Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Rash and Negligent Driving Case – Petitioner’s brother died due to an alleged rash and negligent driving by accused-respondent – Trial court acquitted the respondent, citing major contradictions and lack of conclusive evidence – High Court upholds acquittal, finding no error in trial court’s detailed and reasoned judgment [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Witness Testimony – High Court notes trial court’s thorough assessment of evidence, identifying contradictions and inconsistencies in witness statements – Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8-9].

Appellate Review – Parameters for Interference – High Court refers to Supreme Court precedents on interference in acquittal judgments – Emphasizes reluctance to interfere unless judgment is contrary to evidence, clearly unreasonable, or based on ignored material evidence [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition Dismissed – High Court finds no compelling reason to overturn acquittal – Petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal or factual error warranting interference – Trial court’s judgment upheld [Paras 11-12].

Administrative Law – Railway Licenses – Petitioners challenged Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy, which abolished the renewal and extension of licenses for MPS units, arguing that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners contended they were coerced into converting their stalls to MPS under unequal bargaining conditions – Petitioners sought renewal of licenses in line with past policies and parity with other stall renewals [Paras 1-20].

COVID-19 – Force Majeure Implementation – Petitioners argued the 68-day extension granted due to COVID-19 was arbitrary, asserting other zones received longer extensions – Court found extension periods were determined by ground realities at individual stations – Petitioners were advised to seek arbitration for further grievances [Paras 30-35].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Court upheld the validity of Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy – No renewal or extension of licenses beyond the tenure specified in the 2017 Policy – Petitioners granted three months from the end of their extended license period or from the date of judgment to vacate their stalls – Rights to pursue arbitration for any further claims were reserved [Paras 36-38].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Expeditious Trial - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious conclusion of trial - Complaint filed in 2021 but trial not concluded - Emphasis on statutory mandate under Section 143(2) and 143(3) N.I. Act for day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months - Apex Court directions in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) for speedy disposal of cases reiterated - Court directs trial court to conclude trial within six months from receipt of order copy. [Paras 1-8]

Directions for Expeditious Disposal - Section 138 N.I. Act - Supreme Court Directions - Court reiterates necessity for expeditious trial and disposal of cases under Section 138 - Magistrates directed to follow procedures ensuring speedy trials as per guidelines from Supreme Court - Directions include day-to-day hearings, proper service of summons, and adherence to statutory timelines - Application disposed of with directions for trial court. [Paras 3-7]

Decision: The court directs the 5th Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 18, Basti, to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. 23545 of 2021 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, subject to no legal impediments. [Para 8]

Criminal Law - Writ of Mandamus and Transfer of Investigation -  Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to transfer investigation of Crime No. 212/2024 from Mannanthala Police Station to a higher-ranking officer, preferably of IPS cadre - Petitioner, a healthcare professional, alleges biased investigation due to political influence - Court finds ongoing investigation without bias, despite delay in arrest - Directs Investigating Officer to conduct fair and unbiased investigation - Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioner to re-approach if investigation seems improper. [Paras 1-4, 13]

Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail -  Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the accused in the same crime - Allegations of molestation and abuse of a doctor in her clinic - Prosecution provides substantial evidence including victim's statement and CCTV footage - Court emphasizes necessity of custodial interrogation for effective investigation - Anticipatory bail denied considering seriousness of allegations and the non-bailable nature of offences under amended Healthcare Act. [Paras 5-12]

Trend of Violence Against Healthcare Professionals -  Court notes increasing instances of violence against doctors and hospital staff - Refers to legislative amendment making such offences non-bailable - Highlights the need for strict enforcement to deter such crimes - Upholds importance of custodial interrogation in serious cases involving healthcare professionals to ensure thorough investigation. [Paras 11-12]

Decision:- Anticipatory Bail Application No. 3364 of 2024 dismissed.- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 385 of 2024 disposed of, directing current Investigating Officer to continue investigation fairly.

