Land Acquisition – Religious Structure – Quashing of Notifications – The petitioner in CWP-14168-1999 sought to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that a religious structure, Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib, was constructed before the acquisition – Held: The acquisition was valid, as the land vested in the Union Territory after the award under Section 11A was announced – The petitioner's application for release of the land was filed after the acquisition was complete, and no objections were filed within the prescribed period – The claim lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Failure to Serve Personal Notice – No Vitiation of Acquisition – The petitioner argued that personal notices under Sections 4, 6, and 9 were not served – Held: There is no legal requirement for personal notice under Sections 4 and 6 – Publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers suffices – Failure to serve notice under Section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition once the land vests with the government [Para 6].

Release of Land – Hostile Discrimination Not Proven – The petitioner claimed that other parcels of land were released – Held: The petitioner’s land fell within the alignment of a major road, and no discrimination was proven – The claim was rejected [Para 7].

Public Interest – Rotary Construction – Mandamus Issued – In CWP-23369-2017, the petitioner sought a mandamus to complete the construction of a rotary near Model Jail Burail, which was delayed due to an interim order protecting the religious structure – Held: The interim order was vacated, and the respondents were directed to remove the structure and complete the rotary in public interest [Para 8].

Decision – CWP-14168-1999 was dismissed, and CWP-23369-2017 was disposed of with directions to complete the rotary construction [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Inspection of Seized Documents – Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders denying inspection and provision of deficient copies of documents seized by the C.B.I. but not relied upon or filed in the court – Trial court dismissed the application for access, stating that only documents in the final report had been provided, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. – High Court examined whether unrelied documents seized during investigation should be accessible to the accused to ensure a fair trial – Held: Petition dismissed, but petitioner granted liberty to request unrelied documents in line with precedent [Paras 1, 11-15].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Unrelied Documents – Accused’s right to fair trial argued to include access to all seized documents, even if unrelied by the prosecution – Petitioner relied on Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017 and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed that all unrelied documents, material objects, and statements be listed for the accused, allowing them to seek relevant evidence for their defense – High Court affirmed that documents in the final report had been disclosed, satisfying Section 207, and any further request could be pursued in trial court [Paras 2-3, 6-10, 12-13].

Judicial Precedents – Compliance with Disclosure Rules – Referencing the Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, High Court reiterated that unrelied documents should be disclosed to the accused if deemed essential to the defense – Rule mandates one opportunity post-charge for disclosure requests, evaluated by the court on relevance and intent – High Court found no grounds for setting aside the trial court’s orders as the petitioner was already provided with all documents in the final report [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to seek specific unrelied documents per the ruling in CBI v. Surinder Pal Singh (CRM-M-26474-2023), ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair trial remains preserved – Application disposed of with directions for trial court to assess any further disclosure requests based on relevance to the accused’s defense [Paras 13-16].
 

Taxation Law - Luxury Tax Assessment – Transfer of Part of Property – Tax Evasion – The petitioner sought relief from luxury tax after transferring the first floor of his residential building to his wife, thereby reducing the area under his ownership below the taxable limit under Section 5A of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 – Held: Such a transfer, if accepted, would create a loophole for avoiding tax obligations by transferring portions of property to close relatives – The concept of tax planning is distinct from tax evasion – The Court must ensure that such transfers do not undermine tax laws by permitting tax avoidance through artificial transactions [Paras 3-5, 45].

Tax Avoidance vs. Tax Evasion – Legal Principles – Reference to the concurring judgment of Justice Chinnappa Reddy in M/s McDowell and Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer highlighted – The Court emphasized that while tax planning within the framework of the law is permissible, colourable devices used for tax avoidance are not [Paras 5, 17-18].

Ownership and Occupation – Assessment for Luxury Tax – The petitioner continued to enjoy the entire building even after the transfer of the first floor to his wife – Held: The occupation and benefit derived from the entire building indicated that the petitioner effectively retained control, thus sustaining the tax liability [Para 5].

Public Policy – Tax Compliance – The Court stressed the importance of ensuring that tax laws are respected and that attempts to shift tax burdens through artificial transfers are disapproved – Reinforced the principle that tax evasion undermines the financial stability of the state and places undue tax pressure on law-abiding citizens [Paras 5, 45].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, holding that the transfer of part of the building to the petitioner's spouse was a device to evade tax rather than a legitimate form of tax planning. The petitioner remained liable for the luxury tax as assessed [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Hari @ Bhaggu – Trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment – Prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence alleging that the appellants administered poison to the deceased and staged a suicide – Key witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 7) were found unreliable due to contradictions and enmity with the appellants – The forensic evidence indicated that the death was due to asphyxia from strangulation, not hanging, and poison was found in the viscera, but no credible evidence linked the appellants to administering poison – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, conviction set aside, and appellants acquitted [Paras 10, 18, 94].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Prove Links – Prosecution relied on the recovery of a pesticide bottle and other items from the appellant’s house – The items, including a rope and pesticide, were commonly available and found in a house of an agriculturist, and their recovery did not conclusively link the appellants to the crime – The trial court acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 201 and 203 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence, showing the failure to prove any attempt to stage a suicide [Paras 40, 86].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions and Credibility – Prosecution witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6) gave conflicting statements about critical facts, including the timing and manner of the deceased’s death – Witnesses had admitted enmity with the appellants, which raised doubts about their motives – Suresh (P.W. 7) testified to hearing the deceased plead not to be given poison, but his statement was delayed by five months and contradicted by other evidence, making his testimony unreliable [Paras 20, 34, 55, 63].

