Criminal Law – Rape and Aggravated Sexual Assault – Conviction Affirmed: Appellant convicted of raping a 7-year-old girl (P.W.2) and attempting to rape another minor (P.W.3) – Conviction based on the consistent and reliable testimonies of the victims, corroborated by medical evidence showing physical injuries consistent with sexual assault – Defense’s argument of false implication due to family disputes was rejected [Paras 1-30]. 

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Consistency: Sole eyewitnesses, the minor victims, provided consistent accounts of the assault – Testimonies of P.W.1 (mother of P.W.2) and P.W.4 (father of P.W.3) corroborated the victims' statements – Medical evidence confirmed injuries consistent with rape and attempted rape – Court held the victim testimonies as reliable and credible [Paras 10-21]. 

Procedural Compliance under POCSO Act: Delay in recording victim testimonies justified due to administrative constraints and the accused’s delay in engaging counsel – The court found the explanation for the delay plausible and not detrimental to the prosecution's case [Paras 29-30]. 

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the appellant affirmed – Appellant granted liberty to seek state government remission of the sentence considering mitigating factors and time already served [Para 31]. 

Criminal Law – Discharge Petition: Petitioner sought discharge in a case involving rash and negligent driving resulting in fatalities – Trial Court dismissed the discharge petition – High Court reviewed the material and found no sufficient ground for Section 304(ii) IPC but sufficient for Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Discharge petition partly allowed [Paras 1-14].

Facts and Circumstances – Application of Section 304(ii) IPC: Court held that facts did not warrant charge under Section 304(ii) IPC as the accused’s conduct, though rash and negligent, did not demonstrate the necessary knowledge to constitute culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Case more appropriately falls under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC [Paras 7-13].

Procedure under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC – Revision: High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the Trial Court’s procedure in considering the discharge petition but differed on the applicability of Section 304(ii) IPC – Revision partly allowed, and case directed for trial under appropriate sections [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal revision allowed in part – Charge under Section 304(ii) IPC set aside – Case remanded for trial under Sections 304-A, 337, and 338 IPC – Directed to be tried by Judicial Magistrate of the First Class [Para 14].

Promissory Note – Execution and Validity – Plaintiff claimed recovery based on a promissory note executed by the defendant – Defendant denied execution and alleged forgery – Trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff – High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the plaintiff’s successful discharge of the burden of proof regarding the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Defendant failed to substantiate the defense of forgery with sufficient evidence [Paras 1-21].

Burden of Proof – Shifting and Rebuttal – Court examined the application of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes the consideration for a promissory note unless disproved – Defendant’s failure to rebut the presumption adequately resulted in the confirmation of the trial court’s findings – Court highlighted the adequacy of plaintiff’s evidence through testimonies of witnesses and the lack of credible contradictory evidence from the defendant [Paras 17-20].

Signature Comparison – Judicial Review – Under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, court independently compared disputed signatures with admitted ones – Trial court and appellate court both found signatures to be identical – Court reiterated that judicial comparison of signatures is permissible and affirmed trial court’s decision [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs ordered – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of suit on grounds of being barred by law due to previous suit dismissal under Order IX Rule 9 CPC – Court examines whether suit is barred by law solely based on plaint averments – Held, suit not manifestly barred; averments did not disclose the suit as barred by law without defense consideration [Paras 1-22].

Previous Suits and Cause of Action – Earlier suits dismissed in default – New suit on same cause of action challenged – Petitioner’s application for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC dismissed – Order IX Rule 9 CPC applicability discussed – Fresh suit maintainable as per plaint averments without written statement defense [Paras 4-13].

Judicial Interpretation – Reference to precedents on plaint rejection – Supreme Court guidelines on Order VII Rule 11 CPC applicability reviewed – Only plaint averments considered; defense irrelevant at this stage [Paras 15-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned orders dated 21.04.2022 and 06.01.2024 upheld – No bar found under the law for filing the current suit [Para 21-23].

