directions – Contempt, if any, not confined to individual police officers but extends to Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police entrusted with enforcement responsibility [Paras 5–6].

Impleadment of State – Larger Public Interest – Considering frequent contempts against both States, Court impleads State of Punjab in addition to State of Haryana to address broader issue of compliance with Supreme Court mandate [Para 3].

Show Cause Notice – Senior Officers – Notice issued to Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of Punjab and Haryana to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against them for failure to ensure compliance with Arnesh Kumar guidelines [Final Directions].

Decision: States of Punjab and Haryana directed to file comprehensive affidavits detailing measures taken to implement Supreme Court directions in Arnesh Kumar (02.07.2014) – Notice issued to Chief Secretaries and Director Generals of Police of both States to show cause regarding initiation of contempt proceedings – Matter listed for 19.03.2026.

Revenue Law – Mutation Entry – Fraudulent succession entry – Challenge to Entry No.760 mutated in revenue record in 1984 in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner – Petitioner's father, owner of the land, had died abroad leaving legal heirs including petitioner – Taking advantage of absence of heirs in India, private respondents allegedly obtained mutation by suppressing material facts, showing incorrect place of death and using forged power of attorney – Held: Mutation entry obtained by fraud is void and liable to be quashed – Collector rightly cancelled the entry – Order of SSRD remanding matter set aside [Paras 14–16, 22].

Fraud – Effect on judicial or administrative orders – Court relied on Supreme Court decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. – Held: Any judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage – Fraud vitiates all solemn acts [Paras 15–16].

Revenue Proceedings – Delay in challenging mutation entry – Entry challenged after nearly 29 years – Authorities rejected challenge solely on ground of delay – Held: Delay cannot defeat justice where entry was obtained by fraud and petitioner had no knowledge due to residence abroad – Cause of action arises from date of knowledge – Revenue authorities ought to examine merits instead of rejecting claim on technical ground of delay [Para 17].

Bombay Land Revenue Code – Section 135D – Requirement of notice before certification of mutation entry – Court held that mandatory procedure under Section 135D requiring notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entry was not followed – Failure to issue notice vitiates certification of mutation entry – Mutation entry certified without following statutory procedure is illegal [Paras 19–20].

Property Law – Rights of legal heirs – Self-acquired property – Land in question was self-acquired property of petitioner’s father – Only direct lineal descendants were entitled to succeed – Mutation in favour of relatives not forming part of direct lineal descent was illegal and contrary to revenue law principles [Paras 21–22].

Revenue Jurisdiction – Remand by SSRD – Improper remand – Where Collector had already examined entire material and passed a reasoned order cancelling fraudulent mutation entry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration was unnecessary and unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Orders of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 19.07.2016 set aside – Order of Collector dated 28.01.2015 restored – Mutation Entry No.760 quashed – Revenue authorities directed to mutate petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

Succession – Removal of Executor – Section 301 – Fiduciary Duty – Persistent Non-Compliance – Applicant sought removal of Respondent (brother) as Executor for failure to administer estate despite probate granted in 2016 – Prior order dated 29/01/2025 had granted final opportunity with time-bound directions – Held: Continued non-compliance, vague explanations and failure to distribute estate within stipulated timelines constitute gross misconduct and breach of fiduciary obligations – Requirements of Section 301 satisfied – Executor removed and independent Administrator appointed [Paras 18-21, 24-25].

Executor – Duties and Obligations – Section 317 – Imposition of Extraneous Conditions – Respondent insisted on execution of Memorandum of Family Settlement and indemnity as pre-condition to distribution – Earlier order had categorically rejected such stand as being in teeth of statutory duties – Held: Once probate granted, Executor bound to administer estate strictly in accordance with Will – Cannot impose additional conditions not contemplated by Will – Such conduct amounts to obstruction of due administration [Paras 13(b), 18].

