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].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

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].

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 – 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]

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].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Financial Capacity – Section 138 NI Act – Accused issued cheque of Rs.5,00,000 which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – Trial Court acquitted accused holding complainant failed to prove her financial capacity to lend the money – Appellate Court held that unless accused disputes financial capacity with evidence, presumption under Section 139 operates – Held: Trial Court erred in doubting complainant’s capacity without any rebuttal by accused – Complainant’s explanation regarding source of funds from property sale found credible [Paras 9-10].

Presumption under NI Act – Section 139 – Accused did not rebut presumption – Accused neither entered witness box nor challenged issuance or signature of cheque – No defence evidence led – Held: Presumption under Section 139 NI Act remained unrebutted – Conviction proper [Paras 5, 11].

Criminal Procedure – Legal Notice – Notice returned as “Unclaimed” – Held: Due service presumed – Complaint filed within limitation – All conditions under Section 138 NI Act fulfilled – Accused did not respond to notice nor deny liability [Paras 8-9].

Compensation and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 directed to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357A CrPC – In default, accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months [Para 11, Order].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Accused convicted under Section 138 NI Act – Fine of Rs.8,00,000 imposed – Rs.7,80,000 payable to complainant as compensation – Default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment.