Criminal Law – Murder – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and 506 IPC – Brutal daylight incident – Accused persons, armed with gun, knife and sharp-edged weapon (Daav), attacked deceased Chameli Devi due to land dispute – Deceased was knocked down, assaulted, beheaded and her head hung on a tree – Child witness also sustained firearm injury – Eyewitness account of PW-1 (informant), PW-2 and injured PW-8 found consistent on material particulars – Medical evidence establishing decapitation and abdominal injuries – Forensic evidence confirming presence of human blood on seized articles – Conduct of accused Lakhmi at spot (dancing near corpse with weapon) further corroborates prosecution version – Held: Chain of evidence complete and prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 77–80]

Evidence – Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Section 118 Evidence Act – PW-8 Krishna Kumar, injured eyewitness aged about 7 years at time of incident – Trial Court conducted preliminary examination to test understanding and capacity – Witness gave coherent, consistent account of assault, firing and beheading – Withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions – No evidence of tutoring or embellishment – Presence at spot proved by injury and medical evidence showing firearm wound with blackening – Held: Testimony of injured child witness highly reliable, carries great evidentiary value and can independently sustain conviction without necessity of corroboration [Paras 61–72]

Evidence – Minor contradictions and inconsistencies – Appreciation – Alleged inconsistencies in testimony of PW-8 regarding presence of villagers and sequence after firearm injury – Explained in light of natural human conduct and surrounding circumstances – Witness fleeing after injury does not negate his presence or ability to witness occurrence – Distinction reiterated between normal discrepancies due to shock, trauma and lapse of time and material contradictions affecting core prosecution case – Held: Discrepancies trivial and do not dent credibility of prosecution [Paras 43–52]

Evidence – Injured witness – Evidentiary value – PW-8 being injured witness lends assurance to prosecution case – His presence at scene cannot be doubted – Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony – Held: Testimony of injured witness entitled to great weight and reliability [Paras 51, 72]

Doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Applicability – Argument that entire testimony must be discarded if part found unreliable – Rejected – Held: Doctrine not applicable in Indian criminal law – It is only a rule of caution – Court entitled to separate grain from chaff and rely upon trustworthy portion of evidence [Paras 53–56]

Defence Evidence – Alibi – Evaluation of defence witness – DW-5 projected as chance witness claiming no one present at spot at 4:00 PM – Statement inconsistent with prompt FIR (lodged at 04:30 PM mentioning incident at 03:15 PM) and with testimony of PW-7 who reached spot at 03:45 PM and apprehended accused – Failure to explain timeline discrepancy – Held: Defence version unreliable and rightly discarded; plea of alibi not established [Paras 57–60]

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of witness – Non-examination of Komal – Occurrence near his house – Held: Not fatal to prosecution – Evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and reliable – Moreover, witness was inimical to informant; defence could have examined him – No adverse inference warranted [Para 74]

Evidence – Recovery of weapons and forensic corroboration – Recovery of Daav and trident from appellant Lakhmi at spot – Knife and gun recovered on pointing out of co-accused – FSL report confirms bloodstains and presence of human blood – Medical evidence corroborates firearm injury – Non-recovery of empty cartridge not fatal in light of other clinching evidence – Held: Scientific and physical evidence fully supports prosecution case [Paras 75–76]

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Accused jointly lying in wait, armed with different weapons, surrounding and attacking deceased, and acting in coordinated manner – Role of each accused clearly established – Held: Common intention proved beyond doubt [Paras 1, 72, 77]

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 IPC upheld – Conviction of Languri and Yogesh under Section 506 IPC also upheld – Appellants to remain in jail to serve out sentence awarded by Trial Court.

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Section 325 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appellant, a neighbour, objected to construction work on the complainant's property and struck the victim (daughter-in-law of the complainant) on the head with a sabal (iron rod), causing grievous bleeding injuries resulting in loss of consciousness – Prosecution examined seven witnesses including PW1 (de facto complainant), PW3 (independent eyewitness), PW5 (victim/injured), PW6 (treating doctor) and PW7 (Investigating Officer) – Medical evidence (Exhibit-3) confirmed grievous nature of the lacerated head injury consistent with a blunt pointed instrument – Held: Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed [Paras 18-37].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Independent Corroboration – PW5, as the injured victim, carries significant evidentiary value and her testimony was corroborated by PW1 and PW3 (independent neighbour) – Cross-examination failed to shake the credibility of any of the three witnesses – Minor discrepancy regarding precise place of occurrence (pathway adjacent to the house) held not to constitute a material contradiction – Non-examination of Sisir Mistry (cited charge-sheeted witness) explained by the Trial Court as having been gained over by the accused – Held: Evidence of PW1, PW3, PW5 consistent, mutually corroborative and reliable [Paras 23-34].