Administration of Estate – Delay of Nearly Decade – Failure to Furnish Proper Inventory and Accounts – Despite specific directions to distribute movables within two months and immovables within six months, Respondent failed to comply – Chart tendered during arguments contained unverified assertions not pleaded on oath nor supported by documentary evidence – Held: Casual and unsupported explanations demonstrate lackadaisical attitude and disregard of Court’s orders – Chart rightly disregarded [Paras 14-17].

Dividend and Shares – Transfer to IEPF – Non-Compliance with ECS Directions – Respondent contended that shares/dividends transferred to IEPF and companies refused transmission – Held: No documentary proof produced – No explanation of steps taken to recover shares or enforce rights – Bare assertions insufficient to justify delay – Demonstrates failure to exercise due diligence expected of Executor [Paras 13(c)-(e), 17].

Testamentary Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 301 – Scope – Court empowered to suspend, remove or discharge Executor where continuance is detrimental to estate or prejudicial to beneficiaries – Beneficiary (widow) died awaiting legacy – Persistent delay frustrates testamentary intent – Held: Court cannot remain mute spectator to prolonged inaction – Removal warranted in interest of justice [Paras 20-24].

Precedents – Dr. Subhada Mithilesh v. Prabhakar Deolankar – Bagchi v. Hrishikesh Sanyal – Held: Executor not to be removed lightly – However, where clear material shows detriment to estate and frustration of Will, removal justified – On facts, precedents do not assist Respondent [Paras 22-23].

Relief – Appointment of Administrator – Respondent removed as Executor – Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhosale (Retd. Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court) appointed as Administrator – Directions issued for handover of records, filing of true inventory and accounts, and expeditious distribution within six months – Honorarium payable from estate – Stay refused [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Respondent removed as Executor under Section 301 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Independent Administrator appointed – Directions issued for inventory, handover of records and time-bound distribution – No order as to costs – Request for stay rejected.

RERA - Maintainability – Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules – Appeal against order of Single Judge passed under Section 58 of RERA Act – Objection raised that appeal barred by Section 100-A CPC – Held: Where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of Tribunal having trappings of court, no further intra-court appeal lies – Special appeal not maintainable [Paras 14-15, 27, 31].

RERA – Nature of Appellate Tribunal – Trappings of Court – UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vested with powers of civil court under Section 53(4) – Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings – Tribunal deemed civil court for limited purposes – Orders executable as decree under Section 57 – Held: Tribunal has all essential trappings of court akin to Company Law Board considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta – Ratio of Supreme Court squarely applicable [Paras 17-20, 25-27].

Section 100-A CPC – Bar on Further Appeal – Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta held that after amendment of Section 100-A, Letters Patent appeal barred where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of quasi-judicial authority having trappings of court – Appeal under Section 58 RERA is appeal from original order of Appellate Tribunal – Therefore, no further special appeal lies before Division Bench [Paras 14-16, 27, 31].

Distinction Sought from Kamal Kumar Dutta – Reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Promoshirt SM SA – Division Bench distinguished on ground of statutory deeming provision – Held: RERA Act contains deeming provisions similar to Section 10E(4D) of Companies Act, 1956 – Hence distinction in Promoshirt inapplicable – View of Delhi High Court not applicable to present statutory scheme [Paras 28-29].

Tribunals vs Courts – Judicial Character – Reiterating principles in Kihoto Hollohan and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association – Tribunal deciding lis under special statute with powers akin to civil court and whose proceedings are judicial in nature may be treated as having trappings of court – Functional similarity decisive factor [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against order of learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 held barred by Section 100-A CPC – Appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Domestic Violence Act – Maintainability of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court directed return of application under Section 12 on ground of territorial jurisdiction – Held, though proceedings under Section 12 are predominantly civil in nature, High Court can invoke second limb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice – Order directing return of application is not interlocutory – Petition under Section 482 maintainable [Paras 19–25].

Interlocutory Order – Test – Order substantially affecting rights of parties and directing return of application cannot be termed interlocutory – Bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted – Reliance placed on Amar Nath v. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 21–22].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 27 DV Act – Temporary Residence – Petition under DV Act maintainable where aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or where cause of action arises – “Temporary residence” means a dwelling place where aggrieved person takes shelter with intention to reside for time being and not a casual or fleeing visit merely to file case – Documents such as Aadhaar Card, residence certificate, leave and licence agreement and receipt of court notices at said address support claim of temporary residence – No material to show it was a mere fleeting address [Paras 27–30].

