Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Probation – Applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 201 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing injury – Lower courts sentenced him to imprisonment and fine – In revision, convict sought release on probation citing good conduct, family circumstances, and first-offence status – Probation Officer’s report recommended benefit of probation – Held: Offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment; convict is a first offender with good antecedents; long pendency (20 years) justifies a reformatory approach – Hence, petitioner released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on furnishing bond and surety [Paras 6–10, 17, 21–27].

Probation of Offenders Act – Judicial Discretion – Nature of Offence – Courts must consider the expediency of probation having regard to the nature of offence – Reiterated principles from Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82, emphasizing deterrence in Section 304-A cases but allowing judicial discretion in lesser offences – Extended probation benefit to offences under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC following Paul George v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 185 and State through CBI v. Sanjiv Bhalla, (2015) 13 SCC 444 [Paras 11–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Reformatory Sentencing – Indian criminal justice system is reformative rather than retributive – Sending a first offender to prison often proves counterproductive; probation provides a constructive opportunity for reformation and social rehabilitation – Court emphasized that punishment should not extend hardship to dependents of the convict [Paras 23–25].

Sentence – Modification – Probation Conditions – Order of sentence modified – Petitioner directed to furnish personal bond of ₹30,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court to maintain peace and good behaviour for two years – Further directed to deposit ₹5,000 as additional compensation to injured persons, payable through the trial court – In case of breach of bond conditions, sentence to revive automatically [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified – Petitioner released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Para 30].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 435 Days – Rejected – State sought condonation of 435-day delay in filing appeal against decree dated 10.09.2022 – Claimed delay due to procedural steps, internal processing, and official hierarchy – Held: Documents on record showed Collector Ratlam was aware of the decree as early as August 2023 – Despite this, certified copy was sought only in February 2024 and appeal filed in March 2024 – No explanation provided for the interregnum – Delay not satisfactorily explained [Paras 2, 9–10]

Condonation of Delay – Government as Litigant – Equal Treatment with Private Parties – Cited precedents including Postmaster General v. Living Media and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board – Court reiterated that governmental entities are no longer entitled to liberal delay condonation solely on ground of bureaucratic inertia – Delay must be supported by bona fide and credible explanation, not mere procedural excuses [Paras 6–8]

Explanation vs Excuse – Judicial Approach Clarified – Court distinguished between ‘explanation’ (a reasoned account showing due diligence) and ‘excuse’ (an afterthought to avoid responsibility) – Held: Delay explanation in this case amounted to an excuse rather than a bona fide explanation – Mere assertion of internal delay without substantiating timelines or diligence rejected [Para 10]

Judicial Discretion – No Sufficient Cause Made Out – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: Delay not explained with sufficient cause – Absence of credible justification indicated gross negligence and lack of diligence – I.A. for condonation of delay dismissed – Consequently, the appeal itself dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2236/2024) rejected – First Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation – Direction issued to return trial court record with copy of order.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8, 21, 29 NDPS Act - Commercial Quantity – Procedural Lapses – Bail Granted – Petitioner arrested on 21.04.2023 for alleged possession of 50 bottles of Myberry (Codeine Phosphate) – Co-accused arrested based on petitioner's disclosure – Final report filed on 17.07.2023 – Trial delayed with less than half of 21 witnesses examined – Held: Petitioner in custody for over 2.5 years with no prior criminal history – Material contradictions in prosecution evidence – Mandatory procedural safeguards under NDPS Act found breached – Bail granted on conditions [Paras 1–9, 20]

Criminal Law – Reasonable Grounds under Section 37 NDPS Act – Interpretation – Court clarified that “reasonable grounds” for believing guilt under Section 37 require more than suspicion but less than proof – Held: No cogent evidence to support prima facie guilt of petitioner – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner stands on parity – No apprehension of tampering with evidence or absconding [Paras 9–10]

Bail Jurisprudence – Constitutional Safeguards – Liberty vs. Public Interest – Citing Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Siddharam Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Court reiterated that bail is the rule, jail the exception – Long incarceration without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment – Denial of bail not justified solely by seriousness of charge in absence of risk of misuse of liberty [Paras 14–19]

Discretion in Grant of Bail – Judicial Principles – Court must consider gravity of offence, likelihood of conviction, potential for interference with justice, and balance individual liberty with societal interest – No blanket rule – Each bail decision must be context-specific and factually grounded [Paras 12–13, 18]

Decision:

Bail granted – Petitioner to be released upon furnishing personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties of ₹50,000 each from relatives – Subject to compliance with conditions: (a) regular appearance at trial, (b) no tampering with evidence or witnesses, (c) no travel outside UT of J&K without court’s permission, (d) no repetition of offence – Trial court empowered to proceed under Sections 491 and 492 BNSS in case of breach of conditions.