Last Seen Theory – Failure to Establish – The prosecution could not prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellants before his death – The only witness who claimed to have seen the deceased return to the appellant’s house did not mention this in his police statement, creating a significant contradiction [Paras 48-50].

Recovery of Pesticide Bottle – Not Incriminating – The pesticide bottle recovered from the appellant’s house was commonly available, and there was no direct evidence linking it to the administration of poison to the deceased – The presence of the bottle alone was insufficient to prove the appellants’ involvement in the murder [Paras 85].

False Implication Due to Enmity – Witnesses admitted longstanding enmity with the appellants, which likely motivated their false implication – The court noted that enmity is a double-edged sword and must be carefully considered when evaluating testimony – The evidence presented was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the crime [Paras 44, 87, 97].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Appellant Surajbai to be released immediately from custody if not required in any other case – Appellant Bhuribai’s bail bonds discharged [Paras 94, 111, 112].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Based on Last Seen Together and Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC and causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC – The court discussed the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of last seen together – The appellant was allegedly last seen with the deceased before the murder, and certain articles were recovered from his possession – However, discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence on last seen together, coupled with forensic findings (no blood detected on the recovered articles), led the court to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The court set aside the trial court’s conviction and acquitted the appellant [Paras 10, 12, 20, 25, 27, 40-45, 58].

Recovery of Articles – Seizure of Alleged Murder Weapon and Other Items – An iron "tangi" (axe), blood-stained clothes, socks, and shoes were recovered based on the appellant's disclosure – FSL report found no blood on the recovered items – Court held that the recovery of these items did not constitute incriminating evidence against the appellant – The failure of forensic evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 30, 33, 40-42].

Acquittal – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove the chain of circumstances conclusively – In this case, the evidence of last seen together was weak, and the recovered articles did not establish a strong link between the accused and the crime – The court acquitted the appellant due to lack of reliable evidence [Paras 58-60].
 

Criminal Law - Death Penalty – Rare and Exceptional Circumstances – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence and DNA Report – Sentence Modified – The appellants were convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor, with the trial court awarding the death penalty based on DNA evidence linking one appellant to the crime – The High Court considered whether the case fell under the "rarest of rare" category to justify the death sentence – The mitigating circumstances, including the socio-economic background, age of the appellant, and his acceptance of guilt during trial, weighed against the aggravating factors of the crime's brutality – The court modified the death penalty to life imprisonment without remission [Paras 20-25, 40-45, 60-70].

Proof of Age – Inconsistent Evidence – Victim's Age Above 12 Years – The prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the victim was below 12 years of age, with contradictory testimonies from family members and school records – Following the Supreme Court's guidance in Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit, the High Court held that the age could not be established beyond reasonable doubt, influencing the sentencing decision [Paras 15-20].

Chain of Circumstances – Failure to Prove Guilt of Co-Accused – The court acquitted appellant Banshilal Ahirwar due to lack of sufficient evidence directly implicating him in the crime – The DNA profile did not match, and the presence of the victim's blood on his clothing was reasonably explained by his role in handling the body post-mortem – Conviction set aside for appellant No. 2 [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The conviction of appellant No. 1 Ram Prasad Ahirwar under Sections 363, 366, 201, and 302 of the IPC is maintained. However, his sentence of death penalty is modified to life imprisonment without remission, and his conviction under Section 376(DB) is altered to Section 376(3), with 25 years of imprisonment. Appellant No. 2 Banshilal Ahirwar is acquitted of all charges. Criminal Reference No. 1/2021 is answered accordingly, and Criminal Appeal No. 885/2021 is allowed in part for Ram Prasad Ahirwar and fully for Banshilal Ahirwar.