Sentencing – Undue Delay – Leniency – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Incident occurred in 2008; appeal pending since 2010; appellant on bail continuously for over fifteen years with no subsequent criminal conduct – Held: Protracted delay in disposal of criminal proceedings, not attributable to the accused, amounts to a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 – Prolonged pendency itself constitutes mental suffering and operates as a form of punishment – Substantive sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 10,000/- [Paras 39-50].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 325 IPC affirmed – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment reduced to period already undergone – Fine enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-, payable within three months; default imprisonment of two months – Bail bond cancelled.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Accidental Death vs. Homicidal Death – Appellants convicted for allegedly running a tractor over the deceased with an intention to kill at the instance of co-accused – The deceased was admitted to the District Hospital as an accidental injury case and the hospital communication to police also mentioned it as an accidental injury – The FIR was lodged more than 49 hours after the incident without plausible explanation – Eyewitnesses PW-2 and PW-3 contradicted PW-1 in cross-examination on the material point of taking the injured to the hospital – Defence witness DW-1 deposed that the incident was a road accident caused by a loaded tractor-trolley – Possibility of false implication on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; appellants entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 38-42].

Evidence – Delay in FIR – 49 Hours – No Plausible Explanation – Prosecution failed to satisfactorily explain delay of more than 49 hours in lodging the FIR despite eyewitnesses being present and accompanying the informant to the hospital – Delay gives opportunity for deliberation and embellishment of prosecution story – Hospital records (Ext. Ka-17) showed deceased was admitted as an accidental injury case – Held: In the absence of proper explanation for delay, evidence must be scrutinised meticulously; delay in the present case creates serious doubt about the prosecution version [Paras 33-39].

Evidence – Chance Witnesses – Internal Contradictions – PW-2 (Iftekhar Hussain) stated in cross-examination that he left the place of occurrence after 15 minutes and did not take the injured to the hospital – PW-3 (Arshad Ali) also stated he did not take the injured to the hospital and left for his village – These statements directly contradict PW-1 (the first informant) who stated PW-2 and PW-3 helped him take the injured to the hospital – Held: Material contradictions between prosecution witnesses undermine the reliability of the prosecution case [Paras 40, 41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Appellants Irfan and Saleem (on bail): bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Appellant Faeem (in jail): to be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Service Law – CRPF – Dismissal from Service – Absence Without Leave – Wilful Misconduct – Petitioner, enrolled in CRPF on 01.11.2006 and serving as Constable (CT/WC), proceeded on sanctioned leave from 19.05.2018 to 05.06.2018 – On expiry, could not report due to road accident causing foot injury – Subsequently hospitalised at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana from 01.10.2018 to 31.03.2019 for non-healing ulcer of the left foot – Respondents, without considering medical record, declared petitioner a proclaimed person/deserter vide order dated 15.12.2018 under Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 and dismissed him ex parte vide order dated 25.04.2019 under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 – Held: Absence accompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence cannot be presumed to be wilful – Medical record neither discredited nor meaningfully considered – Finding of wilfulness stood vitiated – Orders set aside – Petitioner reinstated with continuity and arrears of salary at 6% interest [Paras 2–6, 20, 33–34].

Desertion vs. Absence Without Leave – Animus Deserendi – Rule 31, CRPF Rules, 1955 – Distinction between desertion and absence without leave necessarily depends on the animus of the absent member – Where absence is traced to medical incapacity and not to any intent to permanently remain away, the charge of desertion cannot be sustained – Mechanical invocation of Rule 31 without reconciling petitioner's medical condition or examining whether he was incapacitated rather than absconding amounts to non-application of mind – Statutory power cannot be exercised in abstraction of facts and must be tethered to reason – Charges framed under Section 11(1) read with Rule 27 for minor offences could not have been escalated to dismissal by conflating absence without leave with desertion [Paras 21–23].

Natural Justice – Ex Parte Enquiry – Effective Service – Mere dispatch of notices does not satisfy the mandate of fair opportunity – An administrative order visited with civil consequences must be preceded by real and effective opportunity of being heard – Respondents failed to establish actual or constructive service in a manner ensuring the petitioner's participation – Ex parte enquiry conducted in such circumstances constitutes a façade of fairness rather than genuine compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 8, 28–29].

Proportionality of Punishment – Doctrine of Proportionality – Judicial Review – Scope – Punishment must suit both the offence and the offender – Dismissal, the harshest penalty, imposed upon a petitioner in service since 01.11.2006 for absence intertwined with medical exigencies is shockingly disproportionate – Courts may interfere where punishment is vindictive, unduly harsh, or in outrageous defiance of logic – Discipline and individual dignity are complementary constitutional values; State as employer in a uniformed force remains bound by fairness under Articles 14 and 21 [Paras 24–27, 30–32].

