Land Acquisition – Religious Structure – Quashing of Notifications – The petitioner in CWP-14168-1999 sought to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that a religious structure, Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib, was constructed before the acquisition – Held: The acquisition was valid, as the land vested in the Union Territory after the award under Section 11A was announced – The petitioner's application for release of the land was filed after the acquisition was complete, and no objections were filed within the prescribed period – The claim lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Failure to Serve Personal Notice – No Vitiation of Acquisition – The petitioner argued that personal notices under Sections 4, 6, and 9 were not served – Held: There is no legal requirement for personal notice under Sections 4 and 6 – Publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers suffices – Failure to serve notice under Section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition once the land vests with the government [Para 6].

Release of Land – Hostile Discrimination Not Proven – The petitioner claimed that other parcels of land were released – Held: The petitioner’s land fell within the alignment of a major road, and no discrimination was proven – The claim was rejected [Para 7].

Public Interest – Rotary Construction – Mandamus Issued – In CWP-23369-2017, the petitioner sought a mandamus to complete the construction of a rotary near Model Jail Burail, which was delayed due to an interim order protecting the religious structure – Held: The interim order was vacated, and the respondents were directed to remove the structure and complete the rotary in public interest [Para 8].

Decision – CWP-14168-1999 was dismissed, and CWP-23369-2017 was disposed of with directions to complete the rotary construction [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Inspection of Seized Documents – Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders denying inspection and provision of deficient copies of documents seized by the C.B.I. but not relied upon or filed in the court – Trial court dismissed the application for access, stating that only documents in the final report had been provided, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. – High Court examined whether unrelied documents seized during investigation should be accessible to the accused to ensure a fair trial – Held: Petition dismissed, but petitioner granted liberty to request unrelied documents in line with precedent [Paras 1, 11-15].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Unrelied Documents – Accused’s right to fair trial argued to include access to all seized documents, even if unrelied by the prosecution – Petitioner relied on Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017 and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed that all unrelied documents, material objects, and statements be listed for the accused, allowing them to seek relevant evidence for their defense – High Court affirmed that documents in the final report had been disclosed, satisfying Section 207, and any further request could be pursued in trial court [Paras 2-3, 6-10, 12-13].

Judicial Precedents – Compliance with Disclosure Rules – Referencing the Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, High Court reiterated that unrelied documents should be disclosed to the accused if deemed essential to the defense – Rule mandates one opportunity post-charge for disclosure requests, evaluated by the court on relevance and intent – High Court found no grounds for setting aside the trial court’s orders as the petitioner was already provided with all documents in the final report [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to seek specific unrelied documents per the ruling in CBI v. Surinder Pal Singh (CRM-M-26474-2023), ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair trial remains preserved – Application disposed of with directions for trial court to assess any further disclosure requests based on relevance to the accused’s defense [Paras 13-16].
 

Arbitration – Jurisdiction of Courts under MSMED Act – Application Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The question referred to the Larger Bench was whether the jurisdiction to challenge an award passed under Section 18(4) of the MSMED Act is governed by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the original agreement between the parties or the place where the award was passed by the Facilitation Council – Held: The jurisdiction to hear a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is governed by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the original agreement, and not by the place where the Facilitation Council passed the award – Petition maintainable in Mumbai as per the agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause [Paras 1-16, 54].

Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Applicability Post Award Under MSMED Act – Clause 5 of the original agreement, conferring exclusive jurisdiction to Mumbai courts, remains applicable even after the arbitration award is passed by the Facilitation Council in Shimla – The MSMED Act does not override the exclusive jurisdiction clause for the purpose of challenging an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 27-30, 44-50].

Seat vs. Venue of Arbitration – Distinction – The court reiterated that the "seat" of arbitration, as agreed upon by the parties in the original agreement, determines the jurisdiction for post-award proceedings, including challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act – The "venue" of arbitration, being the location of the Facilitation Council (Shimla), is only for convenience and does not determine jurisdiction for setting aside the award [Paras 31-39].

Decision: The petition is maintainable before the Bombay High Court as per the original agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause, which remains unaffected by the MSMED Act – The case is referred back to the learned Single Judge for further consideration – Rule is made absolute [Paras 50-54].
 

