Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Abetment of Suicide – Essentials of Section 306 IPC – Acquittal Upheld – The Court reiterated that mere harassment or disputes over financial transactions are insufficient to constitute abetment unless direct or indirect incitement to commit suicide is proved – The deceased had the option to seek recovery of debt legally – Absence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused – Ingredients of Section 306 IPC not satisfied [Paras 15-19].

Suicide Note – General Allegation Not Sufficient – The suicide note vaguely referred to harassment by Subhash and the police without naming any officer or detailing specific acts of abetment – No nexus between the alleged harassment and the act of suicide was established – Suicide due to loan dispute does not by itself constitute abetment [Paras 18-19].

Delay and Absence of Proof – No Evidence of Finance Business or Loan Transaction – The prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was actually running a finance business or that a loan was advanced to the accused – Absence of documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding the alleged debt transaction and threats – Defence plea of false implication accepted [Paras 18-19].

Temperament of Deceased – No Proof of Prudence or Instigation – No evidence produced by the prosecution to establish that the deceased was prudent and was compelled to commit suicide due to unbearable harassment – Suicide attributed to hypersensitivity rather than actionable abetment – Courts must be cautious to avoid penalizing routine disputes as abetment [Paras 17-19].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit found in the challenge to the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court – Petition dismissed with no relief granted [Para 20].
 

Motor Accident Claim – Contributory Negligence – Finding Reversed – Claimant Exonerated – Tribunal had held both the bus driver and claimant contributorily negligent (50% each) because the claimant was driving an unregistered vehicle – High Court held that absence of registration does not imply causation unless overt negligence is shown – FIR and evidence confirmed the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the bus – Held: Finding of contributory negligence against appellant set aside; sole responsibility fixed on bus driver [Paras 5, 6, 9].

Compensation – Disability – Enhanced by Applying Proper Multiplier and Future Prospects – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 15 and awarded ₹90,000 for 50% disability – High Court revised it to a multiplier of 18 with 40% addition for future prospects for a 22-year-old – Loss of future earning capacity recalculated at ₹1,51,200 – Held: Tribunal erred in not awarding for future prospects; enhanced just compensation awarded [Paras 6, 10].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Additional Heads Granted – Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering, special diet, attendant charges, or future medical expenses – High Court awarded ₹50,000 for pain and suffering, ₹5,000 for special diet, ₹10,000 each for attendant charges and future medical expenses – Held: Compensation must be comprehensive and fair, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses [Para 10].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation Enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% Interest – Tribunal award of ₹62,564 set aside – Compensation enhanced to ₹3,51,000 with 9% annual interest from date of award till realization – Any previously paid amount to be adjusted – Held: Appellant entitled to full compensation without deduction for contributory negligence [Paras 10–13].
 

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Summoning order set aside – Petitioners were summoned based on partial appraisal of evidence, relying only on the statement of injured witness Ajit Singh (PW-3) – Trial Court failed to consider complainant Chandi Ram’s (PW-4) testimony, which was material to conspiracy allegations – Summoning order held unsustainable in absence of complete analysis [Paras 13-18].

Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – Complainant’s testimony indicated conspiracy involving all named persons – Injured witness did not support conspiracy allegations against all petitioners – Trial Court erroneously omitted discussion of complainant’s version regarding the meeting and threats before the incident – Supreme Court’s guidelines in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 reiterated – Complete evidence must be examined before exercising power under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 13-17].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Revisional Court has power to test whether Trial Court has properly appreciated material evidence while exercising Section 319 CrPC power – Held: Partial reliance on evidence and omission to consider vital testimony constitutes error of law justifying interference [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Revision Petitions allowed – Impugned order dated 11.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court to re-decide the application under Section 319 CrPC after considering full evidence including statements of both injured witness and complainant – Fresh order to be passed within 45 days – Benefit of remand extended to Raj Kumar, though not a revision petitioner [Paras 19-21].

