Civil Law – Reopening of Evidence – Additional Documents – Belated Applications – Certified Copies of Sale Deeds – Discretion of Trial Court – Petitioners sought reopening of evidence and permission to mark additional documents more than three years after closure of their evidence – Applications filed under Section 151 CPC, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Trial Court dismissed applications for failure to explain delay and absence of foundational pleadings – Held: No infirmity or arbitrariness in refusal to reopen evidence at such belated stage [Paras 2–4, 6].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Production of Documents – Requirement of Due Diligence and Foundational Pleadings – Documents sought to be produced were not pleaded or relied upon in plaint – Petitioners had prior knowledge of documents even at time of chief affidavit – No explanation offered for non-production earlier – Held: Documents cannot be permitted to be introduced at a later stage without justification or pleadings [Paras 6–7].

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Limited Scope – Not Intended to Fill Lacunae – Power to recall witnesses or reopen evidence is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly – Cannot be invoked to patch up omissions or prolong litigation – Held: Applications were rightly rejected as an attempt to delay proceedings [Paras 3, 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Interlocutory Orders – High Court cannot substitute its view for that of Trial Court unless order is perverse or arbitrary – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or unreasonableness – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 227 [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Common order dated 07.10.2025 upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Hurt – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted for causing hurt by fists and blows – Allegations against accused found to be vague, omnibus and non-specific – No specific overt act or role attributed to the petitioner – Ingredients of Section 323 IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–21].

Common Intention – Proof – Section 34 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish common intention among accused persons – Mere general allegation that “all accused assaulted” without evidence of prior meeting of minds or specific participation insufficient – Absence of proof of common intention disentitles conviction with aid of Section 34 IPC [Para 19].

Evidence Appreciation – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Material contradictions found in testimonies of injured witness (P.W.1) and his son (P.W.5) regarding manner of incident and place of occurrence – Inconsistencies regarding address of shop and scene of offence strike at root of prosecution case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 16–18].

Injured Witness – Credibility – Though testimony of injured witness ordinarily carries weight, same cannot be accepted when riddled with contradictions and improvements – Failure to specify role of present petitioner weakens prosecution case [Paras 12–14, 18].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Injury report did not name accused – Doctor admitted injuries could be caused by fall on ground – Medical evidence failed to conclusively corroborate prosecution version of assault [Para 18].

Independent Witnesses – Non-Support – Independent witnesses did not support prosecution case – Prosecution failed to declare them hostile – Weakens reliability of prosecution version [Para 14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Where findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court suffer from misappreciation of evidence and result in miscarriage of justice, High Court justified in exercising revisional powers to set aside conviction [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Judgments of Trial Court dated 17.05.2016 and Appellate Court dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Present petitioner Prasanta Pakray @ Prasanta Pakraz @ Shibu acquitted of offence under Section 323 IPC – Released from bail bonds – Proceedings against co-accused already abated due to death [Paras 22–24].

Deemed Conveyance – MOFA Section 11 – Article 227 – Scope of writ/supervisory jurisdiction – Challenge to deemed conveyance order/certificate, unilateral deemed conveyance deed, corrigendum/supplementary agreement and mutation on grounds of fraud, want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice – Held: Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited and summary to enforce statutory obligation of conveyance in terms of Section 4 agreements – Disputes as to title, extent, inclusion of structures and development rights are for civil court – Petition dismissed with liberty to file civil suit – All questions kept open [Paras 12-20, 28-31].

MOFA Section 11 Proceedings – Nature of jurisdiction – Competent Authority not a civil court – Cannot adjudicate complicated title disputes – Order of deemed conveyance transfers only such right, title and interest as promoter/landholder actually possesses – Does not enlarge title – Civil court not bound by Competent Authority’s observations – Remedy for landowner/legal heirs alleging excess conveyance is substantive civil suit for declaration/partition/cancellation/rectification [Paras 13, 15-19, 28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed questions of fact – Extent of land conveyed and inclusion of structures – Allegation that agreements refer to different CTS number/area and that chawl/temple/ancestral structures and undivided co-ownership rights were included – Held: Issues are mixed questions of fact and law requiring examination of title documents, revenue records, sanctioned plans and evidence – Not amenable to adjudication under Article 227 [Paras 14, 17-19].

Natural Justice – Service of notice – Test of “real prejudice” – Supreme Court principles in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh – Mere breach not sufficient – Court must see whether actual prejudice caused and whether outcome would differ – Held: Estate of deceased owner represented before Competent Authority – one legal representative participated – several heirs gave no objection – proceedings are summary/document-based – petitioner failed to show what additional material would change statutory analysis – no real prejudice demonstrated – no interference [Paras 20-27].

