Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Seizure of Contraband – Acquittal – Appeal by Prosecution – Respondents allegedly found in possession of 10,000 capsules of spasmo proxyvon containing Tramadol, a psychotropic substance – Trial court acquitted the respondents due to procedural lapses – High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 52, 52-A, and 57 of the NDPS Act – Sampling not conducted in the presence of a Magistrate – Delay in sending samples to FSL and contradictions in witness statements regarding seizure and sampling rendered the prosecution case doubtful – Held: Foundational facts of recovery and chain of custody not established beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 12, 18, 19, 22-25, 28].

NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Non-Compliance with Section 52-A – Prosecution failed to follow proper protocol for seizure and sampling – Samples not taken in presence of Magistrate or resealed as per statutory requirements – Executive Magistrate affixed seal without verifying contents of the packets – Held: Non-compliance with Section 52-A vitiates the credibility of the evidence and is fatal to the prosecution case [Paras 18-23].

Presumption of Culpability – Sections 35 and 54 of NDPS Act – Burden on prosecution to establish foundational facts – Prosecution failed to prove recovery of contraband through cogent and reliable evidence – Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 does not arise in absence of foundational facts – Held: Standard of proof required to invoke presumptions under NDPS Act is higher than general criminal cases due to stringent punishments under the Act [Paras 27-28].

Investigation Flaws – Breach of Mandatory Provisions – Investigation conducted in a casual and cavalier manner – FIR registered after initiation of investigation – Delay in forwarding samples to FSL – Non-compliance with Sections 52 and 57 of NDPS Act regarding reporting of seizure and arrest – Held: Such lapses undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court upheld acquittal of respondents – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Non-compliance with statutory safeguards under NDPS Act fatal to the case [Paras 29-30].
 

Electrocution – Negligence of Power Department – Compensation Awarded – The victim, aged eight at the time of the incident, suffered severe burns and amputation due to contact with an uncovered 11KV electric wire. The appellants admitted that the victim came into contact with a live wire but argued that he was at fault. Held, it was the duty of the Power Department to ensure public safety, and failure to insulate or secure the transformer amounted to negligence, making them liable for compensation [Paras 6-12].

Government Compensation Scheme – Not a Bar to Judicial Compensation – The appellants relied on Government Order No. 454-F of 2019, which prescribes ex-gratia relief of Rs. 7.5 lakhs for total disability and Rs. 2 lakhs for partial disability. Held, ex-gratia schemes cannot prevent constitutional courts from awarding just compensation to victims of state negligence. Compensation must be determined based on facts and the extent of disability, beyond statutory ex-gratia amounts [Paras 11-12].

No Contributory Negligence by Minor – The victim was eight years old at the time of the incident. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a child below seven years is incapable of committing a crime, and similar principles of incapacity apply under civil law. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not apply to minors. Held, the minor’s actions cannot absolve the appellants of liability [Paras 12-13].

Quantum of Compensation – Based on Disability and Future Needs – The victim suffered 78% disability, including amputation and severe burns. The Writ Court awarded Rs. 20 lakhs in compensation without itemizing heads. The Supreme Court’s principles in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, for determining compensation in motor accident cases were applied. Held, considering medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings, and cost of an artificial limb, the awarded compensation was reasonable and not excessive [Paras 14-15].

Delay in Filing Writ Petition – Explained and Justified – The incident occurred in 2007, and the writ petition was filed in 2018. The victim, a minor at the time, began pursuing his claim after attaining majority. Held, delay and laches cannot be a ground for rejection when the delay is satisfactorily explained, and the victim was legally incapacitated as a minor [Para 15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the Writ Court is upheld. The Power Development Department is directed to pay Rs. 20 lakhs to the victim along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the writ petition until realization. The court holds that state authorities must ensure public safety and compensate victims fairly in cases of negligence.
 

