Income Tax – Unexplained Cash Deposits – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 47,30,000/- deposited in his bank account – Claimed cash belonged to Kana Ram, who sold an immovable property but had no bank account – Kana Ram’s contrary statement led to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- as income – Tribunal and lower authorities upheld the addition – Appeal dismissed – Court found no substantial question of law [Paras 1-10].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Assessee – Appellant’s explanation deemed insufficient – Kana Ram’s lack of tax returns or proof of immovable property sale contributed to the decision – Reliance on earlier judgments regarding unexplained investments and cash credits [Paras 4-7].

Concurrent Findings – No interference required – Both appellate authorities’ decisions consistent – No substantial question of law identified [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of appellate authorities upheld.

Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts – Execution of Arbitral Award – Petitioners contested the execution of an arbitral award by the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, claiming that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court due to pecuniary limits. The Principal District Judge’s decision was challenged, citing the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which specifies that only the Commercial Court can handle execution petitions for amounts above the set pecuniary limit [Paras 1-13].

Commercial Courts Act – Amendment and Pecuniary Jurisdiction – The court noted that the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act was amended in 2018, reducing the limit from Rs. 1,00,00,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Consequently, the execution petition should be handled by the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam, as the amount involved was Rs. 46,46,965/-, which is above the amended limit [Paras 7, 13].

Principal District Judge’s Authority – Arbitral Awards – The Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, was deemed to lack jurisdiction to handle the execution petition following the 2018 amendment. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction now lies with the Commercial Court in matters exceeding Rs. 3,00,000/- [Paras 9-12].

Stay of Judgment and Impact on Current Proceedings – Although the petitioners’ relied upon a Division Bench judgment, the Supreme Court had stayed this judgment. However, the stay did not nullify the principles established, which continue to apply to similar cases unless suspended [Para 15].

Decision – Petition Allowed – The proceedings before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, were set aside. The respondent was granted leave to transfer the execution petition to the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam or file a fresh execution petition in the appropriate court [Para 16].

Urban Development – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners challenged provisional orders for demolition of buildings constructed on leased land – Claimed construction followed legal requirements and sought regularization – Court directed authorities to follow due process, consider petitioners’ explanations, and provide fair hearing – Emphasized demolition only if public interest or safety is affected [Paras 1-55].

Administrative Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners argued respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, without proper enquiry or opportunity for hearing – Court reinforced requirement for due process and fair hearing in administrative actions – Directed authorities to objectively verify records and consider explanations before proceeding [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed – Held – Respondent authorities must follow due procedure in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to submit additional explanations – No coercive steps to be taken during pending proceedings – Authorities to ensure fair and objective decision-making [Para 55].

Criminal Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 498-A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act – Appellants sought discharge on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction, contending harassment occurred in Kurnool, not Visakhapatnam – Special Judge found continuous offence and dismissed discharge petitions – High Court affirmed, stating no merit in jurisdictional argument as alleged offence was continuing – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Discharge of Accused – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Grounds for Discharge – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant in Crl.A.No.318 of 2024 argued no allegations against her in charge sheet or witness statements – High Court upheld dismissal of discharge petitions, emphasizing charge sheet and statements revealed sufficient material against all appellants – No basis for discharge [Paras 11-14].

Decision: Criminal Appeals dismissed – Orders by Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SC & ST (POA) Act, Visakhapatnam, upheld – No merit found in appeals [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Gang Rape – Appellants convicted under Sections 376-D/34 and 376-DA/34 IPC, and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 – Sentenced to life imprisonment and fines – Trial Court’s decision based on victim’s testimony and forensic evidence – Appeals challenge credibility of victim and adequacy of medical evidence [Paras 1-12].

Credibility of Victim’s Testimony – Victim’s deposition inconsistent – Victim admitted not knowing appellants prior to incident, raising doubts on her ability to identify perpetrators – Lack of corroborative evidence and discrepancies in victim’s statements undermine prosecution case [Paras 13-19].

Medical Evidence – No injuries found on victim’s body – Hymen intact – Forensic evidence inconclusive as appellants were not medically examined, violating Cr.P.C. Section 53A – Lapse in forensic procedures critical in undermining prosecution case [Paras 20-23].

Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to conduct thorough investigation – No independent witnesses examined – Failure to medically examine appellants and gather comprehensive forensic evidence noted as major investigative lapses [Paras 24-28].

