Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Validity of Magistrate’s Order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, FIR, and charge-sheet in PRC Case No. 2154/2021 – Allegation of second marriage by petitioner without dissolution of first marriage – Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing police investigation challenged for non-compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – Held that the Magistrate’s order was justified, and investigation order at pre-cognizance stage did not indicate judicial cognizance of the offence – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Magistrate’s Discretion under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Analysis – Held – Magistrate is empowered to direct investigation at pre-cognizance stage and is not obligated to take cognizance immediately upon receiving a complaint – Application of judicial mind to allegations required before issuing process or directing investigation. [Paras 12-18]

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation – Invocation of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court and High Court precedents underscore that Section 154 provisions are normally a prerequisite but allow for exceptions in direct magistrate applications – Compliance with procedural requirements stressed but not absolute. [Paras 6-7, 13-14, 16]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Magistrate’s order for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upheld as appropriate exercise of discretion – FIR and charge-sheet not quashed, and criminal proceedings allowed to continue. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – Acquittal in Case of Alleged Dowry Death and Cruelty – Appeal by State Dismissed – The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 498(A), 306, 304(B), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a direct cause linking the alleged cruelty to the victim’s suicide, and that the evidence provided did not substantiate the charges sufficiently to overturn the acquittal. [Paras 1-18]

Evidence Evaluation – Lack of Sufficient Corroborative Evidence – The High Court found that the testimony of the complainant, which alleged frequent anger and taunting by the in-laws, lacked corroborative evidence of any demand for dowry or immediate provocation leading to the victim’s suicide. The absence of testimony from other relatives and critical witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. [Paras 10-12]

Judicial Principles – Standard for Reversing Acquittal – Emphasizing the principle that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or manifestly erroneous, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s judgment did not meet the threshold for reversal. The decision of acquittal was upheld in light of the evidence on record. [Paras 13-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal by the State of Gujarat against the acquittal of the accused was dismissed. The High Court affirmed that the findings of the trial court were reasonable and plausible, thereby upholding the acquittal due to insufficient evidence to convict the accused of the alleged crimes. [Para 17]

Domestic Violence – Proceedings under Section 12 of D.V. Act challenged – Petitioner claims respondent already receiving maintenance from salary and under Section 125 Cr.P.C – Magistrate issued notice for response, no interim monetary compensation ordered – Legal position on scope of notice under Section 12 clarified by Supreme Court – Petition dismissed, premature challenge by petitioner – Open to petitioner to pursue matter before trial Magistrate [Paras 1-9].

Limitation – Petition under Section 12 of D.V. Act not barred by limitation – Supreme Court held application under Section 12 need not be filed within one year of alleged acts of domestic violence – Petitioner's contention rejected as without substance [Para 8].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, petitioner directed to address the trial Magistrate as per legal procedure. [Para 9].

Criminal Law – Rape – Acquittal Appeal – Application for leave to appeal against acquittal – Delay in filing condoned – Facts involve alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl by the respondent – Prosecutrix’s testimony graphic but lacked corroboration from medical evidence – MLC recorded as assault, not sexual assault – Benefit of doubt granted to accused – Application for leave to appeal dismissed [Paras 1-19].

Condonation of Delay – 138 days – Allowed – Application seeking condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal application granted considering the reasons stated [Para 2].

Facts and Allegations – Incident alleged on 09.03.2018 – Prosecutrix, aged about 13, allegedly raped by respondent in her hutment in the absence of parents – Prosecutrix reported incident to police on 13.03.2018 – Medical examination conducted on 10.03.2018 indicated assault, not sexual assault – FIR registered with delay explained by prosecutrix’s initial failed attempt to lodge complaint on 09.03.2018 [Paras 5-8].

Testimony and Medical Evidence – Discrepancy – Prosecutrix’s statement detailed and graphic, describing the assault and threat by the respondent – Medical examination conducted 19 hours after alleged incident showed no injuries, no signs of recent intercourse, and hymen not intact – MLC noted history of assault but did not specify sexual assault – Absence of injuries and medical findings critical in assessment [Paras 7-16].

Prosecutrix’s Age – Evidence and Discrepancy – School register presented showing age below 13 years, but produced as photocopy without original or corroborative testimony – Radiological report estimated age between 13 to 15 years – Discrepancy unresolved satisfactorily affecting the prosecution’s case [Para 17].

Prosecution and Defense – Prosecution alleged deliberate attempt to conceal genesis of offense – Defense highlighted previous enmity and possible motive for false accusation – Prosecution failed to produce doctor as witness to clarify MLC findings – Benefit of doubt extended to accused due to unresolved discrepancies [Paras 12-18].