Criminal Law - Murder Conviction – Circumstantial and Direct Evidence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants were convicted for the murder of Gehal Singh based on eyewitness accounts and corroborative evidence – The prosecution witnesses, including the deceased’s son, consistently deposed that accused Hira Singh inflicted fatal injuries with a spade while co-accused Jasbir Kaur restrained the victim – The post-mortem confirmed sharp-edged injuries consistent with the weapon recovered at Hira Singh’s instance – Held: Minor discrepancies in testimonies do not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s case – The presence of the eyewitnesses was natural and their testimony was supported by medical and forensic evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 3-8, 13-17].

Reliability of Child Witness – No Mandatory Corroboration Required – Testimony Accepted – The defense challenged the reliability of Phuman Singh (PW-7), a 10-year-old eyewitness – Held: A child witness’s testimony can be accepted if found credible and not tutored – In this case, Phuman Singh’s presence at the crime scene was natural, and his testimony was consistent with other prosecution witnesses – Courts have upheld child witness testimonies if they withstand scrutiny and show no signs of tutoring – Conviction sustained based on corroborated testimony of PW-7 [Paras 14-17].

Delay in FIR Registration – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – The FIR was lodged approximately 8 hours after the incident – The defense argued that this delay indicated fabrication – Held: The delay was justified as the key eyewitnesses, being elderly and in shock, waited until morning to approach the police – Courts have held that delay in filing an FIR does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case unless there is proof of deliberation and false implication – No such evidence existed here – Conviction upheld [Paras 18-19].

Motive for Murder – Illicit Relationship Between Accused – Established Beyond Doubt – The prosecution established that Jasbir Kaur and Hira Singh were in an illicit relationship, leading to the murder of Gehal Singh – Witnesses confirmed that the deceased had objected to their relationship before his death – Held: Motive was clear and consistent with the circumstances – While motive alone cannot sustain a conviction, its presence reinforced the prosecution’s case – Appeal dismissed [Paras 20-21].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Limited Scope for Interference – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court and first appellate court arrived at consistent findings based on direct and circumstantial evidence – Held: High Court will not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or manifestly erroneous – The conviction was based on sound legal principles and reliable evidence – Appeal dismissed, and accused directed to surrender for serving their remaining sentence [Paras 21-22].
 

NDPS – Failure to Follow Procedural Safeguards – Acquittal Upheld – The respondents were acquitted by the Trial Court despite the recovery of 10,000 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon – State challenged the acquittal on the ground that prosecution evidence sufficiently proved possession and seizure – Held: Failure to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 52, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial – No independent witnesses were associated with the search and seizure, and there were contradictions in seizure memo, FIR timing, and forensic sampling – Acquittal upheld [Paras 10-12].

Search and Seizure – Violation of Section 52A NDPS Act – Sampling Not Done in Presence of Magistrate – The prosecution failed to produce seized drugs before a Magistrate for sampling and resealing, as required under Section 52A of NDPS Act – Samples were prepared and sealed by police personnel instead, without magistrate’s certification – Held: Procedural violations cast doubt on authenticity of seizure and sampling, leading to benefit of doubt for accused [Paras 13-16].

Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act – Failure to Establish Foundational Facts – No Reversal of Burden – The prosecution relied on presumptions of culpable mental state and possession under Sections 35 and 54 – Held: Presumptions apply only when foundational facts are established beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in prosecution case, failure to prove chain of custody, and missing procedural compliance negate applicability of these presumptions [Paras 20-22].

Unexplained Delay in Sending Samples to Forensic Lab – Genuineness of Seizure Questioned – The samples were sent to FSL after a significant delay, violating guidelines requiring dispatch within 72 hours – Held: Unexplained delay in forensic examination creates doubt regarding tampering and authenticity of seizure, benefiting the accused [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal Confirmed – The Court held that prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden, and procedural irregularities seriously undermined the case – Appeal dismissed – Concern expressed over casual and unscientific investigations in NDPS cases, urging stricter compliance with mandatory procedures [Paras 29-30].
 