Taxation Law - Luxury Tax Assessment – Transfer of Part of Property – Tax Evasion – The petitioner sought relief from luxury tax after transferring the first floor of his residential building to his wife, thereby reducing the area under his ownership below the taxable limit under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Held: Such a transfer, if accepted, would create a loophole for avoiding tax obligations by transferring portions of property to close relatives – The concept of tax planning is distinct from tax evasion – The Court must ensure that such transfers do not undermine tax laws by permitting tax avoidance through artificial transactions [Paras 3-5, 45].

Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Evasion – Legal Principles – Reference to the concurring judgment of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in M/s McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer highlighted – The Court emphasized that while tax planning within the framework of the law is permissible, colourable devices used for tax avoidance are not [Paras 5, 17-18].

Ownership and Occupation – Assessment for Luxury Tax – The petitioner continued to enjoy the entire building even after the transfer of the first floor to his wife – Held: The occupation and benefit derived from the entire building indicated that the petitioner effectively retained control, thus sustaining the tax liability [Para 5].

Public Policy – Tax Compliance – The Court stressed the importance of ensuring that tax laws are respected and that attempts to shift tax burdens through artificial transfers are disapproved – Reinforced the principle that tax evasion undermines the financial stability of the state and places undue tax pressure on law-abiding citizens [Paras 5, 45].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, holding that the transfer of part of the building to the petitioner's spouse was a device to evade tax rather than a legitimate form of tax planning. The petitioner remained liable for the luxury tax as assessed [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Hari @ Bhaggu – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – Prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence alleging that the appellants administered poison to the deceased and staged a suicide – Key witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 7) were found unreliable due to contradictions and enmity with the appellants – The forensic evidence indicated that the death was due to asphyxia from strangulation, not hanging, and poison was found in the viscera, but no credible evidence linked the appellants to administering poison – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 10, 18, 94].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Prove Links – Prosecution relied on the recovery of a pesticide bottle and other items from the appellant’s house – The items, including a rope and pesticide, were commonly available and found in a house of an agriculturist, and their recovery did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime – The trial court acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 201 and 203 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, showing the failure to prove any attempt to stage a suicide [Paras 40, 86].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions and Credibility – Prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6) gave conflicting statements about critical facts, including the timing and manner of the deceased’s death – Witnesses had admitted enmity with the appellants, which raised doubts about their motives – Suresh (P.W. 7) testified to hearing the deceased plead not to be given poison, but his statement was delayed by five months and contradicted by other evidence, making his testimony unreliable [Paras 20, 34, 55, 63].

Last Seen Theory – Failure to Establish – The prosecution could not prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants before his death – The only witness who claimed to have seen the deceased return to the appellant’s house did not mention this in his police statement, creating a significant contradiction [Paras 48-50].

Recovery of Pesticide Bottle – Not Incriminating – The pesticide bottle recovered from the appellant’s house was commonly available, and there was no direct evidence linking it to the administration of poison to the deceased – The presence of the bottle alone was insufficient to prove the appellants’ involvement in the murder [Paras 85].

False Implication Due to Enmity – Witnesses admitted longstanding enmity with the appellants, which likely motivated their false implication – The court noted that enmity is a double-edged sword and must be carefully considered when evaluating testimony – The evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the crime [Paras 44, 87, 97].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellant Surajbai to be released immediately from custody if not required in any other case – Appellant Bhuribai’s bail bonds discharged [Paras 94, 111, 112].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Based on Last Seen Together and Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC and causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC – The court discussed the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of last seen together – The appellant was allegedly last seen with the deceased before the murder, and certain articles were recovered from his possession – However, discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence on last seen together, coupled with forensic findings (no blood detected on the recovered articles), led the court to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The court set aside the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the appellant [Paras 10, 12, 20, 25, 27, 40-45, 58].

Recovery of Articles – Seizure of Alleged Murder Weapon and Other Items – An iron "tangi" (axe), blood-stained clothes, socks, and shoes were recovered based on the appellant's disclosure – FSL report found no blood on the recovered items – Court held that the recovery of these items did not constitute incriminating evidence against the appellant – The failure of forensic evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 30, 33, 40-42].

Acquittal – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove the chain of circumstances conclusively – In this case, the evidence of last seen together was weak, and the recovered articles did not establish a strong link between the accused and the crime – The court acquitted the appellant due to lack of reliable evidence [Paras 58-60].
 

