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].

Simplicitor Suit for Possession – Requirement to Set Aside Sale Deeds – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought possession of land based on pre-emption rights without seeking a declaration to set aside prior sale deeds from 1978 and 1984 executed by their father, the natural guardian. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Murugan vs Kesava Gounder, held that the sale executed by a natural guardian is voidable, not void, and must be explicitly challenged within the statutory period. Since the plaintiffs did not seek to set aside the sale deeds, their suit was not maintainable and was dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Limitation Act – Article 60 – Failure to Challenge Sale Deeds within Three Years – Suit Barred – Under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, a suit to set aside a sale by a guardian must be filed within three years after the plaintiff attains majority. In this case, one of the plaintiffs, Satpal Gir, failed to challenge the sale within the prescribed period, making his claim time-barred. The finding of the First Appellate Court on this issue was upheld, and Satpal’s suit for 1/3rd share was dismissed [Paras 6-7].

Bona Fide Purchasers – Equitable Relief – Legal and Equitable Balance Favors Bona Fide Purchasers – The appellants, having purchased the property in good faith and for valuable consideration, were deemed bona fide purchasers. The Court emphasized that in cases involving disputes between bona fide purchasers and plaintiffs asserting pre-emption rights, equity leans in favor of the bona fide purchasers. Both on legal grounds and principles of equity, the suit was dismissed, and the appellants' ownership was upheld [Paras 14-15].

Judgment Set Aside – Lack of Challenge to Sale Deeds Fatal to Plaintiffs' Case – The First Appellate Court’s ruling, which had granted possession to the plaintiffs without requiring them to seek a declaration to set aside the sale deeds, was found to be contrary to settled legal principles. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit in toto for failure to challenge the sale deeds [Paras 15-16].

Decision – The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed entirely [Paras 15-16].

Fraud Classification – RBI Master Circular – Natural Justice – The petitioner company sought to quash PNB's action of declaring its account as 'fraud' without prior notice or hearing – The court held that the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud, without following the principles of natural justice, violated RBI guidelines – Held: The petitioner was neither given a chance to respond nor was the fraud declaration substantiated through proper procedure, making the declaration invalid [Paras 18-21].

Suspension of Credit Facilities – Illegal Action – The court quashed SBI's letter suspending the petitioner's credit facilities based on PNB's fraud classification – It was held that since the fraud declaration itself was invalid, the consequent suspension of credit facilities by SBI could not stand – Held: The suspension of credit facilities was unlawful and must be reversed [Paras 19, 22].

Compensation for Damages – Costs Imposed – The court acknowledged the financial loss and reputational damage suffered by the petitioner due to PNB's wrongful action – As compensation, PNB was ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner, failing which an 18% per annum interest would apply from the date of filing the petition [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court directed PNB to remove the petitioner's account from the fraud list and notify RBI and SBI accordingly – SBI was instructed to restore the petitioner's credit facilities [Paras 22-24].

Customs Law – Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) – Interest on Delayed Refund – The petitioner sought interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund of SAD under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 – The refund application was filed on 04 August 2014, and despite multiple remands and delays, the refund was sanctioned only in 2024 – Held: The interest should be calculated from 04 August 2014, the date of the original refund application, and not from 08 August 2022, as contended by the respondent – The petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum for the delay in refund [Paras 2-5, 18-23].

Section 27A of Customs Act – Interpretation – The court rejected the respondent's argument that the interest period should begin only from the petitioner's subsequent request for refund on 08 August 2022 – Held: Section 27A provides for interest on delayed refunds starting from three months after the receipt of the original refund application, not from a later follow-up application [Paras 28-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 421,940 as interest on the delayed refund within two months, failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply – Costs of Rs. 15,000 were also awarded to the petitioner [Paras 40-45].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of BNSS – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an assault on the complainant due to political rivalry – The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a dislocated shoulder – The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant's choice of a distant hospital raised doubts about the case – Held: The delay in filing the FIR was justified as the complainant first sought medical treatment – The serious nature of the injuries and specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners weighed against granting anticipatory bail [Paras 1-20].

Overt Acts – The court noted that the petitioners were accused of picking up sticks and beating the victim, causing significant injuries – These specific allegations, supported by medical evidence, disproved the petitioners' claim that there were no overt acts alleged against them [Paras 21-30].

Political Motive – Both parties belonged to rival political factions, and the court recognized the political motive behind the attack – However, this motive did not diminish the severity of the offense or the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Both criminal petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.