Civil Writ – Appointments - Minority Institutions – Applicability of UGC Regulations, 2018 – Minority Institutions' Right to Administer – Selection Committees – Minority educational institutions have the fundamental right under Article 30(1) to administer their institutions, including the right to appoint staff – The UGC Regulations, 2018 prescribing the composition of selection committees for appointment of Assistant Professors and Principals, and adopted by the State through G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021, interfere with this right – Such Regulations cannot be applied to minority institutions – Held: Minority institutions are not bound by UGC Regulations relating to selection procedure but must comply only with qualifications, experience, and other merit criteria [Paras 30-38].

Res Judicata – Applicability of Forum of Minority Institutions Case – Previous Division Bench ruling in The Forum of Minority Institutions and Associations v. State of Tamil Nadu continues to apply – No substantial change introduced by UGC Regulations, 2018 as compared to earlier Regulations – Minority institutions not required to challenge every new Regulation if settled law applies – Preliminary objection of UGC rejected [Paras 23-25, 32-34].

Doctrine of Merger – High Court and Supreme Court decisions affirming finality – Judgment confirms that once the constitutional protection under Article 30(1) is attracted, regulatory control over the selection process stands limited to qualifications and service conditions only – The right to constitute selection committees rests with the management of minority institutions [Paras 35-38].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Universities directed to grant qualification approvals for appointments made by the petitioner minority institutions without reference to UGC Regulations, 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.5 dated 11.01.2021 – Directions issued for processing approval within four weeks – Consequential benefits including arrears of salary made available to selected candidates [Paras 39-41].

Criminal Law – Rape - Acquittal Appeal – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Appellate Court Reiterated Limited Scope to Interfere – The appellate court while re-appreciating the evidence must interfere only when the judgment is perverse or leads to miscarriage of justice – Court found that trial court's judgment was not perverse and based on sound appreciation of evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 9-14].

Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Victim Turned Hostile – Allegation of Kidnapping and Sexual Assault Not Established – Victim (PW1) denied the allegations during trial – No independent corroboration from parents or medical evidence – Court held that the prosecution failed to prove offence under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Acquittal upheld [Paras 16-32].

Medical Evidence – No Signs of Recent Sexual Assault – Medical Officer (PW10) opined that there were no signs suggestive of recent sexual assault – Prosecution failed to corroborate charges medically – Acquittal confirmed [Paras 30-33].

Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Court reiterated that Section 164 CrPC statement can be used only for contradiction or corroboration – Cannot solely form basis for conviction in absence of substantive evidence – Victim did not support the prosecution case – Appeal dismissed [Para 31].

Final Decision – No Error Found in Trial Court’s Appreciation of Evidence – Benefit of Doubt Rightly Given – Appeal dismissed and acquittal confirmed [Paras 34-35].

Protection Petition - Live-in Relationship – Minor Partner – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought protection alleging threat from family members opposing their live-in relationship – Petitioner No.2 was a minor (17 years 6 months) at the time of filing – Held: A minor is legally incompetent to make choices involving live-in relationships under applicable statutory laws including Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – The Court refused to extend protection as it would amount to judicial recognition of a relationship not sanctioned by law involving a minor [Paras 3-4]. 
 
Judicial Duty – Parens Patriae Principle – Welfare of Minor Paramount - Court reaffirmed its duty to act as Parens Patriae for minors – The welfare and protection of the minor outweighs individual liberty to enter into live-in relationships – Minor’s custody must vest with parents or lawful guardians till attainment of majority unless there is an imminent threat to life – No such exceptional circumstance was pleaded or proved [Para 4]. 
 
Precedent – Yash Pal vs. State of Haryana – Applied - The Division Bench judgment in Yash Pal vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 10239 was followed – Held that protection in live-in relationships involving minors is impermissible under the law – Any such protection would dilute statutory protections meant to shield minors from exploitation and imprudent decisions [Paras 3-4]. 
 
Decision – Petition Dismissed - The petition seeking protection of life and liberty in context of the live-in relationship was dismissed – SSP, Tarn Taran, Punjab directed to take steps as per law regarding the welfare and protection of the minor – No costs imposed [Paras 4-5]. 
 

