Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Wife’s abusive conduct, repeated complaints, abandonment of child and refusal to cohabit proved – Custody of minor child with father upheld – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000 per month justified – Appeals dismissed [Paras 17–24].

Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Mental Cruelty – Evidence established that wife used abusive and derogatory language towards husband and his parents, filed multiple complaints before various forums, disrupted panchayaths and conciliation proceedings, and consistently expressed unwillingness to continue marital life – Conduct not ordinary wear and tear of marriage but grave and weighty – Finding of cruelty by Family Court affirmed [Paras 13–17, 19].

Desertion – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Animus Deserendi – Wife admitted living separately since 30.04.2014 – Continuous separation for more than two years preceding filing of petition established – No bona fide effort to resume cohabitation – Ingredients of desertion satisfied – Decree of divorce rightly granted [Paras 13.8, 18, 20].

Child Custody – Guardians and Wards Act – Welfare of Child – Minor daughter abandoned by mother in 2014 and remained continuously in custody of father and paternal grandparents – Child cared for by father since infancy – Mother sought custody only after matrimonial dispute escalated – No evidence of incapacity of father or grandparents – Custody with father held to be legal and in the best interest of the child – Only visitation rights to mother upheld [Paras 17–18.1].

Conduct of Mother – Abandonment of Child – Evidence including Ex.P6 showed wife voluntarily relinquished custody of minor child during conciliation proceedings – Lack of emotional attachment and unwillingness to care for child established – Subsequent custody proceedings held not bona fide [Paras 13.2–13.6, 17].

Maintenance – Interim and Permanent Alimony – Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act – Husband earning Rs.2,14,398/- per month and wife earning Rs.38,200/- per month – Husband bearing responsibility of minor child and aged parents – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month reasonable and proportionate – No material change in circumstances shown – Maintenance order upheld [Paras 21–22].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – Concurrent findings based on oral and documentary evidence – No perversity or misreading of evidence demonstrated – Appellate court declined to reappreciate evidence merely because an alternative view is possible [Paras 14–16, 24].

Decision: MFA No. 645 of 2024, MFA No. 546 of 2024 and MFA No. 1681 of 2024 dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04/12/2023 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru affirmed – Decree of divorce upheld – Custody of minor child with father confirmed – Permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month sustained – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 24].

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act for committing repeated rape on a minor girl aged about 13 years, resulting in pregnancy – Trial Court sentenced appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years – On appeal, High Court finds no perversity or illegality in appreciation of evidence – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 1, 7, 54–55].

Victim Testimony – Credibility – Sole Testimony Sufficient – Evidence of prosecutrix found cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Minor contradictions and alleged delay in disclosure held natural considering age, threat and trauma of victim – Corroboration available from medical evidence and surrounding circumstances – Held: Conviction can safely rest on credible testimony of victim [Paras 32–34, 53–54].

Age of Victim – Proof – School Records and Medical Opinion – Date of birth established through school admission register extract and testimony of Headmaster – Radiological age estimation supported prosecution case – Defence did not seriously dispute minority during trial – Held: Victim was a “child” within meaning of Section 2(d) of POCSO Act at time of offence [Paras 50–51].

DNA Evidence – Evidentiary Value – DNA report conclusively established appellant as biological father of child born to victim – Objections regarding procedure in collection and preservation of samples rejected – Conviction not based solely on DNA evidence but on cumulative appreciation of ocular, medical and scientific evidence [Paras 49, 52].

Medical Evidence – Pregnancy of Minor – Medical testimony proved victim was pregnant for about 23 weeks at time of examination – Delivery of male child during pendency of proceedings corroborated prosecutrix’s version of repeated sexual assault [Paras 37, 47].

Hostile Panch Witnesses – Effect – Panch witnesses to spot mahazar turned hostile – Held: Mere hostility of panch witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when substantive evidence of victim and other witnesses inspires confidence [Paras 35, 54].

Statutory Presumption – Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act – Once foundational facts proved, statutory presumption of guilt and culpable mental state operates against accused – Appellant failed to rebut presumption by leading any defence evidence – Benefit of doubt not available [Paras 53–54].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court, in appeal against conviction, will not reappreciate evidence merely to take a different view unless findings of Trial Court are perverse or contrary to record – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 52–55].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Kolar, confirmed – Records directed to be transmitted to Trial Court [Paras 55].

Partition – Joint Family Property – Second Appeal – Divergent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court – Trial Court decreed suit for partition holding that suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties and that alleged oral partition of 1972 and registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 were not binding on plaintiffs – First Appellate Court reversed the decree holding that parties had already partitioned in 1972 and acted upon the same – High Court reappreciating evidence in light of substantial questions of law – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court erroneous and unsustainable – Judgment of Trial Court restored [Paras 1, 16, 31–32].