Criminal Law – Bribery – Demand and Acceptance – Importance of Corroboration – Appeal against acquittal of the accused for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe – Held: Evidence of demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; discrepancies in the prosecution's case, such as failure to corroborate the complainant’s version and procedural lapses in conducting the trap, render the case weak – Acquittal upheld [Paras 29, 31, 33].

Evidence Law – Deficiencies in Pre-Trap and Post-Trap Panchanamas – Evidence revealed discrepancies in the pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas, particularly regarding the amount recovered – Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence – Held: Benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused [Paras 32, 34].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Defense challenged the validity of the sanction order on grounds of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority – Held: While the sanctioning authority's application of mind must be evident, the lapses in evidence on demand and acceptance were more critical to the case's failure [Paras 19, 25].

Defense Evidence – Rebutting Prosecution’s Case – Defense presented evidence of the accused being on sanctioned leave during the alleged incidents and produced logbook entries disproving the presence of the accused at the scene – Such evidence undermined the prosecution’s allegations – Held: Defense successfully rebutted charges [Paras 30, 33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of the respondent upheld – Prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 35–37].
 

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Applicant’s name appeared solely in the voluntary confessions of co-accused recorded during recovery proceedings – Held: Confessional statements of co-accused are inadmissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act in the absence of corroborative evidence – Prosecution failed to provide independent evidence linking the applicant to the crime – Rejection of discharge application quashed [Paras 11–14, 22–23].

Evidence Law – Confessions Before Police – Applicability of Sections 26 and 30 of the Evidence Act – Confessions made to police, even if voluntary, are inadmissible under Section 26 unless corroborated – Statements of co-accused cannot solely justify framing charges – Prosecution’s reliance on uncorroborated confessions was misplaced [Paras 13–14, 21–22].

Doctrine of Caution – Testimony of Co-Accused – Confessional statements of co-accused carry limited evidentiary value and must be corroborated by substantive evidence – Courts must be cautious in using such evidence to implicate others – Absence of corroboration warranted interference [Paras 11, 22].

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order of Sessions Court rejecting the discharge application set aside – Applicant discharged from Crime No. 26 of 1993 – Revision disposed of [Paras 23–24].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Application filed by Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 seeking rejection of plaint for cancellation of registered Sale Deed – Trial Court rejected application – Plaintiffs had prima facie raised triable issues based on registered transactional documents and alleged collusion between Defendants – Held: Cause of action disclosed – Issues require adjudication through trial – Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 5-7, 18-19, 22].

Injunction Order – Impact on Subsequent Transactions – Injunction issued in RCS No.669 of 2015 restraining Defendant No.1 from dealing with Suit property – Defendant Nos. 3 to 5's transactional documents executed despite subsisting injunction order – Plaintiffs argued this affected the legality of Defendants' Sale Deed – Court found this a significant triable issue requiring adjudication [Paras 11-13, 18].

Registered Sale Deeds – Discrepancies in Consideration – Discrepancy noted in payments recorded in Sale Deed of Defendant Nos.3 to 5 – Total payment recorded as Rs.2,15,00,000/-; however, documents showed payments amounting to Rs.1,32,85,000/- – Whether full consideration paid and title transferred to be determined through trial – Plaintiffs' cause of action based on earlier Agreement for Sale and Sale Deed upheld [Paras 14-17, 19-20].

Cause of Action – Plaint Prima Facie Discloses Right to Sue – Court observed that Plaintiffs' claim based on registered Agreement for Sale dated 24.07.2014 and Sale Deed dated 28.06.2018 disclosed a substantive cause of action – Not a case of clever drafting – Issues raised by Plaintiffs required trial for resolution [Paras 21-22].

Decision – CRA Dismissed – Order dated 17.10.2019 passed by Trial Court upheld – Suit to proceed to trial – Trial Court directed to expedite hearing – Observations made by High Court to have no bearing on the merits of the trial [Paras 23-27].