Motor Accident Compensation – Dependency Units – Minor Dependents – Appeal by insurer challenging calculation of dependency on the ground that minor dependents should count as half unit under Rule 220-A(2) of UP Motor Vehicle Rules – Held: Constitution Bench judgment in Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma lays down that each dependent, irrespective of age, is to be treated as one unit – Tribunal rightly followed binding precedent, ignoring contrary rule which offers lesser benefit to claimants [Paras 5–7].

Motor Accident Compensation – Consortium – Quantum – Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,000/- each to widow, two minor children, and mother of deceased – Held: Award of individual consortium amounts to each dependent is justified and consistent with law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram – No illegality found [Paras 8–9].

Motor Accident Claims – Interpretation of Statutory Rule vs. Supreme Court Precedent – Held: When Supreme Court judgments provide more beneficial treatment to claimants, they prevail over subordinate statutory rules – Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma to apply over Rule 220-A(2)(iii) of UP Rules as being more advantageous and constitutionally affirmed [Para 6–7].

Motor Vehicles Act – Beneficial Legislation – Held: In view of the Act being a welfare legislation, interpretation favouring the claimants must prevail – Calculation method yielding higher compensation under binding precedent to be preferred [Paras 6–7].

Appeal – Maintainability – No Error Found – Where the Tribunal’s reasoning is based on binding precedent and awards fall within established norms, interference by appellate court is unwarranted – Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at admission stage – Award of Rs. 23,98,774/- with interest @ 7% p.a. to claimants affirmed – Dependency unit calculation and consortium payments held valid as per binding Supreme Court judgments – Direction issued for return of statutory deposit [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Cruelty – Section 498-A IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Allegations by wife of physical torture, dowry demand, and attempted strangulation by husband – Delay of one month in lodging complaint not explained contemporaneously – Complainant failed to mention serious allegations like throttling and paternity denial in FIR – Introduced new accusations only during trial – Held: Prosecution failed to establish case beyond reasonable doubt – Serious inconsistencies in dates, medical evidence, and testimonies created doubt as to veracity of prosecution story – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC set aside [Paras 5, 10-12, 22-23, 25]

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Medical Evidence Contradictions – FIR alleged head injury from iron rod and bleeding, but medical report did not confirm injury – Doctor admitted she could not confirm source of bleeding or strangulation – Carbon copy of injury report had inconsistent date – Held: Medical evidence failed to corroborate prosecution version – Serious doubt cast on occurrence and severity of assault [Paras 11, 22]

Delay in FIR – Unexplained Inordinate Delay – FIR lodged nearly one month after incident dated 15.02.2010 – Explanation of illness raised only during trial without corroboration – No supporting medical records or witness testimony to justify delay – Held: Inordinate delay unexplained and undermines prosecution case [Paras 9, 24]

Misuse of Section 498-A – Matrimonial Disputes – Multiple Cases Filed by Complainant – All resulted in acquittals – Complaint in present case also contained vague and exaggerated allegations – Held: In light of Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A in Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Achin Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana, prosecution version required strict scrutiny – No clear prima facie case made out against appellant [Paras 24]

Burden of Proof – Failure to Prove Charges Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, contradictions with documentary evidence, failure to produce Panchayat records or resolution, and no evidence of prior incidents of cruelty – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 18-21, 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Connected applications disposed of – Urgent certified copy to be issued on compliance with formalities.

Criminal Law – Snatching – Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC – Reversed – Prosecution case based on complaint alleging mobile phone snatched by appellant and co-accused – Complainant and alleged victim (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and denied appellant's involvement – Admitted in cross-examination that no mobile phone was in possession at the time of incident – Ownership of allegedly snatched mobile not proved as bill was in name of third party – Held: Essential ingredient of snatching not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2, 11].

Evidence Act – Recovery of Stolen Property – Police witnesses (PW-4 and PW-7) testified to recovery based on disclosure by appellant – No independent witnesses joined at the time of recovery – Investigating Officer failed to confirm basic facts like time of complaint or recovery – Recovery not proved to be reliable – Presumption under Section 114(a) of Evidence Act not attracted – Recovery at best could lead to inference of receiving stolen property, not robbery/snatching [Paras 12].

Juvenile Co-accused – Acquittal – Co-accused found to be juvenile and acquitted by Juvenile Justice Board – Trial Court failed to consider this exculpatory aspect in assessing appellant's guilt – Further weakens prosecution version and identification of accused [Paras 2, 8, 11].

Held: Conviction under Section 379-A(2) IPC unsustainable – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 12].

