Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Intention vs. Nature of Injuries – Conviction Upheld – Multiple injured sustained firearm and incised wounds on vital parts; even if injuries not “sufficient in ordinary course of nature” to cause death, intention of assailants decisive – Courts relied on SC precedents clarifying that minor or non-fatal injuries do not exclude Section 307 – Conviction affirmed [Paras 32-36].

Self-Defence – Injuries to Deceased Accused Explained – Evidence showed deceased Lallan Singh fired first, causing firearm injuries; when he attempted to reload, prosecution witnesses disarmed and assaulted him, causing fatal injuries – Held: Prosecution explained injuries to accused; appellants were aggressors – Plea of self-defence rejected [Paras 37-40].

Witness Credibility – Injured Witness Testimony – PW2 (injured) found reliable despite delay in recording statement; corroborated by medical evidence – PW1 and PW3 also consistent – Minor inability to assign specific roles in group assault not fatal – Testimonies accepted [Paras 41-45].

Sentencing – Leniency by Trial Court – Ten Years’ Rigorous Imprisonment – Sentence Upheld – Though Section 307 permits life imprisonment, trial court awarded 10 years; considering gravity of crime, assault on six victims with lethal weapons, sentence held appropriate despite passage of 40 years and old age of surviving appellants – Appeal dismissed [Paras 46-51].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence of surviving appellants under Sections 307/149, 147, 148 IPC upheld; appellants on bail directed to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Paras 51-53].

Education Law – Distance Education Degrees – Cut-off Dates Declared Invalid – Earlier judgment had prescribed 29.03.2010 (Deemed/Private Institutions) and 01.11.2012 (State Universities) as cut-off dates for recognition – Held: Such cut-off dates arbitrary, violate Article 21A and right to education – No evidence of irregularities at study centres or exams conducted – Academic qualifications obtained via distance mode upheld, subject to verification of affiliations and academic quality by UGC [Paras 32–34, 45–47].

Right to Education – Article 21A – Access to Distance Learning – Constitutional Protection – Held: Territorial restrictions imposed on examination/study centres of universities offering distance education defeat accessibility – Students cannot be denied educational and promotional opportunities due to administrative policies contrary to the core principles of remote education – Online and remote education valid where universities are duly recognized by UGC and maintain academic standards [Paras 31–33, 39–42].

UGC Guidelines – No Blanket Ban on Centres Outside Territorial Jurisdiction – Notifications Quashed – Held: Guidelines issued in 2010 and 2012 by DEC/UGC imposing jurisdictional limits on study centres held irrational – UGC failed to contest the writ petitions and did not appeal—Deemed to have acquiesced – Notifications (Annexures P-51 & P-53) quashed to extent they restrict operation of remote centres without UGC approval [Paras 21–30, 45].

Judicial Review – UGC’s Non-participation – Consequences – Held: In multiple LPAs, UGC was impleaded but failed to respond or contest the case—Its silence amounts to waiver and acquiescence to the directions issued – Argument of violation of natural justice rejected [Paras 15–18, 21].

Administrative Law – Degree Verification by Government Departments – Direction Issued – Held: While blanket cut-off dates quashed, recognition of degrees still subject to verification of institutional recognition, programme-wise recognition, and compliance with UGC norms—Verification to be done by government/UGC on case-to-case basis [Paras 44–46, 48].

Employment Law – Right to Consideration for Appointment/Promotion – Distance Degrees Not a Bar – Held: Unless degree is essential qualification and found invalid on verification, candidates cannot be denied regularization or promotion merely due to acquisition of qualification through distance mode – Distinction made between core and additional qualifications [Paras 40–43, 48–49].

Decision:
LPA-2003-2019 allowed – Cut-off dates and UGC notifications quashed
LPAs filed by State of Punjab disposed of – State directed to consider claims without relying on cut-off dates, subject to verification
CWP Nos. 2438 and 27015 of 2021 disposed of – Directions issued for consideration of appointment
LPA-1105-2021 allowed – Matter remanded for fresh decision without applying cut-off dates
LPA-450-2021 dismissed – Disputed factual issue; liberty granted to petitioner to seek civil remedies
Directions for UGC and Government – To verify institutional recognition, ensure academic standards, and provide proper invigilation in exams at centres outside university HQs [Paras 44–52].
 