Scope of Judicial Review – Article 226 – Service Jurisprudence – Judicial review is not limited to procedural infirmities but extends to cases where findings are perverse, material evidence is ignored, or punishment is disproportionate – Where no reasonable grounds exist for formation of the authority's opinion, judicial review is permissible – A finding based on no evidence, as opposed to one merely against the weight of evidence, constitutes an abuse of power [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 15.12.2018 declaring petitioner as deserter/proclaimed person and order dated 25.04.2019 dismissing him from service set aside – Petitioner directed to be reinstated with continuity for all purposes – Respondents directed to release all consequential benefits including arrears of salary with interest at 6% p.a. within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order [Para 34].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Certified Guardian – Time Limit for Application – Rule 5 – Petitioner, a specially-abled spinster, sought compassionate appointment as certified guardian of the minor child of her deceased brother (a Government employee) and his wife, both of whom died in a road accident on 04.07.2017 – The Compassionate Appointment Rules did not originally contemplate appointment to a certified guardian; the eligibility was created only by amendment on 09.04.2021 – Petitioner filed her application on 18.08.2022, five years after the date of death – Held: Petitioner's application is beyond the one-year time limit prescribed under the amended Rule 5; the exception under Rule 5 for minors is also inapplicable; compassionate appointment cannot be granted [Paras 11-15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Applicable Rules – Date of Death vs. Date of Consideration – Conflict Between N.C. Santosh and Bheemesh – In N.C. Santosh v. State of Karnataka, the Apex Court held that the norms prevailing as on the date of consideration of the application are the decisive factor – However, in State of Karnataka v. Bheemesh, the Apex Court opined that where benefits under an existing scheme were enlarged by a modified scheme after the death of the employee, only the scheme in force on the date of death applies – Held: Compassionate appointment is an exception to regular recruitment; interpretation must depend on determinate and fixed criteria; greater emphasis on rule of law required; indeterminate factors such as the petitioner being a specially-abled spinster cannot override the prescribed time limit [Paras 14, 15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Amended Rule 3(2)(iii) – Benefit Not Available Beyond Time Limit – Even though the 2021 amendment created eligibility for certified guardians of minor children of deceased government employees where both the employee and spouse are deceased, such eligibility is subject to the simultaneous amendment to Rule 5 prescribing a one-year time limit for filing applications – Petitioner's application filed after five years cannot be considered regardless of the genuineness of the claim [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Decision: Writ petition rejected – Tribunal's order and respondent's refusal of compassionate appointment upheld.

Arbitration – National Highways Act – Applicability of Section 29A of Arbitration Act – Statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) – Whether time limit for making award applies – Held Section 29A inapplicable as NH Act is special self-contained code – Provisions relating to extension, substitution and termination of mandate inconsistent with scheme of NH Act – Application would render statutory mechanism unworkable – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–35, 38–40, 48–49]

Arbitration – Legislation by reference – Applicability of subsequent amendments – Arbitration Act applied to NH Act only to extent not inconsistent – Test of intention and unworkability applied – Section 29A excluded due to conflict with statutory scheme [Paras 32–34]

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 3G(5), NH Act – Exclusive power of Central Government – Court cannot substitute arbitrator under Section 29A(6) – Special law overrides general law – Inconsistency leads to exclusion of Section 29A [Paras 38–41, 44–45]

Arbitration – Delay in making award – Award passed after about six years – Whether void – Held delay does not render award without jurisdiction in statutory arbitration under NH Act – Remedy lies under Article 226 in case of unreasonable delay [Paras 49–50]

Land Acquisition – Determination of compensation – Section 26, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Arbitrator relied on multiple comparable sale instances – Higher value transactions considered – Uniform rate justified based on location and potential – No patent illegality [Paras 52–57, 65–69, 71]

Land Acquisition – Rejection of sale instances by Competent Authority – Majority of sale deeds discarded without reasons – Arbitrator entitled to reassess evidence – Approach consistent with law laid down by Supreme Court [Paras 54–56]

Arbitration – Scope under Sections 34 and 37 – Limited interference – No re-appreciation of evidence – Interference only in case of patent illegality or perversity – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 60–63, 74–75]

Land Acquisition – Multiplication factor – Classification as rural land – Application of factor of 2 upheld based on notification and findings of fact – No error found [Para 72]

Decision: All Arbitration Appeals dismissed – Section 29A held inapplicable to arbitrations under National Highways Act – Arbitral awards upheld – No interference warranted under Section 37.

UAPA – Bail – Section 43D(5) – Overground Worker – Logistical Support – Long Incarceration – Appellant alleged to be a courier, messenger and overground worker of CPI (Maoist) who collected levy of Rs. 5 lakhs from a contractor on the direction of Maoist commander Ravindra Ganjhu – Cash, a letter of demand and other incriminating articles recovered from his possession – Charge sheet filed against six accused; out of 160 witnesses only five examined so far – Appellant in custody since 05.01.2020, completing over six years of incarceration – Held: Rigours of Section 43D(5) UAPA yield where there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in the near future and incarceration has already exceeded a substantial period; appellant entitled to bail [Paras 6, 12, 13].