Habeas Corpus – Minor Girl – Detention in Protection Home – Validity – Detenue ‘A’ alleged to have been kidnapped by Petitioner No. 1 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and POCSO Act – FIR stated her age as 14 years – School records (scholar register and transfer certificate) from Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College recorded date of birth as 14.03.2010 – Child Welfare Committee, Deoria, declared her a child and directed lodging in Rajkiya Bal Grih (Balika), Ballia – Held: Order of the Committee proper and in accordance with law; detenue being a minor cannot be released to her husband’s custody [Paras 5–7, 13–15]

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Section 94 JJ Act, 2015 – Priority of Evidence – School record conclusive proof of age – Medical opinion cannot override authentic school certificate – Age determined on basis of transfer certificate accepted; detenue found aged about 15 years 7 months – Held: Determination under Section 94(2)(i) binding; medical test inadmissible when documentary proof exists [Paras 9–13]

POCSO Act – Victim’s Age Determination – Applicability of JJ Act Principles – Held: Rule of age determination applicable to juveniles under JJ Act applies equally to victims of sexual offences – Reliance placed on Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263 – Victim’s minority conclusively established [Paras 10–11]

Custody and Welfare – Minor Victim’s Right to Protection – Detenue expressed unwillingness to go to parental home and desire to live with her husband – Court held she cannot be released to husband as it would expose her to illegal sexual relations and potential offences under POCSO – Directed continued residence in Protection Home till she attains majority – Court issued detailed directions ensuring medical, emotional, and judicial supervision of detenue’s welfare [Paras 14–17]

Negligence in Protection Home – Infant’s Death – Court took cognizance of detenue’s child’s death allegedly due to negligence of Protection Home staff – Directed judicial and medical oversight to safeguard detenue’s physical and psychological health – Superintendent held personally answerable for compliance [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Detenue to remain housed in Protection Home till 13.03.2028 and released unconditionally thereafter – Chief Medical Officer, Deoria directed to nominate doctor for monthly health checks – District Judge, Deoria to appoint senior lady judicial officer to monitor detenue’s well-being – Protection Home administration bound to comply with directions; any non-compliance to entail personal accountability of Superintendent [Paras 17–18]

Property Law – Easement of Grant – Boundary Description – Appellant claimed right of pathway over ‘B’ Schedule property described as “common battai” in sale deed of 09.06.1964 – Contended that mention of pathway as boundary conferred easementary right – Held: Mere reference to a “pathway” as boundary does not amount to an express or implied grant of right of way unless clearly intended by the grantor – Courts below rightly found no evidence of grant or usage by public or adjoining owners – ‘B’ Schedule property being private land of respondents’ family, not a poramboke or public path – No easementary right accrued [Paras 13–21, 23].

Easement – Necessity and Prescription – Proof and Burden – No evidence of easement of necessity since appellant had alternative access through own ridges – No proof of uninterrupted use “as of right” for statutory period – Burden lies on claimant to prove continuous, open, and as-of-right user, which was not discharged – Physical features showed ‘B’ Schedule land 4 feet above level of appellant’s property, inconsistent with plea of necessity [Paras 18–22].

Boundary Description – No Presumption of Right – Description of “common battai” in boundary of sale deed cannot, by itself, confer or presume easementary right unless coupled with clear evidence of grant or usage – Section 28 of Easements Act restricts easement of necessity to extent of actual necessity existing at the time of creation – Held, mentioning boundary as battai insufficient to imply easementary right [Paras 19–23].

Distinction from Precedent – Precedent Kuppakkal v. Mathan Chettiar, AIR 1924 Mad 834 distinguished – In that case, right of access existed to street or public road; present case involves private property of defendants, not public pathway – Hence, principle in Kuppakkal not applicable [Paras 14–20, 24].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld – No easementary right proved over ‘B’ Schedule property – No costs – Connected miscellaneous petition closed [Paras 24–25].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial Concluded – Plaintiff sought to amend plaint to correct typographical errors, add omitted Khasra numbers and names of co-sharers – Amendment allowed despite trial having concluded – Held: Amendments were minor, clarificatory, and necessary for complete adjudication of the partition suit – Procedural law should not obstruct substantive justice – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC not an absolute bar where amendment is bona fide and avoids multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 3, 4, 10, 12-14]

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed impleadment of legal heirs of deceased co-sharer and one omitted necessary party – Held: In a partition suit, all co-sharers are necessary parties – Impleadment essential to ensure binding and executable decree – Trial court correctly exercised discretion to avoid piecemeal litigation [Paras 4, 6, 11-14]

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Challenge to interlocutory order allowing amendment and impleadment – Held: Discretion exercised by trial court was judicial, reasoned and not perverse – No interference warranted under supervisory jurisdiction of High Court [Paras 13-15]

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned composite order dated 25.09.2025 upheld – Amendment and impleadment rightly allowed in the interest of complete adjudication and justice.