Criminal Law – Discharge - Medical Negligence – Delay in Filing Complaint – Barred by Limitation – Cognizance Not Justified – Complaint filed four years after patient's death alleging medical negligence – Held: Offence under Section 304-A IPC carries a limitation of three years – No satisfactory explanation offered for delay – Trial Court’s assumption of jurisdiction under Section 473 CrPC flawed – Cognizance beyond limitation not sustainable without judicial justification [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Absence of Prima Facie Case – Discharge Allowed – Charges under Sections 418, 420, 304(A), and 120(B) IPC – Held: No allegations of wrongful gain, inducement, or rash/negligent act by petitioner – No material to indicate criminal intent – Referral to another doctor after diagnostic tests does not amount to offence – Charge-sheet silent on petitioner’s role – Discharge warranted [Paras 7, 11–15].

Standard of Criminal Liability in Medical Negligence – No Recklessness or Gross Negligence Attributed – Citing Dr. Suresh Gupta and Jacob Mathew – Held: Mere adverse outcome in treatment not criminal offence – Criminal liability arises only on gross negligence or recklessness – In present case, no such finding exists – Petitioner may be liable in civil law, but not in criminal [Paras 16–17, 20].

Impact of Consumer Forum Orders – Not Binding on Criminal Court – Held: Proceedings before Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission operate on preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Finding of negligence by forum has no bearing on criminal prosecution – Independent judicial scrutiny required for criminal liability [Paras 18–19].

Discharge Under Section 239 CrPC – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Citing Sanjay Kumar Rai – Held: Trial Court erred in mechanical dismissal of discharge petition – Court is not a post office – Required to evaluate material and assess legal sufficiency of allegations – High Court found no ground to proceed to trial [Para 21].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 01/04/2024 set aside – Petitioner discharged from all offences in C.C. No.1304 of 2014 – Pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 22].
 

Service Law - Transfer – Equivalence of Post – Non-Cadre Transfer Held Illegal – Appellant transferred from post of Chief Medical & Health Officer (CM&HO), a cadre post, to Deputy Controller, which is not included in the amended cadre list of 2012 – Held: Transfer constitutes deputation to a non-cadre post without statutory backing – Reliance on outdated rules misled Single Judge – Transfer order quashed [Paras 15–18, 22].

Deputation – Consent Requirement – Transfer Beyond Cadre Requires Consent – Appellant’s posting to Deputy Controller post amounts to deputation – Held: Deputation necessitates voluntary consent, which was not obtained – Such transfer is invalid in absence of employee’s consent [Paras 19–21].

Stigma in Transfer – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Complaints Largely Closed or Found Motivated – Transfer said to be based on administrative grounds pending inquiries – Held: No credible administrative exigency made out – Transfer found to be indirectly punitive in nature [Paras 4–5, 14].

Judicial Review – Interference in Exceptional Cases – Transfer Impacts Career Prospects – Held: Although courts normally do not interfere in transfer matters, interference justified where service rights are affected and post transferred to is of lower rank and non-cadre – High Court intervention warranted [Paras 23–25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Transfer Order Set Aside – Special appeal allowed, impugned transfer order and learned Single Judge’s decision set aside – Appellant directed to be reinstated as CM&HO, Udaipur with consequential pecuniary benefits [Paras 26–27].
 

Life Imprisonment – No Automatic End at 20 Years – Remission Must Be by Government – Petition Dismissed - The Court clarified that life imprisonment means incarceration for the remainder of the convict’s natural life – Rule 320(A) and Section 57 IPC cannot reduce the sentence to a fixed term – Remission requires specific order under Section 432 CrPC – No indefeasible right arises without such remission [Paras 17-23, 32-33].

Remission – Rule 320 Prison Rules Not Sufficient – Requires CrPC Compliance – Policy of 2018 Not Applicable - Remission under Rule 320 cannot operate autonomously to secure release – Government must exercise power under Section 432 with procedural checks – G.O.Ms.No.8 bars remission for death convicts whose sentence was commuted and those convicted of offences against minors – Petitioner’s father falls under both categories [Paras 24-26, 34-36].

