Criminal Law – Death Sentence – Appellant convicted for rape and physical assault of his 5-year-old step-sister – Trial court awarded death sentence under Section 376 AB IPC – Case referred for confirmation of death sentence – Appeal against conviction and sentence considered [Paras 1-4].

Procedural Fairness – Examination of Victim’s Testimony – Victim’s testimony recorded and found consistent with medical evidence – Prosecution’s witnesses corroborated victim’s account – Defence argument on lack of forensic evidence addressed – Trial court’s reliance on victim’s statement justified [Paras 24-31].

Mitigating Circumstances – Assessment of Appellant’s Background – Consideration of appellant’s age, lack of prior criminal record, socio-economic conditions, and family responsibilities – Appellant’s potential for rehabilitation and reformation evaluated [Paras 33-47].

Sentencing – Commutation of Death Sentence – Application of Supreme Court precedents on ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine – Death sentence commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years – Emphasis on possibility of reformation and mitigating factors [Paras 32, 48].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Held – Death sentence under Section 376 AB IPC commuted to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years – Sentences for other convictions to run concurrently – Reference answered accordingly [Para 48-49].
 

Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – Legal Representative – The appellant, a married sister of the deceased, sought enhanced compensation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the definition of "legal representative" under Section 2(11) of CPC includes siblings, and therefore, the appellant, though not dependent on the deceased, is entitled to compensation as a legal representative​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The court examined Section 8 and Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act, confirming that siblings are Class II heirs and can inherit the deceased's property. The appellant, being the sister of the deceased, falls within this category and is eligible for compensation despite not being a primary dependent​​.

Quantum of Compensation – The court recalculated the compensation considering the deceased’s income, future prospects, and the appropriate multiplier. The original compensation awarded by the tribunal was enhanced by Rs. 6,48,168, taking into account the revised calculations and deducting personal and living expenses​​.

Decision:

The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing the compensation by Rs. 6,48,168, subject to the appellant paying the deficit court fees. The enhanced compensation will carry interest at the rate determined by the tribunal​​.

Motor Accident – Compensation – Appeal for enhancement – Appellants contended for higher compensation arguing error in calculating the deceased’s income and the annual income from goods vehicles – Held, Tribunal erred in computing compensation based on four years’ ITR instead of three – Annual income reassessed and additional income from vehicles added – Total compensation modified to Rs.30,88,592/- [Paras 9-12].

Income Calculation – ITR Assessment – Tribunal’s error in considering four years’ ITR instead of three preceding years – Annual income recalculated to Rs.1,76,496/- taking into account previous three years’ ITR – Additional income of Rs.22,500/- added for heavy goods vehicles [Paras 9-10].

Interest Rate – Compensation Amount – Lower rate of interest at 7% per annum upheld – Claim for higher interest at 9% per annum rejected as unwarranted – Penal interest disallowed [Paras 12-13].

Insurance Liability – Policy Conditions – Insurance Company’s plea of policy violation due to unauthorized driving of hazardous substance rejected – Tribunal found no substantial evidence for policy breach – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Para 11].

Future Prospects – Dependency – Addition of 40% towards future prospects as the deceased was below 40 years – Multiplier of 16 applied for calculating loss of dependency in line with Supreme Court precedent [Para 12].

Decision – Appeals Partly Allowed – Impugned award modified – Compensation payable at Rs.30,88,592/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim application till realization – Insurer to deposit the modified compensation within eight weeks – Statutory deposit to be refunded upon compliance [Para 14].

Breach of Trust – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 406 IPC – The petitioner sought quashing of the final report and proceedings on grounds of non-compliance with procedural preconditions under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. The court evaluated whether the complaint and subsequent proceedings were justified despite alleged procedural lapses, ultimately finding sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with the trial [Paras 1-16].

Procedural Preconditions – Compliance under Sections 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. – The court addressed the necessity for compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. before invoking Section 156(3) for investigation, emphasizing that the failure to do so must be objected at an early stage to be considered a ground for quashing later proceedings [Paras 9-12].

Irregularities and Failure of Justice – Non-compliance with procedural requirements does not automatically invalidate proceedings unless it results in a failure of justice. The court referred to Section 465 Cr.P.C. and relevant case law, concluding that in the absence of such failure, procedural lapses alone do not warrant quashing the investigation or final report [Paras 11-13].

Decision:

Petition dismissed. The court directed the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Vaikom, to expedite the trial and disposal of C.C. No. 878/2019 within four months.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 509 IPC – The petitioner sought to quash the final report and proceedings under Section 509 IPC. The court considered the allegations that the accused made an insulting comment to the complainant, who claimed it was intended to insult her modesty. The court evaluated the evidence and arguments, including previous decisions, and concluded that the words used did not constitute an offense under Section 509 IPC, as they did not meet the necessary ingredients [Paras 1-14].

