Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Conviction Set Aside: The appellant was accused of abducting a minor and sexually assaulting her. The prosecutrix claimed she was forcibly taken and raped. However, during cross-examination, her statements indicated that she was a consenting party. Held: The prosecutrix’s own testimony showed consent, and there were contradictions in her statements regarding coercion. Additionally, her behavior during the incident suggested voluntary participation. Thus, the conviction for sexual assault under Section 376(3) IPC was not sustainable​.

Criminal Law – Age of the Prosecutrix – No Conclusive Proof of Minority: The prosecution failed to conclusively establish that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. The prosecutrix's birth certificate and school records were not sufficiently substantiated, and the ossification test was not conducted. Held: In the absence of definitive proof of the prosecutrix being under 18 years of age, the presumption of minority could not be upheld​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The appellant's conviction under Sections 376(3), 363, and 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released unless required in connection with any other offense​.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163-A – Determination of Driver at Time of Accident – Contradictory Evidence – The claimant failed to clarify in the application who was driving the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The First Information Report (Exhibit A-1) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit A-2) suggested that the deceased, Vinod Kumar Dhruv, was the one riding the motorcycle. Testimony from Ravi Singh (AW-2), who was on the motorcycle at the time, was found to be contradictory and unreliable. Held: The evidence indicated that the deceased was driving the motorcycle, and the claimant could not prove otherwise. Consequently, the appellant (insurance company) is not liable for the compensation awarded [Paras 8-12, 17]​.

Insurance Law – Applicability of Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act – Exclusion of Owner-Driver – The deceased was riding the motorcycle, thereby stepping into the shoes of the owner. The claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable against the insurance company, as the deceased does not qualify as a third party. The court relied on Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Company (2020) 2 SCC 550 and Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 13 SCC 710, which established that an owner-driver is not covered under Section 163-A claims. The insurance policy did not extend coverage to the deceased, who lacked a valid driving license. Held: The insurance company is exonerated from liability, and the award of compensation is set aside [Paras 20-23]​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – The award dated 19.07.2016 by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, is set aside – The deceased was found to be the driver of the motorcycle at the time of the accident and did not possess a valid driving license, thereby violating the terms of the insurance policy – The insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellant convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, sentenced to 5 years R.I. – On appeal, appellant argued that the death was caused in a sudden scuffle, and the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, trying to snatch money from the appellant – High Court held that the appellant acted in self-defense while being chased by the deceased – Appellant's right to private defense recognized, conviction set aside [Paras 1, 7, 19, 30].

Right of Private Defense – Scope and Limitations – Appellant claimed the right of private defense against the deceased, who was trying to snatch money and was intoxicated – High Court noted that the appellant attempted to flee but was pursued by the deceased – Appellant threw stones in self-defense, causing fatal injuries – The Court found that the appellant did not exceed the bounds of self-defense – Held: Appellant entitled to acquittal under Sections 96 and 97 IPC [Paras 21, 30].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Witnesses – Key witness Kasam (PW-9), the son of the deceased, confirmed that his father was intoxicated and attempted to take money from the appellant – The trial court’s reliance on other witnesses like Idli Bai (PW-8) and Tersingh (PW-10) was reconsidered as the incident occurred suddenly and without premeditation – The place of the incident was also disputed, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case [Paras 11, 18, 13].

Circumstantial Evidence – Stone Pelting and Fatal Injuries – Medical evidence confirmed that the deceased died from a head injury caused by blunt force trauma – Two stones were seized from the scene, but the FSL report could not conclusively link the blood stains to the deceased – Held: The appellant acted within the confines of self-defense, and the death occurred due to the deceased's aggressive behavior [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and bail bonds discharged [Paras 31, 34].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 304B IPC and 201 IPC – Acquittal – The appellant (Accused No.1) was convicted for the dowry death of his wife under Section 304B of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Accused No.2 was convicted under Section 201 IPC for allegedly removing evidence of the suicide – Both accused appealed against the conviction – The High Court found that key witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7) did not support the prosecution’s case and were declared hostile  – No substantive evidence established that the deceased was harassed for dowry demands soon before her death  – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act was not applicable  – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 201 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted.

Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act – The court examined whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death – The key witnesses, including the deceased's parents, did not support allegations of dowry harassment  – Without evidence proving harassment for dowry, the presumption under Section 113B could not be applied – Held: In the absence of evidence to show harassment or cruelty, presumption under Section 113B is inapplicable, making conviction under Section 304B IPC unsustainable.

Allegation of Evidence Tampering – Conviction under Section 201 IPC – Accused No.2 was alleged to have tampered with evidence by removing the chunny from the deceased's neck – The court found discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the accused's actions and the cause of death – No concrete evidence indicated that Accused No.2 intended to screen the offender from legal punishment – Held: The main offense under Section 304B IPC was not established, resulting in the acquittal of Accused No.2 under Section 201 IPC.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentences of Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 under Sections 304B and 201 IPC are set aside – Appellants acquitted – Fine amount, if any, to be refunded – Accused No.1 to appear before the prison for formalities.

Criminal Law – Rape – Acquittal Due to Inconsistent Testimony – The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Sections 341, 366, and 376 of the IPC based on the victim's testimony, which alleged abduction and rape by the appellant and others. However, discrepancies were noted between her statement under Section 164 CrPC and her deposition before the court. The victim's narrative changed regarding the involvement of other individuals and the circumstances of the abduction. The court held that the inconsistencies and lack of corroborative evidence at a busy marketplace where the alleged abduction took place raised doubts about the prosecution's case – Held: Conviction set aside due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Hostility – Several witnesses, including co-villagers PW1 Kartick Let, PW2 Santana Let, PW5 Kalpana Let, and PW6 Tuktuki Let, were declared hostile as they denied knowledge of any incident involving the accused and the victim – PW3, the complainant, and the victim’s brother alleged that the accused kidnapped and raped the victim but did not lodge a complaint immediately – PW10, the victim's sister, and PW12, the victim's brother-in-law, testified based on what they heard from the victim – PW13, the victim, provided inconsistent statements regarding her abduction and assault, raising doubts about her credibility.

Circumstantial Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – The victim claimed to be abducted and raped by the appellant and others but provided inconsistent details about the incident – No eyewitnesses from the market where the alleged abduction took place were examined by the prosecution – The victim’s medical report did not corroborate her allegations of rape – The delay in filing the complaint and lack of information to police during the victim’s absence weakened the prosecution's case.

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant acquitted of all charges. The appellant is discharged from bail bonds. Lower court records to be sent back immediately.

Accident Claim - Just Compensation – Determining Compensation for Minor Victims – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Losses – The Court addressed the criteria for determining compensation for parents of minor victims, incorporating inflation-adjusted notional income with future prospects and applying multipliers to reflect financial dependency and emotional loss – The Court mandated that compensations include pecuniary loss calculations and significant non-pecuniary awards to acknowledge parental grief and future dependency [Paras 7, 10-11, 45-47].

Legal and Moral Dependency on Minors – Future Financial Dependency and Societal Norms – Recognizing the unique cultural and statutory expectations in India, the Court observed that parental dependency on children extends beyond immediate financial support, meriting compensation for future dependency as a moral and legal right of parents under relevant statutes, including the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Held: Parents are entitled to compensation reflecting cultural norms of lifelong dependency on children [Paras 22-27, 33-34].

Statutory and Judicial Remedies for Minors' Death Compensation – Uniformity and Practical Implementation – Adopting two methodologies for calculating compensation—the inflation-adjusted notional income and the lump-sum method for railway accident compensation—the Court established an averaging approach to ensure fairness and consistency in awards for minor deaths, with inflation adjustments annually [Paras 69-73, 99-102].

Medical and Financial Safeguards – Investment and Insurance Mandate for Parents of Deceased Minors – The Court mandated that awarded compensation be invested in a cumulative fixed deposit, accessible upon parents reaching 60 years, with provisions for early withdrawal under certain circumstances – Further directed insurers to issue a minimum health insurance policy of Rs. 10 lakhs for parents, effective from the age of 60, covering potential medical needs in recognition of the dependency on minor children for long-term care [Paras 115-120].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part; enhanced compensation awarded as per methodology outlined with directives for fixed deposit investments and health insurance for parents, reaffirming financial security and societal care standards.
 

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].