UAPA – Bail – Parity – Distinguishable Role of Co-accused – NIA opposed bail citing rejection of bail of co-accused Kunwar Ganjhu in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 944 of 2025 – Held: Role of Kunwar Ganjhu under para 17.50.3 of the charge sheet is distinguishable as he was directly involved in extortion from contractors by putting them in fear of bodily injury and was a habitual offender, whereas the present appellant's role under para 17.50.2 is confined to that of a courier and messenger providing logistical support – Parity not applicable [Paras 10, 11].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – UAPA – Statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) UAPA do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution – Rigours of Section 43D(5) melt down where trial completion within reasonable time is unlikely and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – Held: Section 43D(5) UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 NDPS Act and does not impose a precondition of prima facie innocence [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 01.12.2025 rejecting bail set aside – Appellant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each – Condition imposed that appellant shall remain physically present before the trial court on each and every date till conclusion of trial.

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Summons for Investigation – Challenge on Ground of Malafide – Not Established – Petitioner challenged summons issued by the Income Tax Officer (Investigation) on 14.11.2025 requiring production of books of account, bank statements and property details, alleging it was issued at the instance of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax who is remotely related to defendants in a pending civil suit – Held: None of the respondents are parties to the civil suit; petitioner himself is not a party; the Tax Evasion Petition was received on 12.11.2025 and summons issued following Standard Operating Procedure; interim injunction in the civil suit was passed in April 2025, months before the summons; plea of malafide raised only in the writ petition and not in replies before the income tax authorities; plea based on Chartered Accountant's affidavit which was introduced after the summons and is afterthought – Malafide in fact not proved [Paras 24, 34].

Income Tax – Malice in Law – Legal Malafide – Distinction – Malafide in fact requires direct proof of ill will or improper motive; malice in law is an act done without lawful excuse or for purposes foreign to those for which power is vested – Where the statutory authority has acted on an anonymous Tax Evasion Petition following the prescribed SOP, allotting Unique Identification Number and obtaining approval of the competent authority before issuing summons, there is no question of malice in law or colourable exercise of power – Burden of establishing malafide is very heavy on the person who alleges it [Paras 26-35].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (Investigation) – Not Raised in Writ Petition – Reading Section 131(1A) with Section 132(1), the Income Tax Officer is included as an authorized officer to issue summons on being authorized by the competent superior authority – Additionally, the ground of want of jurisdiction was never raised in the writ petition or in the petitioner's replies before the income tax authorities and was raised orally for the first time at arguments, which is impermissible – Held: No jurisdictional infirmity made out [Paras 40-42].

Income Tax – Section 131(1A) – Stage of Investigation – Confidentiality – At the stage of summons under Section 131(1A), the income tax authority is not required to disclose the reasons, source of information, line of inquiry or scope of ongoing investigation; details of such investigation are confidential and even exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act – Disclosure would defeat the purpose of investigation [Para 6].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Summons under Section 131(1A) held legal and not suffering from any infirmity – IA No. 4 of 2026 rejected – IA No. 3 of 2026 and all pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Railway Claims – Untoward Incident vs Trespassing – Death of passenger near railway track – Tribunal rejected claim treating incident as trespassing – High Court held absence of eyewitness and lack of evidence proving trespass – Beneficial interpretation of social welfare legislation warranted – Incident treated as “untoward incident” and compensation granted [Paras 7–8, 13].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Boarding of Train – No eyewitness to boarding – Held: Claimants cannot be expected to prove impossible facts such as actual boarding in absence of CCTV or co-passenger – Testimony of widow regarding routine travel sufficient [Para 6].

Railway Law – Bonafide Passenger – Finding of Tribunal in favour of claimant not challenged – Recovery of valid season ticket supports case of travel – Strengthens presumption of accidental fall during journey [Paras 2–3].

Trespassing – Proof – Mere police report or inquest panchnama without eyewitness not sufficient to establish trespassing – Station Master’s report recorded cause as “not known” – Held: Railways failed to discharge burden [Paras 9, 11–12].

Social Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – In absence of clear evidence of trespass, interpretation must favour claimant – Possibility of accidental fall followed by runover cannot be ruled out [Para 8].

Compensation – Award – Claimants held entitled to statutory compensation with interest – Directions issued for payment within stipulated time [Para 14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Finding of Tribunal reversed – Death held to be an “untoward incident” – Appellants entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 6% interest (subject to cap of Rs. 8,00,000/-) – Directions issued for payment within 12 weeks.