Insult to Modesty – Interpretation and Application – For an offense under Section 509 IPC, there must be an intention to insult the modesty of a woman or intrude upon her privacy. The court referred to dictionary definitions and legal precedents, emphasizing that mere abusive or unpleasant words, without the requisite intention, do not fulfill the criteria for this offense [Paras 8-13].

Decision: Petition allowed. The final report in C.C. No. 1146/2019 and all proceedings arising out of it were quashed.
 

Civil Procedure – DNA Test for Establishing Paternity in Partition Suit – Kerala High Court Decision on Strong Prima Facie Case Requirement.

DNA Test – Suit for partition involving claim of paternity – Plaintiff seeks sibling DNA test to establish her father was the deceased, Sri Kuttikrishnan Nair – Trial court allows application for DNA test – Defendants challenge the order in Kerala High Court – High Court evaluates evidence to determine if strong prima facie case exists for ordering DNA test – Court finds plaintiff’s evidence, mostly hearsay, insufficient to establish a strong prima facie case – High Court sets aside the trial court’s order allowing the DNA test, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence to justify such an intrusive procedure [Paras 1-19].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court scrutinizes evidence presented by the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s knowledge of paternity based on hearsay – Other witnesses also provide hearsay evidence – Court holds that a strong prima facie case must be established with concrete evidence to order a DNA test – DNA test should not be used as a fishing expedition for evidence [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Setting Aside Trial Court Order – Held – The trial court’s order allowing the DNA test is set aside due to lack of a strong prima facie case by the plaintiff – The court emphasizes the potential adverse impact of a DNA test on defendants and the requirement for substantial evidence before permitting such tests – Matter remanded to trial court for proceeding in accordance with law without the observations from the High Court’s judgment influencing the trial [Para 19].

Civil Procedure – Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC challenging dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 10 & 11 – The High Court examined the Trial Court's decision on territorial jurisdiction and limitation period – Petitioner's plea that the suit was barred by limitation rejected due to acknowledgment of debt by part payments and dishonored cheques – Revision petition dismissed with costs [Paras 1-13].

Limitation Period – Acknowledgment of Debt – High Court held that part payment and dishonored cheques extended the limitation period – Referenced Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Distinguished from previous cases where no such acknowledgment was present – Suit filed within the extended limitation period was deemed valid [Paras 8-12].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Trial Court's jurisdiction affirmed based on registered office location as per Memorandum of Association – Plaintiff's registered office in Delhi sufficient for jurisdiction despite invoices showing addresses in Gurgaon and Greater Noida [Para 4].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Held – The revision petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited with the Delhi High Legal Services Committee – High Court confirmed the Trial Court's findings on jurisdiction and limitation, upholding the suit's validity [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Sentencing for Conspiracy and Terrorism-related Offences – High Court considered appeals against sentences for various offences under the IPC and UAPA – Appellants had pleaded guilty and were sentenced to life imprisonment for the most serious offences – Appeals focused on the extent and legality of sentences, particularly challenging life sentences as unduly harsh – Court reduced life sentences to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, taking into account appellants' remorse, young age, and clean antecedents [Paras 1-59].

Plea of Guilt – Voluntariness and Legal Implications – Appellants contended their plea of guilt was akin to plea bargaining and not fully voluntary – High Court dismissed this contention, affirming that appellants were adequately informed of consequences and had time to reconsider – Plea of guilt considered voluntary and legally binding [Paras 8-15, 11].

Sentencing Principles – Application of Mitigating Factors – High Court balanced the gravity of offences with mitigating circumstances – Considered appellants' young age, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation – Court emphasized that sentencing should not be solely punitive but also aim at reformation – Reduced life sentences to ten years rigorous imprisonment for Section 121A IPC and Section 23 UAPA [Paras 36-59].

Decision – Modification of Sentences – Appeals allowed in part – Life sentences for offences under Section 121A IPC and Section 23 UAPA reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Sentences for other offences and monetary fines remained unaltered – Order for communication to Trial Court and Jail Authorities for compliance [Paras 59-62].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Probation of Offenders – The appellant was convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.300/-. On appeal, the appellant did not contest the conviction but sought the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The court noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had faced trial and its mental agony for over 31 years. Considering the appellant’s age (67 years) and peaceful conduct since release on bail, the court deemed it appropriate to extend the benefit of probation. [Paras 1-14]

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Rehabilitation – The court emphasized the reformative purpose of the Probation of Offenders Act, highlighting that probation aims to rehabilitate offenders without subjecting them to the negative effects of incarceration. The court referenced several precedents underscoring the importance of probation for first-time and minor offenders to promote their reintegration into society. [Paras 5-13]

Decision – Probation Granted – The court maintained the conviction but modified the sentence. The appellant was released on probation for two years, with conditions to maintain peace and good behavior. The appellant was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. The appellant’s bail bonds were cancelled, and he was granted two months to comply with the probation requirements. [Paras 14-15]