Applicability of Remission Policy – Law at Time of Commutation Applicable – Not at Sentencing – Clarified - Court rejected argument that remission policy applicable at time of conviction (1995) should govern consideration – Held: Relevant date is the commutation of sentence (1998) when remission became relevant [Paras 35-36].

Parole – Must Be Considered Fairly – No Absolute Bar – Case Referred Back - Though past parole requests were rejected citing threat and staff shortage, Court found no incident occurred during four prior paroles – Directed respondents to consider parole on par with similarly situated prisoners per Asfaq guidelines [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Liberty to Apply for Remission under Section 432 – Parole to Be Considered - Writ petition dismissed but liberty granted to file application under Section 432 CrPC – State to assess eligibility as per law and prevailing policy – Any parole application to be judged in light of reformative jurisprudence and fairness [Paras 41-42]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act - Limitation for Sending Demand Notice – Exclusion of Date of Intimation – Notice Held Within Time – The Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the statutory notice under Section 138(b) was sent on the 31st day after intimation of dishonour – Held: The date of receipt of bank intimation must be excluded while computing the 30-day period – On applying the correct legal standard, the notice was issued within time – Trial Court’s view was contrary to binding precedent and hence liable to be set aside [Paras 17-19].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Material Alteration in Cheque – Signature of Accused Validates Correction – Conviction Restored – Trial Court found material alteration in cheque amounting to Rs. 11,70,000/- as fatal to complainant’s case – Held: Correction in amount was duly counter-signed by accused – No plausible explanation or defense was put forth by accused – No rebuttal evidence led – Mere admission by complainant insufficient to rebut presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Finding of material alteration erroneous in law [Paras 20-22].

Cheque Dishonour – Failure to Rebut Presumption – No Reply to Demand Notice – Conviction Warranted – Despite receiving statutory demand notice, the accused did not dispute the liability or issue a reply – No evidence of lack of financial capacity or alternate explanation for issuance of cheque – Appellate Court found presumption under Section 139 unshaken and complainant's case proved – Judgment of acquittal reversed [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal against Acquittal – Principles for Appellate Interference – Trial Court Ignored Material Evidence – When the Trial Court’s findings are based on misapplication of law and disregard of material evidence, the Appellate Court may interfere – Present case warranted interference due to perverse reasoning on both limitation and cheque alteration issues – Judgment of acquittal set aside, appeal allowed [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Murder – Ocular Evidence – Medical Corroboration – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for murdering the deceased by inflicting multiple knife blows – The conviction was challenged on the ground of false implication and contradictions in witness testimony – Held: Testimonies of three eyewitnesses, who were family members of the deceased, were consistent with medical evidence – Recovery of blood-stained knife corroborated prosecution’s version – Trial court’s reliance on their statements was justified despite minor inconsistencies – Conviction upheld [Paras 12-16].

Benefit of Doubt – Co-accused Acquitted – No Impact on Main Accused – The co-accused Bhim Singh was not named in FIR but added in testimony later – Trial Court gave benefit of doubt to him and acquitted – Held: Mere acquittal of co-accused due to doubt does not vitiate the case against appellant when sufficient evidence exists against him – Prosecution version against main accused Vinod Kumar remained intact [Paras 10, 14-15].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Interference Not Warranted – The court found no infirmity in the trial court’s findings – All essential elements of murder proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal against conviction dismissed – Directions issued for arrest and recovery of remaining sentence [Paras 16-17].
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against conviction - Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Confession Voluntarily Made – Conviction Upheld – Appellant confessed to killing his wife before village chowkidar and other witnesses, then surrendered at the police station with blood-stained Gandasa and a country-made pistol – Such conduct falls under Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Supported by forensic evidence showing human blood on the weapon and clothes – Held: Extra-judicial confession corroborated by surrounding circumstances and forensic evidence is reliable and valid for conviction [Paras 3-9, 35-37, 43-48, 56-58].