Criminal Law - Abduction for Ransom – Conspiracy and Execution – Section 364A, 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellants conspired and executed the abduction of Partha Roy Burman, inflicting gunshot injuries during the kidnapping and detained him at a secluded location to demand ransom – Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW31 and PW32 (cooks), PW33 (co-accused turned prosecution witness), and PW35-PW55 (official and medical witnesses) corroborated the pre-planning, execution, custody of the victim, and ransom transaction – Held: The prosecution successfully proved the conspiracy and abduction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-10, 23-31, 35-45].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability of Other Evidence – Conviction Not Vitiated - Although some key witnesses, including PW26 (victim) and relatives like PW20, PW22, PW23 turned hostile, their testimonies regarding initial facts and identification of injuries, along with other documentary and corroborative evidence like seizure lists, forensic reports, voice samples, and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, stood consistent and reliable – Held: Conviction sustainable even when certain witnesses turned hostile [Paras 31-38, 53-55, 66-67].

Electronic and Forensic Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Voice Samples and Footprint Matches – Audio cassette recordings of ransom calls matched with the voices of appellants as confirmed by CFSL expert (PW67) – Footprint evidence also corroborated the presence of appellants at relevant places – Held: Properly proved and relied upon [Paras 66-69, 73-77].

Abduction for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 364A and 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Prosecution proved that appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct Partho Roy Burman for ransom through meetings, arrangement of hideouts and vehicles, and execution of the abduction with the use of arms – Conspiracy corroborated by direct evidence of PW31, PW32, and PW33 who were privy to planning meetings, distribution of roles and captivity of the victim – Victim was injured, confined at Bhoot Bunglow, and released after ransom payment – Held: Appellants participated actively in the conspiracy and execution, warranting conviction [Paras 105-120].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Non-fatal – Delay in conducting TIP explained due to appellants being absconders – Appellants identified both in TIP and by prosecution witnesses who had seen them repeatedly during conspiracy meetings and captivity of the victim – Held: TIP delay does not vitiate identification when corroborated by substantive evidence [Paras 99-128].

Evidence of Approvers – PW31, PW32, PW33 – Acceptable and Reliable – Appellants challenged credibility of PW31, PW32, and PW33 as approvers – Court held that they were not chance witnesses but insiders to conspiracy, who lived with the accused for substantial periods – Their depositions were consistent, corroborated by independent circumstances and other witnesses – Held: Evidence of these approvers reliable [Paras 113-120].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B – Voice Samples, Emails, Audio Cassettes – Prosecution relied on intercepted calls, emails, and audio tapes – Although formal certificate under Section 65B was partly absent, electronic records collected under Section 27, proved through official witnesses, and corroborated by oral evidence were held admissible – Court distinguished between primary and secondary electronic evidence and applied substantial compliance doctrine – Held: Electronic evidence validly relied upon [Paras 134-138].

Delay in Recording Statements – Defence Argument Rejected – Delay caused due to appellants absconding for long periods and bifurcation of trial – Court accepted prosecution’s explanation and held that delay did not prejudice the defence – Held: Conviction cannot be vitiated on this ground [Paras 129-133].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Defence plea of incomplete chain rejected – Court found complete chain of circumstances established through eyewitnesses, recovery of articles, forensic reports, and testimonies of key witnesses PW31, PW32, PW33 and others – Held: Conspiracy, execution, ransom demand, payment, and release of victim proved beyond doubt [Paras 120-140].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant Akhtar Hossain – Acquitted – Evidence insufficient to link Akhtar Hossain to supply of arms or direct participation – No evidence of his presence at Bhoot Bunglow or conspiracy meetings – Held: Conviction not sustainable against Akhtar Hossain – He is acquitted [Paras 141-143].

Final Decision – Convictions of all other appellants confirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld for Noor Mohammed @ Shahbaz, Jalal Molla @ Omar, Mizanur Rahman @ Shahjahan, Mujammel Sk. @ Akram, Ishaque Ahmed @ Dilsad, Arshad Khan, Tariq Mehmood @ Nayeem – Akhtar Hossain acquitted – Connected applications dismissed [Paras 141-144].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Search Procedure Properly Followed – Bail Denied - The petitioner alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, claiming he was not informed about his right to be searched before the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate – Court held that the petitioner was informed in English of his right under Section 50 and refused to avail it in writing – Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the Court held that “nearest” does not mandate proximity, only intent to ensure fair procedure – Thus, compliance with Section 50 was held to be sufficient [Paras 15-16].