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Rare and Exceptional Circumstances – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence and DNA Report – Sentence Modified – The appellants were convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor, with the trial court awarding the death penalty based on DNA evidence linking one appellant to the crime – The High Court considered whether the case fell under the "rarest of rare" category to justify the death sentence – The mitigating circumstances, including the socio-economic background, age of the appellant, and his acceptance of guilt during trial, weighed against the aggravating factors of the crime's brutality – The court modified the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission [Paras 20-25, 40-45, 60-70].

Proof of Age – Inconsistent Evidence – Victim's Age Above 12 Years – The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was below 12 years of age, with contradictory testimonies from family members and school records – Following the Supreme Court's guidance in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, the High Court held that the age could not be established beyond reasonable doubt, influencing the sentencing decision [Paras 15-20].

Chain of Circumstances – Failure to Prove Guilt of Co-Accused – The court acquitted appellant Banshilal Ahirwar due to lack of sufficient evidence directly implicating him in the crime – The DNA profile did not match, and the presence of the victim's blood on his clothing was reasonably explained by his role in handling the body post-mortem – Conviction set aside for appellant No. 2 [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The conviction of appellant No. 1 Ram Prasad Ahirwar under Sections 363, 366, 201, and 302 of the IPC is maintained. However, his sentence of death penalty is modified to life imprisonment without remission, and his conviction under Section 376(DB) is altered to Section 376(3), with 25 years of imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 Banshilal Ahirwar is acquitted of all charges. Criminal Reference No. 1/2021 is answered accordingly, and Criminal Appeal No. 885/2021 is allowed in part for Ram Prasad Ahirwar and fully for Banshilal Ahirwar.

Criminal Law – Gang Rape and Murder – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Conviction of Principal Accused – Modification of Sentence from Death to Life Imprisonment – Appellant No. 1, Ram Prasad Ahirwar, and Appellant No. 2, Banshilal Ahirwar, were convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl (their relative) – Trial Court awarded death penalty to both appellants – On appeal, the High Court acquitted Banshilal Ahirwar due to insufficient evidence connecting him to the crime, particularly the lack of forensic evidence supporting his involvement in the rape – The conviction of Ram Prasad Ahirwar was upheld based on DNA evidence linking him to the rape and murder – The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in light of mitigating factors, including his young age, socio-economic background, and remorse [Paras 52, 57, 65, 80].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses – Age of Victim – Inconsistent statements were noted from key witnesses regarding the age of the victim, including her parents (PW.1 and PW.2), leading the court to doubt whether the victim was below 12 years of age at the time of the offense – The Headmaster (PW.3) admitted that the victim’s birth date recorded in school documents was based on oral information from the parents, further weakening the prosecution’s case on this issue – The Court held that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim’s age [Paras 42–47].

Forensic Evidence – DNA Report as Crucial Evidence – DNA evidence played a critical role in linking Ram Prasad Ahirwar to the crime – The forensic report confirmed that the DNA profile recovered from the vaginal slides and clothing of the victim matched the blood sample of Ram Prasad, establishing his guilt in the rape and murder – The same DNA evidence, however, did not match with Banshilal Ahirwar, leading to his acquittal [Paras 48–54].

Sentencing – Commutation of Death Penalty – The Court weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the brutal nature of the crime, the socio-economic background of the accused, and the possibility of reform – While the crime was heinous, the Court decided that life imprisonment without remission or parole for 25 years was a more appropriate sentence for Ram Prasad Ahirwar, in line with the principles set forth in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab on death penalty jurisprudence [Paras 70–79].

Decision – Conviction of Appellant No. 1 under Sections 363, 366, 201, 302 of IPC upheld, with modification of sentence under Section 376(DB) to 25 years’ imprisonment without parole or remission – Conviction of Appellant No. 2 set aside, and he was ordered to be released forthwith – Criminal reference answered accordingly [Paras 80–84].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of BNSS – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an assault on the complainant due to political rivalry – The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a dislocated shoulder – The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant's choice of a distant hospital raised doubts about the case – Held: The delay in filing the FIR was justified as the complainant first sought medical treatment – The serious nature of the injuries and specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners weighed against granting anticipatory bail [Paras 1-20].

Overt Acts – The court noted that the petitioners were accused of picking up sticks and beating the victim, causing significant injuries – These specific allegations, supported by medical evidence, disproved the petitioners' claim that there were no overt acts alleged against them [Paras 21-30].

Political Motive – Both parties belonged to rival political factions, and the court recognized the political motive behind the attack – However, this motive did not diminish the severity of the offense or the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Both criminal petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.