Partition – Proof of Prior Oral Partition – Unregistered Palupatti dated 03.11.1972 – Evidentiary Value – Defendants relied on unregistered document to contend severance of joint family – No cogent documentary evidence showing allotment of specific shares or mutation pursuant to 1972 partition – Revenue records and RTCs continued to reflect joint names of parties – Held: Mere plea of oral partition without reliable corroboration insufficient to prove earlier partition [Paras 4, 7, 24, 30].

Registered Partition Deed – Allegation of Fraud and Incapacity – Partition deed dated 21.12.2004 – Plaintiffs pleaded that their father was illiterate, aged, suffering from burn injuries and was taken to Sub-Registrar’s Office in an autorickshaw – Evidence of DWs admitted poor health and burn injuries of executant – No recital in registered deed regarding prior partition of 1972 – Held: Circumstances surrounding execution raise serious doubt about free and conscious consent – Trial Court rightly held partition deed not binding on plaintiffs [Paras 19–20, 25, 29–30].

Joint Re-grant of Inam Lands – Effect – Properties re-granted jointly in favour of plaintiffs’ father and defendant under Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act – Mutation entries and RTCs showed joint cultivation and possession – Subsequent grant in sole name of defendant did not negate earlier joint cultivation evidenced by records – Held: Suit properties retained joint family character and were liable for partition [Paras 18, 23–24, 31].

Evidence – Documentary Evidence versus Oral Testimony – Registered documents and revenue records showing joint names prevailed over interested oral testimony of defence witnesses – DWs found to be interested and inconsistent – Admissions by defendants regarding joint execution of sale deeds and joint dealings – Held: Trial Court correctly appreciated evidence; First Appellate Court misdirected itself in law [Paras 25–30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in reversing Trial Court decree without material proof of earlier partition – High Court held that reversal was based on inadmissible and insufficient evidence – Interference justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 11, 16, 31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 07.02.2020 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 19.07.2019 restored.

Criminal Law - Sections 8(c), 21, 25, 27-A, 28 and 29 NDPS Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of Innocence – Trial Court Acquittal – Held: Appellate court can interfere only if findings are perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Where trial court view is a possible and plausible view, acquittal cannot be reversed merely because another view is possible [Paras 15–16, 18].

Search and Seizure – Sections 42 and 43 NDPS Act – Public Place Search – Alleged seizure at toll plaza – Prosecution contended applicability of Section 43 – Trial court held non-compliance of Section 42 – Evidence disclosed receipt of prior information and procedural lapses – Held: Trial court justified in holding violation of mandatory safeguards – Entire proceedings vitiated [Paras 17–24, 36].

Confessional Statement – Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntariness – Accused allegedly confined overnight and kept under restraint – Statement containing technical legal terminology – Held: Statement not voluntary and hit by Section 36 of Evidence Act – No evidentiary value could be attached to such statement [Paras 25–26, 31–32].

Independent Witnesses – Panch Witnesses Turning Hostile – Non-examination of Material Witness – Driver of vehicle not examined – Complainant not examined despite opportunity – Held: Serious infirmities in prosecution case – Adverse inference rightly drawn by trial court [Paras 17, 27, 31].

Possession of Contraband – Exclusive Possession – Prosecution failed to establish conscious and exclusive possession of 5.800 kg heroin – Contradictions in evidence of official witnesses – Independent corroboration absent – Held: Presumption under Sections 35 and 54 NDPS Act not attracted [Paras 27, 31, 37].

Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 27-A and 29 NDPS Act – Evidence Against Co-accused – Case against A2 to A4 based solely on alleged statement of co-accused – Retraction of confession – Delay in arraying accused – Held: No reliable evidence of conspiracy or role of co-accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 33–35].

Compliance with NDPS Safeguards – Sections 50, 52, 55 and 57 – Custody and sealing procedures – Failure to hand over seal to independent witnesses – Non-production before nearest police station – Held: Procedural safeguards not complied with – Prosecution case rendered doubtful [Paras 30–31].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 14.10.2011 passed in Spl. Case No. 46/2005 by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge (NDPS), Tumkur affirmed – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law - Electricity Act, 2003 – Theft of Electric Lines – Conviction – Accused convicted for theft of copper wires from 66 K.V. electricity transmission line under Section 136 of Electricity Act read with Section 379 IPC – Prosecution proved interruption of supply, theft of 800 meters of copper wire and recovery of stolen material at the instance of accused – Conviction upheld [Paras 2, 18–21].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Recovery at Instance of Accused – Evidence of complainant (Junior Engineer, KPTCL), Assistant Lineman and Investigating Officer found cogent and reliable – Recovery of stolen copper wires and tools from Tata Sumo vehicle and forest area proved through seizure and spot mahazars – Hostility of some recovery witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when official and corroborative evidence inspires confidence [Paras 10–15, 18–20].

Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Independent witnesses to recovery mahazar (PWs.6 to 8) turned hostile – Held: Prosecution case does not fail merely because panch witnesses turned hostile when recovery is otherwise proved through trustworthy evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses [Paras 15–20].

Section 136 Electricity Act – Ingredients – Proof – Prosecution established dishonest intention, unauthorised removal of electric property, identification of stolen wires belonging to KPTCL and lack of consent of owner/licensee – Essential ingredients of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 8, 18–20].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Benefit of probation declined considering nature of offence involving organised theft of public utility property and gravity of economic loss caused to State electricity infrastructure [Para 5].

Criminal Procedure – Set-off – Section 428 Cr.P.C. – Accused arrested on 25.09.2010 and remained in custody till release on bail on 13.09.2012 – Having already undergone one year, eleven months and eighteen days of sentence out of two years imposed – Held: Entitled to set-off of period of detention under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [Paras 22–27].

Sentence – Modification – Conviction confirmed – Sentence modified by granting set-off for period already undergone – No useful purpose in remanding accused to custody for remaining few days [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 136 Electricity Act and Section 379 IPC confirmed – Sentence modified by granting benefit of set-off – Appellants directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case – Bail bonds cancelled [Order].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based Solely on Section 313 CrPC Statement – Appellant convicted for dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 IPC solely on the basis of admission recorded under Section 313 CrPC – No prosecution witness of fact examined – Only formal witness (P.W.1) proved FIR and charge-sheet – Held: Statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot form sole basis for conviction [Paras 12–13, 16–23, 28]

Confession – Voluntariness and Validity – Appellant moved multiple applications expressing fear for life and desire to remain in jail – No legal representation provided – Confession influenced by fear – Held: Admission not free from fear or voluntary in the legal sense – Cannot be relied upon for conviction [Paras 24–26]

Fair Trial – Right to Legal Representation – No legal aid provided to appellant at trial – No evidence that he was informed of his rights or defended by a lawyer – Held: Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 304 CrPC – Trial vitiated [Paras 26–27]

Evidence – Statement under Section 313 CrPC – Not on oath – Cannot be equated with testimony – Cannot substitute prosecution evidence – Must be read in conjunction with legally admissible evidence – Held: Conviction without prosecution evidence and based solely on 313 CrPC statement is unsustainable [Paras 18–21]

Precedents – Relied on decisions of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Premchand v. State of Maharashtra, Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, Pramod @ Bhoka v. State of Chhattisgarh, Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam – Held: Consistent judicial view that Section 313 CrPC statement alone cannot support conviction [Paras 18–21]

Long Incarceration – Appellant spent nearly 24 years in custody despite absence of incriminating evidence – Held: Continuing detention would be miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed – Appellant to be released forthwith unless wanted in other case [Paras 27–30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 05.02.2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 395 and 397 IPC set aside – Appellant Azad Khan acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case – Appellant to execute personal bond under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Acid Attack – Conviction under Sections 326/34 and 304/34 IPC – Appeals against conviction – FIR held ante-timed – Effect of ante-timing – FIR shown to be registered at 6:30 a.m. but evidence established that informant returned from Delhi only around 7:45 a.m. and FIR was lodged after consultation around 9:00 a.m. – Held: FIR clearly ante-timed and belonging to category affecting prosecution case – Ante-timed FIR requires cautious scrutiny of prosecution evidence [Paras 32–38, 68–72].

Evidence Appreciation – Ocular Testimony – Injured Witness – PW-2 (injured son) gave detailed account but admitted at end of testimony that all were asleep and he did not know anything – Material self-contradiction going to root of prosecution case – Injured witness though generally accorded higher weight, testimony liable to be discarded if wholly unreliable – Held: Evidence of PW-2 not trustworthy [Paras 49–50, 59–60, 73].

Evidence Appreciation – Eye-witness Testimony – PW-3 (daughter of deceased) – Claimed to have witnessed acid attack while awake – Version found inherently improbable and self-contradictory – Contradictions regarding sequence of events, manner of assault, role of accused, and position of witnesses – Material inconsistencies with testimony of injured witness – Held: PW-3 not a reliable eye-witness [Paras 55–57, 65–67].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Material Discrepancies – Inconsistent accounts as to who poured acid on deceased – One witness attributing fatal act to Bablu, another to Anil – Discrepancies regarding resistance by victims, running to hydrant, physical scuffle – Not minor variations but contradictions on core incident – Held: Prosecution failed to present a coherent and consistent version [Paras 62–67, 74].