Cause of Action – Economic Abuse – Continuing Wrong – Allegation that husband neglected to maintain wife and child despite sufficient income amounts to “economic abuse” under Section 3 of DV Act – Economic abuse constitutes continuing cause of action – Continuity of shared household not sine qua non for claiming relief – Even if residence documents were subsequent, continuing economic deprivation within jurisdiction confers competence on court [Paras 31–36].

DV Act – Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation – When two views possible, interpretation advancing object of protecting victim of domestic violence to be preferred – Hyper-technical approach to jurisdiction not warranted where prima facie materials show temporary residence and continuing domestic violence [Paras 10, 36].

Appellate Interference – Improper Reappreciation – Trial Magistrate had passed reasoned order upholding jurisdiction – Appellate Court substituted its view without cogent grounds – Findings held perverse and liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 37].

Decision: CRR 3472 of 2022 allowed – Impugned order dated 22.08.2022 passed by Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2022 set aside – Order dated 14.07.2022 of learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in MISCN Case No.23 of 2020 affirmed – Trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Scope of Sections 4 and 5 – Power of Tribunal – Eviction of Children – Senior citizen sought maintenance and eviction of sons from residential property – Tribunal directed sons to vacate premises and pay monthly maintenance – Held: Sections 4 and 5 empower Tribunal only to grant maintenance – No provision under Chapter II authorises eviction except in circumstances under Section 23 – Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction in directing eviction – Eviction direction set aside [Paras 22-24].

Maintenance – Statutory Ceiling – Section 9(2) – Maximum maintenance prescribed not to exceed Rs. 10,000 per month – Tribunal directed payment of Rs. 15,000 by one son – Though statutory ceiling noted, aggrieved party confined challenge to eviction direction – Court refrained from interfering with quantum at instance of son – Clarified statutory position regarding ceiling under Section 9(2) [Paras 19-20].

Eviction under Senior Citizens Act – Applicability of Section 23 – Conditions precedent – Court held Section 23 can be invoked only where property is transferred subject to condition of providing amenities and transferee fails to comply – No pleading or material to attract Section 23 – Hence eviction not sustainable under said provision [Paras 26-28].

Enforcement of Maintenance Order – Alternative Statutory Remedy – Section 11 – Mother sought implementation of Tribunal’s order by writ petition – Held: Act provides specific mechanism for enforcement of maintenance orders – Petitioner had not invoked Section 11 – Writ petition for implementation not maintainable in absence of exhaustion of statutory remedy – WPA No. 10504 of 2025 dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal [Paras 25-28, 40].

Constitutional Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition by Children/Relatives – No statutory appeal provided to children under Section 16 – In view of Division Bench decision in Smt. Mamata Sarki – Writ petition maintainable at instance of aggrieved children against order of Tribunal [Paras 29-31].

Article 226 vs Article 227 – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal – Tribunal is quasi-judicial body and not civil court – Judicial review under Article 226 available against orders of Tribunal – Distinction between certiorari jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction explained with reference to T.C. Basappa, Umaji Keshao Meshram and Radhey Shyam – Held: Orders of Tribunal amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction – Aggrieved party may invoke Article 226 depending on nature of relief sought [Paras 33-39].

Judicial Review – Scope – Certiorari not appellate in nature – High Court can quash orders passed without jurisdiction or in excess thereof – Tribunal having no jurisdiction to order eviction under Sections 4 and 5, impugned direction liable to be set aside [Paras 35-39].

Decision:

WPA No. 10504 of 2025 (filed by mother) dismissed with liberty to approach Tribunal for enforcement under Section 11 of the Act – WPA No. 16316 of 2025 disposed of – Direction of Tribunal ordering eviction of son from property set aside – Maintenance direction left undisturbed.