Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC – Informant, Sonmuni Baskey, provided direct eyewitness testimony – Conviction upheld despite the lack of motive and the non-submission of the weapon to forensic analysis – Court found no discrepancy in the identification of the accused despite poor lighting conditions – Importance of direct evidence highlighted [Paras 2-25].

Eyewitness Identification in Low Light – Reliability – Eyewitness testimony of Sonmuni Baskey considered reliable even in low-light conditions due to prior acquaintance with the accused – Court refers to precedent affirming the reliability of identification by familiar individuals in poor visibility [Para 17.2].

Hearsay Evidence – Corroboration – Testimonies of P.W.2 (Deblal Kisku) and P.W.3 (Churki Hembrom) accepted as corroborative evidence – Court emphasized the admissibility of hearsay evidence that corroborates direct eyewitness accounts [Paras 21.1-21.2].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence provided by P.W.12 (Dr. Shailendra Kumar) confirmed cause of death consistent with the injuries described by the eyewitness, further corroborating the prosecution’s case [Para 22].

Defect in Investigation – Non-fatal – Failure to send the recovered dagger for forensic examination considered a minor lapse – Court ruled that the defect did not undermine the direct evidence provided by the eyewitness [Para 20.1].

Motive – Relevance in Direct Evidence Cases – Court reiterated that motive is not crucial in cases supported by direct evidence – Conviction based on the unequivocal testimony of the eyewitness [Para 18.1].

Defense’s Alternate Theory – Rejected – Defense’s suggestion that the informant conspired to kill the deceased or committed the murder herself was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence – Appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not support the alternate theory [Paras 23.2-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant to serve the remainder of the sentence as ordered by the trial court. Lower court records to be sent back along with a copy of this judgment. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 24-27].

Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - Execution of Agreement not established - Plaintiff failed to produce Handwriting Expert - Appellant claimed an agreement to sell land with respondent No. 1 - Denial of execution of agreement by respondent No. 1 - Plaintiff failed to prove signatures on the agreement - Importance of Handwriting Expert in proving execution of agreement - Plaintiff's omission to examine Handwriting Expert - Trial Court's judgment erroneous - Ist Appellate Court rightly dismissed the suit - Judgment upheld - Regular Second Appeal dismissed. (Para 11-21)

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction of CJM and Police Station – Writ petition challenging FIR for offenses under Sections 304(II), 420, 409, 467, 468 RPC – Complaint initiated by respondent No.3 before CJM Jammu, alleging insurance fraud and failure to process claim leading to the death of the insured in Switzerland – CJM directed SHO Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu to register and investigate the case – Held that no part of the cause of action occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of CJM Jammu or the Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu – Order directing registration of FIR and subsequent investigation deemed without jurisdiction – FIR and proceedings quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Insufficient Evidence of Criminal Offense – Analysis of contractual disputes between insurer and insured – Held that non-payment of insurance claim and cancellation of policy is a civil dispute – No criminal intent or act of forgery by the petitioner-company established – Allegations of forgery based on cancellation letter processed through travel agent – Supreme Court precedents discourage criminalizing civil disputes – FIR and investigation declared abuse of process of law – FIR quashed. [Paras 14-21]

Decision:

The Court quashes FIR No. 79/2013 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the dispute is purely civil in nature, with no criminal intent or act established by the petitioner-company. The proceedings are deemed an abuse of the process of law. [Para 22]

Criminal Law – Right of Private Defence – Applicability and Excess – The accused-respondents were initially acquitted by the trial court for charges under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, IPC, among others. The High Court analyzed the right of private defence under Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC, emphasizing that while individuals are entitled to defend themselves, the force used must not be disproportionate to the threat faced. The accused in this case exceeded their right of private defence. [Paras 84-90]

Private Defence – Ingredients and Burden of Proof – The Court elucidated that to claim the right of private defence, there must be a reasonable apprehension of danger, and the force used must not be greater than necessary. It is established that a person faced with an imminent threat is not expected to modulate their defence step by step with exact precision. The accused need to prove their right to private defence by a preponderance of probabilities. [Para 85-88]

Exception to Murder – Sudden Fight and Heat of Passion – The incident occurred suddenly without premeditation during a quarrel. The High Court found that the accused exceeded their right of private defence, but the act fell under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC, converting the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. [Para 90-91]

Decision – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC – The High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal. The accused-respondents Ram Shiroman, Ram Lagan, and Ram Janak were convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The appeal concerning the deceased accused Nanda was abated. [Para 96-97]

Administrative Law – Selection Process – Constitution of Committee – Deviation – Illegal constitution of the Selection Committee for the Registrar position at IIIT-A – Additional members included without approval from the Board of Governors (BoG) – Selection process included unauthorized written test (Case Study) not mentioned in the advertisement – Held, selection process was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure – Entire selection process declared void. [Paras 38-47]

Natural Justice – Opportunity to be Heard – Petitioner involved in the selection process while holding the position of Acting Registrar – Petitioner not entitled to be heard after BoG declared the selection process void – Petitioner’s participation influenced the selection process – Decision of BoG to declare selection process void upheld. [Paras 47-48]

Appointment – No Indefeasible Right – Despite approval of petitioner’s name by BoG, no appointment letter was issued – Selection process review on Central Government direction found deviations going to the root of the process – Petitioner failed to keep away from the process, influencing it directly or indirectly – Challenge to voided selection process failed. [Paras 50-53]