Relief – Relegation to civil remedy – Where challenge to deemed conveyance essentially concerns title/quantum/structures and alleged overreach – Proper remedy is civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition (if advised), cancellation/rectification of conveyance and consequential relief – Writ petition dismissed – no costs – all questions kept open [Paras 28-31].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to civil suit remedy – All questions kept open – No order as to costs [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused Nos.1 to 3 convicted under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Deceased murdered to avoid repayment of loan of Rs.2 lakh – Prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of stolen articles, extra-judicial confession and conduct of accused – Trial Court conviction affirmed [Paras 12, 39–42, 75–76].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Principles reiterated – Prosecution must prove that circumstances are fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision distinguishing “may be proved” and “must be proved” – Held: Chain of circumstances complete and unbroken, pointing unerringly to guilt of accused [Paras 39–42].

Homicidal Death – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Dead body exhumed from forest area – Multiple stab and crush injuries found on neck, head and skull – Medical evidence corroborating eyewitness and inquest testimony – Held: Death of deceased proved to be homicidal [Paras 43–47].

Motive – Financial Dispute – Evidence showing accused borrowed Rs.2 lakh from deceased and failed to repay – Deceased repeatedly demanded repayment – Accused hatched plan to eliminate deceased to avoid repayment – Motive established through testimony of wife and relatives of deceased [Paras 48–49].

Last Seen Theory – Accused and Deceased Seen Together – Evidence of dhaba staff, relatives and villagers showing deceased last seen in company of accused travelling towards place of incident – Proximity of time and place established – Accused failed to explain separation from deceased – Adverse inference drawn – Last seen circumstance proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 50–57].

Recovery of Stolen Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Gold chain, rings, Titan watch, mobile phone and clothes of deceased recovered at instance of accused from their houses – Recoveries proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer – Discovery of facts within special knowledge of accused – Recovery held valid and reliable [Paras 58–65].

Identification of Property – Wife of deceased identified recovered gold ornaments, watch and mobile phone as belonging to deceased – Ownership and connection of recovered articles with crime established [Para 66].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Accused made voluntary confession before village elder/Sarpanch – Confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence – Principles governing extra-judicial confession applied – Confession found reliable and admissible [Paras 67–71].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Conduct of Accused – Facts relating to murder and possession of deceased’s belongings within exclusive knowledge of accused – Failure of accused to offer any explanation – Such failure providing additional link in chain of circumstances [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 06/02/2018 and 08/02/2018 confirmed – Accused held guilty of offences under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 75–76, Order].

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Excess Stock of Paddy – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged storage of excess 33.50 quintals of paddy by the appellant in violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – On appeal, High Court found serious doubts regarding the actual seizure and weighment of alleged excess stock – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 11–14].

Seizure of Contraband – Credibility of Seizure Witnesses – Both independent seizure witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) categorically stated that they signed blank papers at the instance of the Investigating Officer and did not witness actual seizure or weighment of paddy – Witnesses not examined by Investigating Officer during investigation – Such evidence rendered seizure doubtful and unreliable [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Evidence – Weighment of Seized Paddy – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine any person who actually weighed the paddy – Weighment chart did not disclose who conducted the weighment – No evidence as to source of weighing machine – In a case alleging excess stock, absence of proof of proper weighment held to be fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8, 10–12].

Investigation – Procedural Lapses – Non-recording of General Diary Entry – Investigating Officer failed to record GD entry regarding departure for raid and return – Could not disclose jeep number or driver’s name – When raid itself was under challenge, such lapses created serious doubt about prosecution version – Held: Though not always fatal, in present facts such lapses assumed significance [Paras 8, 12].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Time and Manner of Seizure – Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding time of preparation of seizure list and presence of witnesses – Evidence showed seizure list was possibly not prepared at the spot – Prosecution failed to reconcile material inconsistencies – Doubt as to genuineness of seizure sustained [Paras 6, 8, 12].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Trial Court itself observed scope of doubt regarding seizure of 75 quintals of paddy but still convicted appellant on ground of improper maintenance of stock register – Held: Once reasonable doubt exists, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on surmises or conjectures [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.1993 passed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri in Special Case No. 33 of 1992 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – Appreciation recorded for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Paras 14–15].

Criminal Law – Electronic Evidence – Admissibility of voice recordings – Application under Section 65B, Evidence Act and Section 92, CrPC for taking a pen drive on record – Petitioner sought to introduce a voice recording of the deceased alleging lack of medical treatment to prove the accused forged medical records to cover negligence – Held: The trial court correctly dismissed the application. For electronic voice recordings to be admissible, there must be prima facie evidence or a mechanism to identify the voice of the speaker. In the absence of accepted and definite evidence identifying the voice of the deceased, the prosecution cannot prove the conversation, rendering the electronic record redundant for the trial. [Paras 6-7]

Evidence Act – Relevancy of Evidence – Distinction between charges of forgery and allegations of medical negligence – Accused charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC for forging medical documents – Petitioner attempted to bring on record a telephonic conversation regarding lack of medical treatment – Held: The questioned conversation is not relevant for the adjudication of the case. The charges framed against the respondents pertain specifically to the forgery of medical documents, not to medical negligence. Evidence regarding the quality of treatment or lack thereof does not directly serve to prove or disprove the specific act of forgery of documents. [Para 7]

Criminal Trial – Procedural Laches and Credibility – Impact of delay in producing evidence – Incident occurred in 2021; application to produce the pen drive filed in 2024 – Held: A delay of three years and three months in producing the electronic evidence creates serious doubt regarding the authenticity of the article. Furthermore, the fact that none of the family members disclosed the existence of such a telephonic conversation in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC during the investigation further weakens the petitioner's case. Such an afterthought, lacking contemporaneous corroboration, does not warrant the exercise of discretionary powers to admit evidence at a belated stage. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. The petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Land Ceiling – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Transitory Provisions under U.P. Amending Acts of 1973 and 1976 – Fresh proceedings under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments held valid – Earlier discharge of notice in 1964 not operating as res judicata – Clubbing of wife’s land upheld – Failure to exercise statutory choice under Section 12-A – Writ petition dismissed.

Ceiling on Land Holdings – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Jurisdiction of Authorities – Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 issued in 1962 was discharged in 1964 – Subsequent notice issued on 15.05.1976 pursuant to statutory amendments introduced by U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Held: Amendments brought a complete change in the scheme of the Act and mandated compulsory re-determination of surplus land declared prior to 10.10.1975 – Fresh proceedings initiated after amendment were within jurisdiction and not barred by earlier determination [Paras 4–5, 35–36, 69–71].

Transitory Provisions – Section 19 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 – Limited Scope – Section 19(2) applies only to proceedings under Section 14 and Chapters III and IV of the Principal Act which were pending at the commencement of the Amending Act – Does not apply to proceedings relating to determination of surplus land which had already concluded – Held: Petitioner not entitled to continuation of proceedings under unamended Act of 1960 [Paras 30–34, 68].

U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Section 31(3) – Mandatory Re-determination – Legislature intended re-determination of all surplus land orders passed prior to 10.10.1975 within two years – Expression “may” in Section 31(3) held mandatory in nature – Notice dated 15.05.1976 issued in furtherance of statutory mandate – Proceedings valid and lawful [Paras 35, 50–51, 69].

Res Judicata – Section 38-B – Bar Excluded – Section 38-B expressly excludes application of res judicata in ceiling proceedings – Earlier findings or decisions rendered prior to commencement of Section 38-B cannot bar retrial or re-determination under amended law – Discharge of notice in 1964 did not preclude fresh determination [Paras 36, 61, 69–71].

Section 13-A – Rectification vs Fresh Proceedings – Power under Section 13-A confined to correction of mistakes apparent on the face of record within prescribed limitation – Cannot be invoked to invalidate fresh proceedings initiated under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments – Reliance on Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti held misconceived [Paras 52–55].

Family – Clubbing of Wife’s Land – Sections 3(7) and 3(17) – Wife included in “family” of tenure-holder unless judicially separated as on relevant date – Woman whose husband is tenure-holder cannot be treated as independent tenure-holder – Land held by wife liable to be clubbed with land of husband for ceiling computation – Clubbing upheld [Paras 72–77].

Finality of Intermediate Orders – Waiver of Objections – Finding regarding clubbing of wife’s land attained finality in Appeal No. 16/1978 – Appellate orders dated 20.03.1979 and 16.09.1983 not challenged – Scope of remand confined only to irrigation status of specified plots and exercise of choice – Petitioner precluded from reopening settled issues [Paras 78–79].

Choice under Section 12-A – Vague and Conditional Exercise – Despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to furnish a clear and unconditional choice of land to be retained – Choice linked to pending exchange proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act held irrelevant – Rejection of choice upheld [Paras 9, 14–15, 81–83].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Amendment after Two Decades – Writ petition filed in 1993 – Substantial amendment allowed in 2023 introducing new grounds not raised before ceiling authorities – Held: Belated attempt to reopen settled issues impermissible and aimed at prolonging litigation [Paras 16, 40, 83–84].

Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 – Findings of fact by ceiling authorities based on statutory interpretation and evidence – No manifest error or perversity shown – High Court declined to re-appreciate factual determinations [Paras 80–85].

Decision Writ Petition dismissed – Orders dated 27.06.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and 11.06.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 85–86].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Standard of Proof – Conviction recorded by Trial Court under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC based entirely on circumstantial evidence – No direct eye-witness to kidnapping or murder – High Court reiterated settled principle that each incriminating circumstance must be fully proved and circumstances cumulatively must form a complete chain unerringly pointing to guilt of accused – Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof – Prosecution failed to elevate case from “may be true” to “must be true” – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 23–25, 29].

Last Seen Theory – Evidentiary Value – Requirement of Proximity of Time and Place – Deceased last seen with accused on 07.02.1992 at about 6:00 p.m. at Delhi Railway Station – Dead body recovered near railway track at Ballabhgarh on 09.02.1992 at around noon – Medical evidence indicated death could have occurred any time on 09.02.1992 – Significant time gap between last-seen circumstance and death – Held: Last seen theory applicable only when time gap is so small that possibility of third-party intervention is excluded – Long gap rendered last-seen evidence unreliable – Conviction cannot rest solely on such weak evidence [Paras 26–29].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Possibility of Accidental Death – Post-mortem doctor opined that injuries could have been caused by fall from a moving train – Possibility of railway accident not ruled out – Medical evidence did not conclusively support homicidal death attributable to accused – Held: Where medical evidence creates reasonable doubt, benefit must go to accused [Paras 15, 25(vii)].

Motive – Proof of Motive – Inconsistencies in Prosecution Case – Alleged motive of Rs.7,500/- paid by deceased to accused for securing employment – Contradictory statements regarding amount (Rs.7,000/- vs Rs.7,500/-) – No documentary proof of payment – Accused themselves labourers – Held: Motive not proved convincingly and incapable of strengthening prosecution case in absence of other reliable circumstances [Paras 8(iii), 25(vi)].

Delay in Lodging Missing Report / FIR – Effect on Prosecution Case – Deceased allegedly taken on 07.02.1992 – Missing report lodged only on 12.02.1992 – No satisfactory explanation for delay despite family allegedly knowing who took deceased – Delay weakened prosecution version and cast serious doubt on veracity of allegations [Paras 8(i), 25(ii)].

Handwriting Evidence – Parcha Allegedly Written by Accused – Proof Deficient – Slip allegedly written by accused relied upon by prosecution – No expert opinion or reliable proof establishing handwriting of accused – Witness testimony shaky and recorded after long delay – Held: Alleged parcha could not be treated as incriminating circumstance [Paras 8(ii), 25(i)].

Benefit of Doubt – Accused Entitled Where Two Views Possible – Evidence on record permitted hypothesis consistent with innocence of accused – Possibility of accidental death or third-party involvement not ruled out – Held: In cases of circumstantial evidence, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be adopted – Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 23, 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants Anoop Singh and Ram Kumar acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Partial Modification of Quantum – Family Court granted maintenance to wife and minor son at different slabs for different periods – On appeal, High Court upheld entitlement of wife and child to maintenance but modified quantum payable from the date of order – Held: Wife entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month and minor son to Rs.4,000/- per month from 27.06.2024 instead of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively [Paras 11–18].

Maintenance – Entitlement of Minor Child – No Dispute as to Relationship – Minor Son Living Separately from Father – Held: Minor child’s right to maintenance is absolute and unquestionable – No objection can be entertained against grant of maintenance to minor son [Para 11].

Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Justification – Allegations on Fidelity – Neglect by Husband – Court held that baseless allegations on character of wife and failure to take steps for restitution of conjugal rights justify wife living separately – Entitlement to maintenance upheld [Paras 13–14].

Income of Husband – Determination of Maintenance – Payslip Evidence – Husband employed as Fireman in Naval Dockyard – Gross salary Rs.44,249/- per month – Net salary around Rs.19,160/- – Held: Net salary not decisive as deductions may be voluntary and variable – Husband has sufficient earning capacity to pay reasonable maintenance [Paras 15–16].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Scope of Appellate Interference – High Court found maintenance awarded by Family Court generally reasonable – However, future maintenance from date of order slightly on higher side – Modified keeping in view earning capacity and overall circumstances – Rest of directions confirmed [Paras 16–18].

Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha Guidelines – Non-filing of Affidavits of Assets – Objection Raised at Appellate Stage – Held: Objection merits no consideration when appellant himself did not comply with disclosure requirements – Plea treated as an attempt to delay or dilute proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Maintenance Reduced Prospectively – Past maintenance and other directions of Family Court confirmed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 18].