Constructive Possession – Recovery from Rented Premises – Exclusive Possession Proven – Bail Rejected - Petitioner challenged the recovery of 205 gms of contraband from his rented room, arguing lack of exclusive possession – Court relied on landlord’s statement under Section 161 CrPC confirming petitioner was sole occupant of the room – Held: Recovery attributable to the petitioner – no benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 17-18].

Procedural Lapses – Sections 57 and 52A NDPS Act – Delay in Sampling Not Fatal – Procedural Irregularities Do Not Entitle Bail - Petitioner argued non-compliance of Sections 52A and 57 due to delay in presenting the accused and drawing of sample – Court held that such procedural irregularities are not grounds for bail unless serious prejudice is shown – Sampling conducted next day held permissible – Supported by Supreme Court judgments in NCB v. Kashif and UOI v. Mohan Lal [Paras 19, 22-25].

Presence of ACP – Non-Signing of Seizure Memo Not Material – No Ground for Bail - Petitioner contended the ACP’s presence was doubtful as his signature was not on seizure memo – Court rejected this, noting the seizure memo was signed by IO and witnesses and presence of ACP was otherwise established [Paras 20-21].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity Recovery – Bail Denied – Petitioner in Custody Since 15.06.2023 – No Grounds Made Out to Satisfy Twin Conditions - Charges framed, trial ongoing, and commercial quantity of contraband recovered – No material before Court to infer petitioner is unlikely to reoffend or that case is prima facie not true – Bail application dismissed in view of Section 37 embargo [Paras 26-27].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Commercial Quantity Recovery Attracts Section 37 NDPS Bar – Court found that the recovery from the petitioner’s person and exclusive rented premises amounted to commercial quantity – No procedural violations that would vitiate the trial were made out – Held: No case for bail is made out under the stringent conditions of Section 37 – Application dismissed [Para 27].
 

Land Acquisition – Apportionment Dispute – Collector’s Refusal to Refer Case – Quashed – Petitioner Claimed Share in Ancestral Property - The petitioner, asserting a claim through lineage from a common ancestor, challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order disbursing ₹34 crore compensation without referring the apportionment dispute to the authority under Section 35 MIDC Act – Held: Petitioner’s interest could not be dismissed as frivolous merely due to lack of interim relief or absence in revenue records [Paras 5, 20-22, 41-44].

Section 35 MIDC Act – Discretionary Power to Refer Disputes – Not Absolute – Collector Must Refer Disputes in Case of Competing Claims – The High Court held that while Section 35 uses the term “may,” discretion must be exercised judiciously—if a genuine apportionment dispute exists, Collector is obliged to refer – Decision of SDO in refusing reference without proper consideration of rival claims held to be perverse [Paras 38-40, 44-45].

Judicial Function of Apportionment – SDO Not Competent to Decide Complex Ownership Issues – Reference Mandatory - Referring to Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate and Rukminibai v. Krishnath, the Court reiterated that apportionment involves valuation of extinguished interests and must be decided by a judicial authority, not by revenue officers or the Collector/SDO [Paras 30-35, 37-39].

Revenue Records – Not Determinative of Title – Premature Disbursal Based on Survey Entries Invalid – SDO Erred - Court held SDO placed undue emphasis on names in revenue records and absence of injunction from civil suit—this approach ignored the genealogical linkage and pending partition suit, which established at least a prima facie claim [Paras 43, 44].

Direction to Refer – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Authority to Decide Apportionment – SDO Directed to Transfer Funds - Court directed the SDO to refer the apportionment dispute to the designated authority under Section 35 of MIDC Act within one month and deposit the compensation amount along with accrued interest—authority to decide entitlement of each party in accordance with law [Paras 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – SDO’s Order Set Aside – Apportionment Dispute to Be Referred to Competent Authority – High Court held refusal to refer dispute was based on irrelevant considerations—directed SDO to forward compensation amount to authority for adjudication and equitable apportionment—Rule made absolute [Paras 55-60].