Criminal Law – Gang Rape and Murder – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Conviction of Principal Accused – Modification of Sentence from Death to Life Imprisonment – Appellant No. 1, Ram Prasad Ahirwar, and Appellant No. 2, Banshilal Ahirwar, were convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl (their relative) – Trial Court awarded death penalty to both appellants – On appeal, the High Court acquitted Banshilal Ahirwar due to insufficient evidence connecting him to the crime, particularly the lack of forensic evidence supporting his involvement in the rape – The conviction of Ram Prasad Ahirwar was upheld based on DNA evidence linking him to the rape and murder – The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in light of mitigating factors, including his young age, socio-economic background, and remorse [Paras 52, 57, 65, 80].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecution Witnesses – Age of Victim – Inconsistent statements were noted from key witnesses regarding the age of the victim, including her parents (PW.1 and PW.2), leading the court to doubt whether the victim was below 12 years of age at the time of the offense – The Headmaster (PW.3) admitted that the victim’s birth date recorded in school documents was based on oral information from the parents, further weakening the prosecution’s case on this issue – The Court held that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim’s age [Paras 42–47].

Forensic Evidence – DNA Report as Crucial Evidence – DNA evidence played a critical role in linking Ram Prasad Ahirwar to the crime – The forensic report confirmed that the DNA profile recovered from the vaginal slides and clothing of the victim matched the blood sample of Ram Prasad, establishing his guilt in the rape and murder – The same DNA evidence, however, did not match with Banshilal Ahirwar, leading to his acquittal [Paras 48–54].

Sentencing – Commutation of Death Penalty – The Court weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the brutal nature of the crime, the socio-economic background of the accused, and the possibility of reform – While the crime was heinous, the Court decided that life imprisonment without remission or parole for 25 years was a more appropriate sentence for Ram Prasad Ahirwar, in line with the principles set forth in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab on death penalty jurisprudence [Paras 70–79].

Decision – Conviction of Appellant No. 1 under Sections 363, 366, 201, 302 of IPC upheld, with modification of sentence under Section 376(DB) to 25 years’ imprisonment without parole or remission – Conviction of Appellant No. 2 set aside, and he was ordered to be released forthwith – Criminal reference answered accordingly [Paras 80–84].
 

Selection of Melsanthies – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Eligibility Criteria for Selection – The petition raised issues concerning the selection process for the appointment of Melsanthies at Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples – The court observed that the Travancore Devaswom Board permitted candidates to submit fresh experience certificates, contrary to earlier court directions in DBA No. 5 of 2022 – Such substitution of certificates violated the prescribed guidelines, which disallowed changes to the certificates after submission – The selection process and interviews were found to lack fairness and transparency, warranting judicial interference [Paras 2.1-2.6, 5-6].

Non-Recording of Reasons – Failure to Adhere to Vigilance Recommendations – Appeal Process – The Board allowed candidates whose applications had been rejected by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer to participate in the selection process without recording adequate reasons – Court emphasized that reasons must be recorded when appeals against rejection are allowed, in compliance with the principles of natural justice – The Board’s failure to provide clear reasons for overruling the Vigilance Officer’s recommendations was arbitrary and without legal justification [Paras 2.6-2.10, 8].

Judicial Review of Selection Process – Fairness and Transparency – The court found that the procedure followed by the Travancore Devaswom Board in reviewing rejected applications lacked transparency and fairness – The disparity in marks awarded by different interviewers (Tantris) also raised concerns about the integrity of the process – The court directed the Board to ensure compliance with established guidelines and reconsider the applications based on the correct procedures [Paras 7-9].

Decision – The court quashed the results of the selection process and ordered the Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct the selection afresh, adhering strictly to the guidelines issued by the court in previous orders – The decision emphasized the need for transparency, fairness, and proper documentation in the selection of Melsanthies [Paras 8-10].
 

Bail – UAPA Offences – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – The appellant sought bail on the grounds that despite serious allegations, no arms or incriminating material were recovered, and the money allegedly transferred by the appellant to a co-accused lacked evidence of being used for illegal activities – Held: While UAPA contains stringent provisions for bail, prolonged pre-trial detention of over 1 year and 9 months without the framing of charges and examination of witnesses entitles the appellant to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to liberty and speedy trial [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – The Supreme Court has held in various cases, including Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb and Shoma Kanti Sen vs. State of Maharashtra, that long pre-trial detention justifies granting bail, especially when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding soon – The appellant, having been in custody for nearly two years without charges being framed, was granted bail on this basis [Paras 6, 7].

Bail under UAPA – Statutory Restrictions – Court’s Discretion – Even though Section 43-D(5) of UAPA imposes restrictions on bail, Constitutional Courts have the discretion to grant bail when there is an unreasonable delay in the trial – In this case, with 62 witnesses yet to be examined, the appellant’s continued detention without trial was held to be unjustified [Paras 6, 8, 9].

No Recovery of Arms – Lack of Evidence for Criminal Use of Funds – Despite allegations of illegal activities, there was no recovery of arms or evidence linking the money transferred by the appellant to any unlawful purchase – The Court found insufficient grounds for further detention [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted subject to conditions – Impugned order set aside [Paras 11, 12].