Subsequent Recruitment – Fresh Process Near Conclusion – Petitioner’s non-participation in fresh recruitment on own will – No ground to interfere with the decision to declare earlier process void – Liberty to the Institute to allow petitioner’s participation in ongoing process if deemed fit. [Paras 54-55]

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Earlier selection process declared void due to procedural deviations and unauthorized influence by petitioner – Fresh recruitment process upheld. [Para 56]

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Appellants convicted based on dying declarations of deceased – Two dying declarations recorded, first by police in presence of doctor, second under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by Judicial Magistrate – Court scrutinized consistency and voluntariness of statements – Found statements reliable and made in fit state of mind – Deceased consistently named Amir Mallick in both declarations but omitted Gudia @ Guria in second statement before Magistrate – Conviction of Amir Mallick upheld, Gudia @ Guria acquitted on benefit of doubt [Paras 1-33].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – P.W. 1 (husband of deceased) declared hostile, did not support prosecution’s case – Defense witnesses attempted to challenge credibility of dying declarations – Court emphasized consistency of deceased’s statements and presence of doctors during recording – Minor discrepancies in witness statements deemed immaterial [Paras 10-22].

Motive – Property Dispute – Evidence showed consistent motive related to property dispute between deceased and in-laws – Deceased demanded joint ownership in property registered solely in husband’s name – Step-relationship among family members contributed to motive [Paras 27-30].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of Amir Mallick for life imprisonment affirmed – Gudia @ Guria acquitted and ordered to be released [Paras 34-36].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence Set Aside – Criminal Appeal against Trial Court's conviction for murder – Allegation of killing brother over property dispute – Evidence purely circumstantial with no direct eyewitness account – Prosecution's failure to establish motive convincingly – Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction – Held that chain of circumstances not complete to exclude hypothesis of innocence – Appellant acquitted.

Circumstantial Evidence – Requirements for Conviction – Analysis – Held – Prosecution failed to provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to link the appellant conclusively to the crime – Established principles demand exclusion of every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused – Appellant's presence and conduct insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 28-32]

Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – Admissibility – Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Held – Recovery of the axe and blood-stained clothes did not meet the legal standards for admissibility – Prosecution failed to prove the exact disclosure statement as required under law – Recovery of items from open, accessible place further weakens the evidence. [Paras 32-40]

Conduct of Accused – Relevance under Section 8 of Evidence Act – Held – Conduct of the accused in recovery of items noted but insufficient to form sole basis for conviction – Apex Court’s caution that conduct alone cannot establish guilt for serious offenses like murder applied – Benefit of doubt granted. [Paras 41-46]

Abscondence of Accused – Legal Implications – Held – Mere abscondence cannot be construed as conclusive proof of guilt – Innocent individuals may also abscond due to fear of wrongful arrest – Not a determinative factor in absence of solid evidence. [Para 45]

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Incriminating Circumstances – Failure to Put to Accused – Held – Crucial recovery evidence not presented to the appellant during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Violates legal principles ensuring fair opportunity for defense – Weighs in favor of acquittal. [Para 44]

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted. The trial court's judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC is overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of conclusive proof. Appellant's bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged. Compliance with Section 437A Cr.P.C. required within 15 days.

Election Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 329(b) of the Constitution - Petitioner sought declaration of electoral malpractices and repolling - High Court held that disputes relating to election process should be resolved through election petitions as per constitutional mandate - Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable - Held that the Court cannot intervene in ongoing election processes which must be challenged via appropriate election petitions after conclusion of elections - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9, 12, 18]

Conduct of Elections - Scrutiny of Electoral Documents - Petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to address grievances during scrutiny of Form 17A - High Court found no evidence of violation of Election Commission guidelines by election officers - Held that instructions from Election Commission, though binding, do not constitute enforceable law for invalidation of elections - Petitioner's remedy lies in filing an election petition. [Paras 4-6, 14-15]

Decision - Election Dispute Resolution - High Court emphasized adherence to constitutional framework for resolving election disputes - Reinforced the principle that election processes should not be interrupted by judicial intervention during their course - Writ petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy through election petition. [Paras 16-19]

Elections – Writ Petition for Re-scrutiny and Re-polling – Article 329(b) of the Constitution – Election Petition as Proper Remedy – Petitioner contested as MLA from 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency – Alleged voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence on polling day – Complaints to election authorities ignored – Petitioner kept in separate room during scrutiny due to law and order issues – Supreme Court held that disputes related to elections should be addressed via election petitions and not writ petitions – Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. [Paras 2-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 329(b) – Bar on Court Interference – Election matters to be resolved through election petitions – Interference by courts during election process is barred – Courts to avoid interrupting the electoral process – Held that grievances related to electoral offenses should be pursued through appropriate election petitions post-election. [Paras 7-10, 12-16]

Electoral Malpractice Allegations – Scrutiny of Form 17A – Election Petition – Petitioner’s absence during scrutiny due to separate room arrangement for safety – Authorities conducted random scrutiny and found no irregularities – Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/2024-2 issued – Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an election petition, not a writ petition. [Paras 2, 4, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismisses the writ petition citing the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election petition for redressal of grievances – Court does not examine the veracity of electoral offense allegations. [Paras 18-19]