Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the informant by assaulting and throwing her out of a moving car – Trial court’s judgment re-evaluated – Prosecution’s evidence primarily from the informant’s testimony – Reliability of the victim’s testimony upheld despite minor inconsistencies – Injury classified as simple by medical evidence – Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; conviction modified to Section 323 IPC for voluntary causing hurt – Sentence reduced accordingly [Paras 1-21].

Victim's Testimony – Credibility – Informant’s detailed account of assault in the car, corroborated by medical evidence and testimony of the truck driver who provided assistance – Prosecution’s evidence considered sufficient to support conviction for causing simple injuries voluntarily – No substantial evidence supporting intent to kill [Paras 7-21].

Modification of Sentence – Given the nature of injuries as simple, conviction altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 323 IPC – Sentence reduced to six months' simple imprisonment and fine – Relief of set-off for time already served granted [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside – Appellant convicted under Section 323 IPC – Sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, with a default sentence of one month – Trial court to ensure execution of the modified sentence [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings alleging trespass and property damage – Court quashed proceedings under Section 188 IPC due to lack of a complaint from a public servant as mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C. – For offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC, Court found no evidence of an injunction order violation by the petitioners – No trespass or mischief proven – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-6].

Procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. – Requirement for a complaint from a public servant for cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC – Court held cognizance by the Magistrate illegal due to absence of such a complaint – Emphasized statutory requirement for complaint to be from a public servant concerned [Para 4].

Evidence and Documentation – Court’s review of final report and related documents showed no proof of the injunction order being violated – Prosecution failed to produce evidence of injunction, rendering charges under Sections 447 and 427 IPC untenable [Para 5].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case Allowed – Held – All further proceedings against petitioners in CC No. 114/2013 arising from Crime No. 721/2012 quashed – Emphasized requirement of proper evidence to sustain charges of trespass and mischief [Para 6].

Arbitral Award – Section 37 of A&C Act – Appeal challenging dismissal of application under Section 34 – Directorate General Married Accommodation Project (DGMAP) filed intra-court appeal against dismissal of application challenging arbitral award – High Court upheld arbitral award, affirming decision of single judge and rejecting grounds of challenge by DGMAP – Emphasis on procedural fairness and non-interference with arbitral findings unless perversity or patent illegality established [Paras 1-62].

Evidentiary Matters – Evidence Evaluation by Arbitral Tribunal – DGMAP’s challenge to the tribunal's assessment of the final bill and counterclaims rejected – Tribunal's decision based on detailed evaluation of evidence and procedural fairness upheld by High Court – Importance of adherence to procedural protocols and ample opportunity for evidence presentation emphasized [Paras 32-41].

Final Bill and Counterclaims – Rejection of DGMAP’s Final Bill – High Court upheld arbitral tribunal's rejection of DGMAP’s final bill citing lack of credible evidence – Counterclaims based on incomplete and unverified documentation dismissed – Tribunal's detailed reasoning and evaluation deemed plausible and not perverse [Paras 38-42].

Patent Illegality and Procedural Fairness – No Ground for Setting Aside Award – High Court found no patent illegality or procedural unfairness in arbitral award – Tribunal’s decision to reject DGMAP’s requests for additional submissions at final argument stage justified – Full opportunity for evidence and argumentation provided to both parties [Paras 33-35, 52-58].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral award upheld – High Court emphasized non-interference with arbitral findings barring evident procedural unfairness or patent illegality [Para 61].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and sentence for dishonoured cheque – Petitioner issued cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- which was dishonoured – Trial Court convicted petitioner, sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and ordered compensation of Rs. 4,05,000/- – Conviction upheld by Additional Sessions Judge – Petitioner deposited compensation amount, sought compounding of offence – Respondent-complainant agreed to compounding [Paras 1-6]. 

Compounding of Offence – Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Entire compensation paid – No objection from respondent for compounding – Court compounded offence as per Section 147 and Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and 5% of cheque amount as compounding fee [Paras 7-8]. 

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Offence compounded – Petitioner acquitted – Litigation cost and compounding fee imposed – Amount deposited to be released to complainant – Compliance within four weeks mandated to avoid penal consequences [Para 8]. 

Eviction Proceedings – Non-Maintenance and Ill-Treatment – Petitioner challenged eviction from mother's property – Allegation of harassment and non-compliance with procedural rules – High Court found procedural defects in issuance of show cause notice and lack of verification of title by District Collector – Impugned order set aside, remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1-26].

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens – Procedural Compliance – Rule 21(3) stipulates summary proceedings for eviction based on non-maintenance/ill-treatment – Collector's failure to follow prescribed steps including verification of property title and specific grounds in show cause notice – Emphasized need for strict adherence to procedure to prevent misuse and ensure fairness [Paras 10-22].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned eviction order dated 07.03.2024 set aside – Case remanded to District Collector for reconsideration with directions to follow proper procedure – Respondent No. 2 to complete process within 60 days [Paras 23-26].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Girija Devi – Eyewitness account from the informant (mother-in-law of the deceased) contradicted by her own statements and other witnesses declared hostile – Conviction based on unreliable sole testimony – No motive or recovery of the weapon – Appellant acquitted due to lack of evidence [Paras 1-30].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Sole eyewitness, the mother-in-law of the deceased, found unreliable due to contradictions in her testimony and statements of other witnesses who turned hostile – Court emphasizes necessity for credible and consistent witness testimony for conviction [Paras 9-11, 23].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – Majority of witnesses, including Punam Kumari @ Sonam Kumari (PW-2), Sangita Devi (PW-7), and Saroti Kumari (PW-8), declared hostile – Prosecution’s inability to establish case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroborative evidence from witnesses [Paras 7, 10-14].

Evidence – Weapon Recovery and Motive – No recovery of weapon used in the alleged crime – Lack of clear motive and any incriminating material found at the place of occurrence (P.O.) – Prosecution’s failure to provide substantive evidence linking the appellant to the crime [Paras 20-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted due to insufficient evidence – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 26-32].
 

Mesne Profits – Determination and Liability - Revision application challenging the order for mesne profits post-termination of lease – Defendant in unlawful possession – Plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits from date of lease termination – Court draws adverse inference against defendant for withholding profit information – Valuation based on Ready Reckoner rates upheld – No error in Appellate Bench directing payment till possession delivery [Paras 1-42].

Inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC – Scope and Application - Appellate Court has authority to correct trial court’s error and ensure mesne profits awarded until actual possession transfer – Provisions under Order XLI Rule 33 permit granting relief not sought in cross-objections – Judicial notice of property valuation trends applied appropriately [Paras 12-14, 27-30, 33-38].

Conduct of Public Sector Undertakings – Duty to Act Fairly - BPCL’s conduct criticized for allowing agent to use premises post-lease termination – Court emphasizes duty of fairness for public sector entities – Liability for mesne profits upheld despite agent’s occupation [Paras 22-25].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Orders by Small Causes Court and Appellate Bench upheld – BPCL directed to pay mesne profits until delivery of possession – Court underscores need for adherence to procedural fairness by public sector undertakings [Para 42].
 

Prevention of Corruption – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant, a junior clerk, was convicted for accepting a bribe for influencing a judicial officer – Conviction based on evidence of demand, acceptance, and chemical analysis confirming phenolphthalein powder – Court noted that the charge framed under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was inappropriate as it should have been under Sections 7 and 13 – Prosecution lacked proper sanction under Section 19 of the Act – Conviction quashed, liberty granted to seek fresh sanction and retry if necessary [Paras 1-61].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Essential Proof – Reiterated that for conviction under Sections 7 and 13, demand and acceptance must be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence – Constitution Bench's ruling on the necessity of proving both elements emphasized – Deficiencies in procedural handling noted [Paras 30-32].

Procedural Errors – Effect of Wrong Charge – Erroneous charge under Section 8, instead of Section 7 and 13 – Held that absence of sanction and incorrect framing of charges invalidated the trial – Retrial permissible with appropriate sanction [Paras 49-53].

Defective Investigation – Not a Ground for Acquittal – Court held that defective investigation alone does not warrant acquittal if substantive evidence is available – Importance of fair trial and due process for the accused balanced with public interest in upholding the integrity of the judiciary [Paras 34-36, 57-58].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed – Case remanded for potential retrial upon obtaining proper sanction [Para 61].

Freedom of Press – Sting Operation – Legal Boundaries – Petitioners, media persons, conducted a sting operation inside a jail to record an accused’s statement. The Court emphasized the critical role of the press in a democracy but highlighted the necessity of adhering to legal boundaries. It underscored that while the media has significant freedom, this does not exempt it from legal consequences if actions contravene established laws. The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 86 and 87 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, which prohibit unauthorized communication and possession of recording devices inside a jail. [Paras 1-16]

Sting Operation – Public Interest vs. Legal Restrictions – The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments noting that sting operations, while sometimes serving public interest, must still adhere to legal standards. It distinguished between lawful investigative journalism and unlawful acts, stressing that intent and adherence to laws are pivotal. The Court cited the necessity for media operations to balance investigative zeal with legal constraints, ensuring actions do not infringe on individual rights or statutory provisions. [Paras 10-15]

Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Malafide Intent – The petitioners’ actions, aimed at news gathering without malafide intent, were acknowledged. Considering the lack of actual recording and the preventive action by jail authorities, the Court ruled continuation of prosecution unnecessary. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, recognizing the petitioners’ over-enthusiastic but non-malafide attempt to gather news, thus underscoring the balance between press freedom and legal adherence. [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed. Proceedings against petitioners in ST.No.2065/2014 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1123/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station quashed.