Motive – Double-edged Weapon – Prior conviction of two appellants for rape of informant’s daughter – Possible motive for accused to commit offence as well as for informant and family to falsely implicate – In blind crime with unreliable eyewitnesses, motive to falsely implicate assumes relevance – Held: Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out [Paras 17–22, 77–90].

Related and Interested Witnesses – Principles of Scrutiny – Evidence of close relatives requires careful and discerning scrutiny, especially where animosity exists – Court relied on Vadivelu Thevar, Raju @ Balachandran, Dalip Singh and other precedents – Held: Testimony of related witnesses failed to meet standard of credibility required for conviction [Paras 58–60, 83–86].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Ante-timed FIR coupled with unreliable, contradictory ocular evidence created grave doubt – Held: Prosecution failed to discharge burden – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 92–94].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of all appellants – Release directed forthwith unless required in any other case – Bonds under Section 481 BNSS / Section 437-A CrPC directed [Paras 95–96].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – ECIR – Quashing – Maintainability – An ECIR is an internal administrative document, not equivalent to an FIR, and its quashing is generally declined in writ jurisdiction unless there are clear jurisdictional defects, such as the absence of a scheduled offence or violation of statutory safeguards – The ECIR in this case, based on multiple FIRs including some with scheduled offences, cannot be quashed in its entirety at the nascent stage of investigation – The Court declined to quash the ECIR entirely but suspended investigative measures related to the consolidated FIRs whose proceedings were stayed – The ECIR remains valid for independent Mist Avenue FIRs which contain scheduled offences and are not subject to the Supreme Court's consolidation order or any stay – The Court held that complete quashment would necessitate re-registration and create procedural inefficiency [Paras 59, 108, 109, 113, 170, 171].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Predicate Offence – Effect of Stay – Section 3 PMLA – The offence of money laundering is derivative and contingent upon the existence of a scheduled offence – While a stay order does not extinguish an FIR, it suspends the judicial operability of the predicate offence – Investigative measures by the ED qua consolidated FIRs, whose predicate proceedings are stayed by a competent court, must also be stayed to prevent circumvention of judicial orders and uphold judicial discipline – The Court held that the ED cannot proceed with investigation into proceeds of crime when the very question of whether a predicate offence was committed remains judicially suspended – The Court distinguished between a stay (suspension) and quashing (extinguishment) of proceedings – The Court directed a stay on ED's investigative measures related to the consolidated Grand Venice FIRs until the final adjudication of the Criminal Misc. Application No. 25724/2022 or framing of charges in Case No. 1559/2019, or any final order by the competent court – The Court relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) and Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement [Paras 24, 25, 26, 53, 61, 62, 63, 64, 91, 112, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 158, 160, 162, 164, 165, 167, 169].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) – Issuance during Investigation – NBWs are coercive measures to secure an accused's presence, not for punishment, and should not be issued mechanically without clear evidence of evasion or likelihood of abscondence – The petitioner's consistent cooperation, including appearances and document submissions, and the prolonged nature of the investigation (over four years without a prosecution complaint), rendered the NBWs unjustified – The ED's allegations of evasion were not sufficiently substantiated by documentary evidence – The Court held that the NBWs issued on 11.04.2025 were inconsistent with procedural safeguards at the pre-complaint stage under PMLA and were hereby cancelled – The Court relied on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttarakhand and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [Paras 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Search and Seizure – Section 17 PMLA – Challenge to search and seizure proceedings on grounds of "no reason to believe" is premature as the petitioner has an efficacious alternate statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA – Allegations of misconduct during search involve disputed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction – The Court declined to interfere with the search and seizure proceedings [Paras 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 74, 75, 76, 115, 116, 117].

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – ECIR – Addendums and Clubbing of FIRs – An ECIR, being an internal document, can be supplemented or updated via addendums as investigation progresses and new facts or scheduled offences emerge – The Supreme Court's consolidation of FIRs for police investigation (Grand Venice Project) does not extinguish the statutory character of individual FIRs for PMLA purposes, nor does it bar ED from investigating proceeds of crime from other distinct projects (Mist Avenue Project) which contain scheduled offences – The Court held that the inclusion of Mist Avenue FIRs through addendums was lawful and justified, as PMLA jurisdiction is transaction-based, not FIR-based – The Court relied on Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan [Paras 28, 29, 47, 48, 49, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 102, 103, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 161, 166].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – NBWs issued on 11.04.2025 are cancelled – ED directed to refrain from investigative measures qua consolidated Grand Venice FIRs until final adjudication of Criminal Misc. Application No. 25724/2022 or framing of charges in Case No. 1559/2019, or any final order by the competent court – ECIR not quashed in its entirety, remains operative for independent Mist Avenue FIRs – Petitioner directed to cooperate with ED upon prior written intimation [Paras 193, 199, 200].