Prompt FIR – Importance in Criminal Trial – FIR Lodged by Chowkidar – Validity Maintained – FIR lodged within two hours of the incident by the village chowkidar on oral information received – Head constable corroborated the lodging of FIR – Despite the chowkidar turning hostile, the court accepted the FIR as valid and prompt – Held: Timely FIR lends credibility to the prosecution case and cannot be discarded due to hostility of informant if otherwise corroborated [Paras 4-6, 37-38, 50, 53-54, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Forensic Corroboration – Conviction Based on Chain of Events – Deceased was last seen with the appellant, and appellant was seen returning alone – Appellant admitted guilt and provided murder weapon and clothes stained with blood – Forensic reports confirmed human blood on items – Held: Circumstantial evidence formed an unbroken chain leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5, 9-14, 35-36, 43-47].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Partial Testimony – Acceptance of Supporting Depositions – Several prosecution witnesses including complainant and key witnesses turned hostile – However, relevant portions consistent with prosecution’s case accepted by the court – Held: Hostility does not invalidate entire testimony; courts may rely on corroborative parts [Paras 20-22, 51-55].

Refusal to Provide Signature – Adverse Inference – Strengthens Prosecution Case – Accused refused to provide specimen signature to verify written confession – Held: Refusal permits drawing adverse inference against the accused, particularly when confession and recovery of incriminating material stand otherwise proved [Paras 47-48].

Police Witness Testimony – Reliability – Admissible When Trustworthy – Recovery memos and confessional reports prepared in presence of police officers found consistent and truthful – Courts held that police testimony, if credible, can form basis of conviction – Held: No requirement that police witness must be independently corroborated in every case [Paras 25-28, 40-42].

Decision – Conviction confirmed – Appeal dismissed – High Court held that the trial court rightly convicted the accused based on extra-judicial confession, forensic evidence, and circumstantial facts – Accused directed to surrender and undergo life imprisonment as sentenced [Paras 61-62].
 

Temple Management – Hereditary Archakship – Civil Court Decrees Binding – Petitioners Entitled to Perform Karaga – Petitioner established his hereditary rights through R.A. No.46/1983 and R.S.A. No.412/1984 – Held: Tahsildar’s repeated orders permitting rival claimant to perform Karaga on rotation basis are contrary to binding court decrees – Petitioners’ right to perform Karaga recognized and affirmed by High Court and upheld by Supreme Court – Orders permitting rotation quashed [Paras 6, 15–20].

Administrative Overreach – Tahsildar Exceeded Jurisdiction – Performance of Rituals Beyond Scope of Revenue Officer – Held: Tahsildar repeatedly disregarded judicial orders and passed whimsical decisions without authority – Right to perform religious rituals, if established, cannot be nullified by administrative expediency – Conduct of Tahsildar deprecated for generating litigation despite clear judicial directions [Paras 14, 17–19].

Succession of Ritual Duties – Right of Legal Heirs – Petitioner’s Sons Permitted – Due to advanced age of original petitioner, relief sought to allow his sons to perform Karaga – Held: Children of hereditary archak are rightful successors unless disqualified – Directed Tahsildar to permit second petitioner Ramesh to perform Karaga with responsibility and conditions – Performance of Karaga subject to future conduct [Paras 10, 16, 20(ii)].

Challenge by Rival Claimant – Claim of Vahinkula Seva Sangha Rejected – Respondent No.6 not in archak lineage – Held: Sangha’s claim has no legal basis – Performance by 6th respondent earlier was unauthorized and contrary to law – Writ petition filed by respondent No.6 dismissed – Recognition not sustainable without archak lineage or supporting judicial order [Paras 7, 12–13, 20(iii)].

Litigation History – Consistent Judicial Findings Favor Petitioners – Multiple rounds of litigation from 2011 to 2025 consistently upheld petitioners’ hereditary rights – Supreme Court dismissed SLP and directed fair hearing – Held: Earlier judgments cannot be diluted by administrative action – Reiterated finality of settled civil rights through decrees [Paras 8, 15, 18–19].

Decision:

W.P. No.13103 of 2022 allowed – Impugned orders quashed – W.P. No.9045 of 2025 partly allowed – Tahsildar directed to permit petitioner’s son Ramesh to perform Karaga, subject to conduct – W.P. No.7092 of 2025 filed by rival Sangha dismissed – Pending applications disposed [Para 20].