Legal Principles – Sufficiency of Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Trial court emphasized testimony of prosecutrix alone can be sufficient for conviction if credible – High Court agreed but found prosecutrix’s testimony uncorroborated by medical evidence – Benefit of doubt necessitated acquittal [Paras 15-18].

Decision – Leave to Appeal Denied – Impugned judgment found reasonable and plausible – Appeal dismissed as evidence did not sufficiently establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s case weakened by lack of medical corroboration and unresolved age discrepancy [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 363 and 376 IPC – Appeal by accused against conviction and sentence – Trial court convicted accused based on medical and testimonial evidence suggesting victim was a minor and rape was committed – High Court re-evaluates evidence including medical reports and witness testimonies – Finds discrepancies in age determination and lack of corroborative medical evidence for rape – Highlights medical opinion on age variability and absence of injury on the victim – Cites principle of benefit of doubt in criminal jurisprudence – Conviction for Sections 363 and 376 IPC set aside [Paras 1-27].

Medical Evidence – Age Determination – Court discusses variability in medical opinion on age – Highlights margin of error of two years on either side – Cites precedents where benefit of doubt given to accused in age-related cases – High Court holds that prosecution failed to conclusively prove victim was under 18 years – Sets aside conviction under Section 363 IPC [Paras 16-19].

Rape Allegations – Lack of Corroboration – Medical examination found no conclusive evidence of rape – No visible injuries on victim – Statements of victim and witnesses inconsistent – Court finds prosecution failed to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside [Paras 20-25].

Benefit of Doubt – Criminal Jurisprudence – Court reiterates principle of giving benefit of doubt to accused when evidence presents two possible views – Accused acquitted of charges under Sections 363 and 376 IPC [Paras 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC set aside – Accused acquitted – Directed to furnish personal bond and surety in compliance with Section 437-A Cr.P.C. [Paras 27-29].

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]
 

Civil Procedure – Representative Suits – Impleadment – Petitioners sought impleadment as supplemental defendants under Order 1 Rule 8(3) CPC in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and injunction – Trial court dismissed applications for lack of common interest with existing defendants – High Court upheld dismissal – Petitioners failed to demonstrate common or similar interest with defendants representing a trust – Differing interests or adverse claims insufficient for impleadment in representative capacity [Paras 1-8].

Order 1 Rule 8 CPC – Requirements for Impleadment – High Court emphasized necessity for common interest or grievance among parties seeking to join a representative suit – Interests must align with those already represented in suit – Petitioners' interests found contrary to those of existing defendants – Trial court's findings endorsed [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Both Original Petitions dismissed – No common interest found between petitioners and defendants – Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8(3) CPC not warranted.
 

Civil Procedure – Impleadment – Order 1 Rule 3 CPC – Application by Travancore Devaswom Board to be impleaded as supplemental defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession – Trial court dismissed application for failure to satisfy conditions under Order 1 Rule 3 – Revision petition filed against this dismissal – High Court upheld trial court’s order – Board’s claim did not arise from same act or transaction and lacked common question of law or fact with existing parties – Plaintiff's dominion over choice of defendants affirmed [Paras 1-8].

Order 1 Rule 3 CPC – Conditions for Joinder – High Court emphasized necessity for both conditions under Order 1 Rule 3 to be satisfied for joinder – Commonality of act or transaction and question of law or fact required – Petitioner's claim distinct from existing parties' issues – No mandatory common link found [Paras 4-6].

Plaintiff’s Prerogative – Dominus Litis – Court reiterated plaintiff’s prerogative to choose defendants – Impleadment not obligatory where no relief sought from additional party – Any decree would not affect non-party’s rights – Separate suit advised for petitioner's claims [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 3 CPC not warranted – Petitioner's rights unaffected by current suit's decree – No illegality or impropriety in trial court's order.

Wills – Validity – Proof of Execution – Appellant challenged appellate court's decision validating Will dated 07.06.1997 and declaring earlier Will void – Trial court found suspicious circumstances and invalidated later Will – Appellate court reversed trial court's decision – High Court upheld appellate court’s findings based on clear attestation and lack of significant infirmities in testator’s condition – Execution of Will validated as per legal requirements [Paras 1-27].

Suspicious Circumstances – Execution of Will – Evidence – High Court noted discrepancies in trial court's findings on suspicious circumstances – Testator’s slight signature differences due to age not sufficient to invalidate Will – Physical inability to travel to usual SRO justified alternative execution location – Testator's capacity affirmed by witness testimonies [Paras 16-23].

Burden of Proof – Propounder's Duty – Propounders proved due execution of Will through credible witness testimonies – Appellate court's re-appreciation of evidence and findings aligned with legal standards – High Court confirmed propounder's discharge of burden of proof [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Appellate court's decree validated – No substantial questions of law warranting interference – Parties to bear their respective costs.