Defense Arguments – Appellants argue false implication due to personal enmity – Defense highlights inconsistencies in prosecution’s case and victim’s testimony – Defense’s narrative of victim’s father’s motives considered plausible [Paras 29-36].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case [Paras 46-49].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 307, 324, 34 RPC, and Section 4/25 Arms Act – Conviction under Section 307 RPC reduced from seven years to three years, other sentences upheld – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside due to lack of evidence regarding weapon dimensions – Appellants directed to surrender within 15 days [Paras 1-35].

Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions and Reliability – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements regarding weapon types and sequence of events – Held not sufficient to discredit the overall prosecution case – Testimony of injured and eyewitnesses considered reliable – Supreme Court principles on ocular evidence and injured witness reliability applied [Paras 8-22].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapons – Admissibility issues – Weapons produced by accused, not recovered through disclosure – Held inadmissible but did not affect overall conviction due to strong eyewitness testimony – Supreme Court precedents on recovery of weapons cited [Paras 23-24].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit under Section 4 denied – Offence under Section 307 RPC punishable with life imprisonment, thus not eligible for probation – Supreme Court precedent on probation applicability referenced [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Section 307/34 and 324/34 RPC upheld with reduced sentence – Conviction under Section 4/25 Arms Act set aside – Appellants directed to surrender for sentence execution – Trial court record and judgment copy sent back [Paras 34-35].

Maintenance – Muslim Law – Talaak Validity – Petitioner challenged the Revisional Court’s order directing him to pay maintenance – Contended divorce (Talaak) pronounced validly, relieving him of obligations – High Court upheld Revisional Court’s decision – Talaak must be proven with efforts for reconciliation, valid reason, presence of just witnesses, and pronouncement during Tuhr without intercourse – Petitioner failed to meet these criteria [Paras 1-11].

Section 488 CrPC – Maintenance Claims – Evidence and Reconciliation Efforts – Revisional Court rightly considered facts – Divorce not proven as per Islamic law and legal requirements – Maintenance of Rs.3000 per month affirmed – Petition dismissed [Paras 6-11].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Revisional Court’s order upheld, petitioner to pay maintenance – Emphasis on proper adherence to Islamic principles for divorce [Para 11].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction on Basis of Hostile Witness Testimony – Appellants Suresh Mehto and Rajnarayan @ Rajkumar Mehto were convicted for the murder of Pradeep Kumar Paswan. Conviction was primarily based on statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by witnesses who later turned hostile. The Court held that such statements are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction. Conviction set aside due to lack of direct or circumstantial evidence and absence of motive [Paras 7-20].

Statement Under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Not Substantive Evidence – The statements of PW-3 Soniya and PW-4 Ajay Yadav recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were given under police pressure. The Court emphasized that such statements alone cannot substantiate conviction. Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents affirming the limited evidentiary value of Section 164 statements [Paras 17-20].

Motive – Absence of Evidence – The prosecution failed to assign any motive to the appellants for committing the crime. The absence of any motive further weakened the prosecution’s case. The evidence, primarily based on statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 18-19].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution Case – All key witnesses, including PW-3 and PW-4, turned hostile during the trial. Their court testimonies contradicted their earlier statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., thereby nullifying their utility for the prosecution. The Court noted that the statements under police pressure do not hold substantive value [Paras 10-13, 19].

Lack of Corroborative Evidence – Besides the hostile witness testimonies, there was no other direct or circumstantial evidence to link the appellants to the crime. The prosecution’s failure to provide corroborative evidence significantly weakened its case, leading to the acquittal of the appellants [Paras 19-20].

Decision:
Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 21-22].
 

Domestic Violence – Residence Order – Petitioner, an elderly woman, sought protection under the PWDV Act to continue residing in her shared household – Magistrate granted residence order – Respondents, including petitioner’s son and daughter-in-law, contested citing financial liabilities and a previous tribunal order for alternative accommodation – Sessions Court vacated residence order, directing alternative accommodation [Paras 1-13].

Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act – Necessity for harmonizing provisions of the PWDV Act with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act – Court emphasized that the PWDV Act does not override the necessity to balance rights of aggrieved women with financial realities and rights of respondents – Sessions Court’s direction for alternative accommodation affirmed, modifying it to ensure financial provision for rent [Paras 6-14].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition disposed of – Sessions Court judgment affirmed with modification – Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs for petitioner’s rent and maintenance – Petitioner to make similar deposits as needed to maintain alternative accommodation [Paras 14-15].