Rent Control – Bonafide Requirement – Eviction of Tenant –

Plaintiffs sought eviction of defendant from the suit premises for bonafide personal need and office use – Defendant contended possession of entire ground floor, claimed misrepresentation of facts – Courts below found plaintiffs’ requirement genuine and bonafide – Defendant’s claim of occupying four blocks without evidence rejected – Eviction upheld [Paras 1-25].

Nuisance and Annoyance – Tenant’s Conduct –

Defendant obstructed plaintiffs’ entry to the suit premises – Defendant falsely claimed entire property as tenancy, though only two blocks were rented – Conduct amounted to nuisance and annoyance – Eviction justified [Paras 26-29].

Default in Rent Payment – Tenant’s Obligation –

Defendant failed to pay rent after April 2009 and did not deposit arrears upon suit summons – Ground for eviction valid under MRC Act – Non-payment established [Paras 30-31].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – Eviction decree upheld – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on Petitioner-Defendant – Respondents entitled to withdraw deposited amounts with interest [Paras 32-33].

Lok Adalat Awards – Legitimacy of Settlements – The RSRTC challenged the National Lok Adalat awards on the grounds that the counsel who signed the settlements was unauthorized. The court held that the awards, passed under the RSRTC's policy allowing reinstatement without back wages, were valid and binding. It emphasized that Lok Adalat awards have the same finality as a civil court decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. RSRTC's plea to invalidate the awards on technical grounds was rejected [Paras 1-25].

Estoppel Against RSRTC – The court noted that RSRTC's actions, including not challenging the panel counsel who signed the settlement and continuing to entrust him with further briefs, amounted to estoppel. RSRTC cannot disown the consent given before the Lok Adalat and must adhere to the settlement [Paras 12-15].

Finality and Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – The awards passed by the Lok Adalat are final and binding as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The court reinforced that such awards should not be overturned on technicalities unless fraud or jurisdictional issues are evident [Paras 18-23].

Decision: The writ petitions filed by RSRTC against the National Lok Adalat awards were dismissed. The petitions by workmen for the implementation of the awards were allowed, with the court directing RSRTC to implement the awards within three months, failing which the workmen would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000 each [Paras 23-26].

Taxation Law – Refund and Interest – Petitioner, a registered dealer under DVAT and CST Acts, sought refund of excess tax paid for the fourth quarter of AY 2016-17 and the first quarter of AY 2017-18 – Petitioner provided ‘C’ forms for concessional rate of interest – Refund claims not processed timely; petitioner moved writ petitions – Respondents eventually sanctioned refunds but without interest – Petitioner challenged orders rejecting interest on the delayed refunds – High Court held that petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on delayed refunds as per Section 42 of DVAT Act [Paras 1-27].

Legal Proceedings – Mandate of Section 42 DVAT Act – Court emphasized the mandatory nature of time limits set under Section 38 of DVAT Act for processing refunds – Delay in processing refunds cannot defeat the statutory right to interest – Court set aside impugned orders rejecting interest on refunds – Directed Respondents to grant simple interest at 6% per annum from the date refund was due till the payment date [Paras 16-27].

Procedure – Requirement of Filing DVAT-21 Form – Court reiterated that once a refund claim is made in the return, there is no additional obligation to file Form DVAT-21 – Refund claims embedded in the returns must be processed within the statutory period [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders rejecting interest on delayed refunds set aside – Respondents directed to pay simple interest at 6% per annum on the refunded amounts – Interest to be computed from the date the refund was due as per the statutory provisions – Refund and interest to be paid within four weeks from the judgment date [Para 27].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged the decision of the NCDRC upholding compensation for medical negligence – Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – High Court emphasized supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to courts and tribunals within its territorial limits – Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-14].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals situated outside its territorial limits – Reference to L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and subsequent case law confirming jurisdictional limits [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The High Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise decisions of tribunals outside its territorial limits – Reaffirmed need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries [Para 14-15].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].