Civil Law – Injunction – Dispute Over Vahivat Road – Plaintiffs seeking injunction to prevent Defendants from using or obtaining NA permission for vahivat road allegedly curated for Plaintiffs' exclusive use – Trial Court granted injunction in favor of Plaintiffs – Appellate Court reversed Trial Court order – Held: Plaintiffs' claim based on prescription not substantiated with prima facie evidence – Vahivat road recorded as public road in Gram Panchayat records and maintained with public funds – Balance of convenience and irreparable harm favor Defendants as road provides sole access to Gat Nos. 720/1 and 720/2 – Trial Court order overturned [Paras 10-11, 18-23].

Ownership Claim – Prescription and Long Use – Plaintiffs claimed exclusive right over vahivat road citing long use and conversion into private road – No evidence of perfected legal title or ownership presented – Held: Plaintiffs' claim to ownership of road not substantiated – Gram Panchayat records indicate road as public – No prima facie case for exclusive use established [Paras 15-20, 23].

Public vs. Private Road – Evidence of Public Use – Defendants demonstrated vahivat road as public road based on Gram Panchayat records, Tahasildar’s report, and history of maintenance using public funds – Plaintiffs’ assertion of private ownership conflicted with public records – Held: Status of road as public road likely, subject to trial [Paras 18-22].

Balance of Convenience – Road Access to Defendants – Vahivat road is sole access for Defendants' properties – Restriction on Defendants' use of road would render properties landlocked – No alternate access established – Appellate Court rightly balanced equities in Defendants' favor while preserving Plaintiffs’ usage rights until trial [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Appellate Court orders in MCA Nos. 48 and 50 of 2024 upheld – Status quo maintained for eight weeks to allow Plaintiffs to approach Superior Court – Observations made in judgment to have no bearing on final trial outcome [Paras 25-27].

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against a Minor – Conviction and Sentence – Appellant convicted under Sections 363, 366 IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376 IPC – Trial Court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the POCSO offence, 3 years under Section 363 IPC, and 5 years under Section 366 IPC, all to run concurrently – Conviction challenged on grounds of insufficient proof of minority and implied consent of the victim – High Court upheld the Trial Court's findings, affirming the conviction and sentence – Held: Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the minority of the victim and the culpability of the accused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 8, 38-41].

Witness Testimony – Victim’s Account and Corroboration – Victim (PW-1) testified that the accused took her under the pretext of a medical visit, sexually assaulted her, and subsequently took her to Maharashtra, where she stayed with him for 20 days – Testimony corroborated by her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC and by her father (PW-2) and sister (PW-8), who confirmed her recovery with the accused in Maharashtra – Rinku (PW-3) corroborated their identification in Maharashtra – Held: Victim’s testimony was credible and sufficiently corroborated [Paras 22-24, 37].

Age of the Victim – Proof of Minority – Prosecution relied on the victim's school admission record (Ext. PW-14/E), which showed her date of birth as 17.03.2002, proving she was 14 years old at the time of the incident – Record prepared ante litem motam and deemed credible – High Court relied on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, holding that the school record was conclusive in the absence of matriculation or panchayat-issued birth certificates – Defense argument of record discrepancies rejected as unsubstantiated [Paras 13-21, 38].

Forensic Evidence – DNA Analysis – Forensic report (Ext. PW-16/E and PW-16/J) confirmed that semen stains on the recovered bed sheet matched the DNA profile of the accused – Corroborated the victim’s claim of sexual assault – Held: DNA evidence was reliable and provided strong corroboration to the victim’s testimony [Paras 35-36].

Victim’s Conduct – Irrelevance of Consent – Defense argued that the victim’s lack of resistance or hue and cry indicated consent – High Court rejected this argument, holding that the victim’s minority rendered consent irrelevant under the POCSO Act – Victim’s behavior during abduction and subsequent events did not absolve the accused of liability [Paras 37-38].

Sentence – Quantum of Punishment – Accused sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 3 years under Section 363 IPC, and 5 years under Section 366 IPC – Minimum prescribed sentence imposed under POCSO Act – Sentences under IPC provisions deemed appropriate given the age of the victim and seriousness of the offence – Held: No interference with the sentence warranted [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – High Court found no merit in the appeal – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 41-42].