Criminal Law – Offences under Sections 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 4(1)(i) of Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Amendment Act, 2023 – Petition for transfer of investigation and anticipatory bail – High Court’s dismissal of bail application and writ petition – Importance of custodial interrogation emphasized by Court – Judicial scrutiny upheld the need for arrest to ensure thorough investigation – Dismissal of anticipatory bail based on severity of allegations and existing evidence [Paras 1-12].

Evidence Evaluation – Court evaluated statements and case diary indicating prima facie evidence supporting the complainant’s allegations – Court found allegations credible and necessitated further investigation, rejecting anticipatory bail – Judicial scrutiny confirmed investigation was conducted appropriately without bias, but with an emphasis on necessity for arrest and custodial interrogation [Paras 9-13].

Decision – Dismissal of Bail Application and Disposition of Writ Petition – Held – Bail application was dismissed due to serious nature of allegations and necessity for custodial interrogation – Writ petition for transfer of investigation dismissed as current investigation was deemed satisfactory – Defacto complainant given liberty to re-approach the Court if further issues with investigation arise. [Para 13].

Criminal Law – FIR Quashing – Sections 420, 120-B IPC – Alleged Evasion of Stamp Duty – Petitioners sold property recorded as residential land in revenue records – FIR alleged commercial land sold as residential to evade stamp duty – Petitioners contended liability to pay stamp duty rests on purchaser – Court found no misdescription by petitioners regarding land use – FIR quashed [Paras 2-29].

Mens Rea – Essential Element of Crime – Absence of Criminal Intent – No False Declaration – Petitioners did not misrepresent land use – Absence of mens rea for evading stamp duty – Investigating Agency’s action deemed misuse of authority [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – High Court's Interference – Criminal Proceedings – FIR found inherently improbable – Allegations insufficient to make out prima facie case – Investigation not warranted [Paras 9-11, 26-29].

Decision: FIR in Crime No.88/2022 registered by EOW, Bhopal quashed. Petition allowed.

Criminal Procedure – Preliminary Enquiry – Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Enquiry – Petitioner argued that court should have conducted a preliminary enquiry before ordering prosecution under Sections 340 & 344 Cr.P.C. – Court held that preliminary enquiry is not mandatory if the court can form a prima facie opinion – Petition dismissed [Paras 4-39].

Forged Documents – Issuance and False Evidence – Tehsildar's Actions – Allegations of Forgery – Trial court found that petitioner, as Tehsildar, issued a forged patta and provided false evidence – Directions for criminal action justified – Upheld by High Court [Paras 3-39].

Judicial Review – Certiorari and Mandamus – Scope and Limitations – Writ petition to quash order and prevent action against petitioner dismissed – No interference warranted when trial court followed procedure [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed. Collector, Chhatarpur directed to proceed with actions as per trial court’s recommendations.

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Appellants convicted under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, and 323 IPC – Based on eyewitness accounts, TIP, and recovery of weapons – High Court upholds conviction, finding no legal infirmity in trial court’s judgment – Evidence sufficiently corroborates prosecution’s case [Paras 1-20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Two key eyewitnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.6, provided consistent accounts of the incident – Their testimonies corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of weapons – High Court finds no contradictions or unreliability in their statements [Para 13].

Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Legality and Procedure – TIP conducted lawfully in presence of Magistrate – Accused properly identified by eyewitnesses – High Court dismisses contention of procedural lapses, confirming TIP’s validity [Paras 14-14.2].

Recovery of Weapon – Forensic Evidence – Lathi recovered from appellant Karni Singh found with bloodstains – Corroborates eyewitness testimony and strengthens prosecution’s case – High Court considers recovery as valid evidence [Paras 11.1, 17].

Motive and Intention – Prior Enmity – Prosecution established motive based on prior enmity between parties – Appellants acted with common intention to commit murder – High Court affirms conviction based on motive and cumulative evidence [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellants to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds cancelled [Paras 19-21].