Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Recovery of Deceased's Belongings – Conviction Upheld – Deceased had an illicit relationship with Appellant No. 2 (Shanno); after his marriage, the appellants planned his elimination – Deceased last seen leaving with the appellants on 25.07.2000 – At the instance of the appellants, two gold rings, a wrist watch, and a cloth tape (katran) used for strangulation were recovered; one ring recovered from sister of Appellant No. 2 and another from a goldsmith to whom Appellant No. 1 had sold it – Deceased's body thrown into river Ram Ganga but not recovered despite search – Held: Circumstances including last seen evidence, recoveries of articles belonging to the deceased identified by prosecution witnesses, and disclosure statements form a complete chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the appellants [Paras 20, 54–56, 60].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Not Standalone Proof – Last seen theory is only one of the circumstances in the chain; alone it is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt but when coupled with other proved circumstances it plays a vital role – Delay in lodging complaint after disappearance of deceased is not unnatural where the deceased was last seen voluntarily leaving with a known acquaintance and complainant made his own efforts to trace him before approaching police [Paras 48, 49, 50–53].

Recovery – Disclosure Statements – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) – Gold rings belonging to deceased recovered at the pointing of appellants from the sister of Appellant No. 2 and a goldsmith — identified by prosecution witnesses including the maker of the rings — give rise to a presumption under Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act that the appellants had also committed the murder of the deceased – Non-examination or hostility of one witness (PW-6) does not vitiate the recovery as it stands corroborated by police witnesses from multiple U.P. police stations, DD entries, and remand application [Paras 39, 55].

Corpus Delicti – Non-Recovery of Dead Body – Not Fatal – Non-recovery of the dead body is not an absolute requirement for conviction in a murder case and is only one of the relevant factors — where other cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death is available through circumstantial evidence forming a clinching and definitive chain, conviction can be sustained even without recovery of the body [Paras 57–59].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 365/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 404 IPC upheld – Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 60, 61].

Muslim Personal Law – Testamentary Capacity – Bequest to Heirs – Consent Requirement – Wills Invalid Without Consent of Other Heirs – Appellants, who are sons and legal heirs of deceased Mohd. Anas and Mohd. Iliyas, claimed ownership of disputed property on the basis of Wills dated 16.08.2015 and 07.01.2016 respectively – Defendants denied execution of Wills and alleged them to be forged and fabricated – Held: Under Hanafi (Sunni Muslim) law, a bequest in favour of an heir is not valid unless the other heirs expressly consent to the bequest after the death of the testator – The rule of one-third applies only to bequests in favour of strangers and not heirs – Without express consent of all legal heirs, the alleged Wills remained inoperative and conferred no right, title or interest on the plaintiffs [Paras 60-68].

Suspicious Circumstances – Proof of Will – Multiple Infirmities – Wills Disbelieved – The alleged Will of Mohd. Iliyas (executed 07.01.2016) incorrectly mentioned Mohd. Anas as the owner of half share, whereas Mohd. Anas had already died on 12.10.2015, a fact that Mohd. Iliyas, being his close friend and business partner, could not have been unaware of – The alleged Wills included properties in which the testators were not the sole or exclusive owners (Standard Cold Storage, Standard Handloom Store, MM Textiles, and a jointly-owned house) – The propounder of the Will of Mohd. Anas, i.e., plaintiff no. 1 Mohd. Mubin, did not enter the witness box – Attesting witnesses gave contradictory testimonies regarding the place of execution of the Wills – Held: Suspicious circumstances were not dispelled; trial court rightly disbelieved the Wills [Paras 74-85].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Suit Bad for Non-Joinder – The plaintiffs failed to implead the wife, nine daughters and one son of deceased Mohd. Iliyas as defendants, whose consent was indispensable for the Wills to be operative – Under Mohammedan law, consent of heirs must be express and cannot be implied from silence or non-participation – Held: Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties [Para 69].

Cancellation of Sale Deed – Suit Not Maintainable – The defendants of the second set, being legal heirs of the deceased, had inherited a share in the disputed property and were entitled to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants of the first set – Plaintiffs neither denied that defendants of the second set were legal heirs nor claimed partition – Held: Sale deed could not be declared void ab initio on the basis of inoperative Wills [Para 86].

Permanent Injunction – Barred Under Section 41(h), Specific Relief Act – Equally Efficacious Remedy Available – Plaintiffs, having failed to establish title on the basis of alleged Wills and having not claimed partition, were not entitled to permanent injunction against the true owners of the disputed property – Held: Suit for permanent injunction not maintainable against true owners; equally efficacious remedy of partition was available but not pursued; suit also barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Paras 88-91].

Decision: Appeal dismissed at the admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC – Impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2026 affirmed.

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 – 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.

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.

POCSO – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction Upheld – Victim's Testimony – Section 4 POCSO Act – Appellant convicted by Trial Court for sexually penetrating the anus of a minor boy and for showing pornographic material to a minor – Sentenced to simple imprisonment of seven years under Section 4 POCSO Act and one year under Section 293 IPC – On appeal, victim's testimony found natural and creditworthy – Absence of anal injury not fatal as Medical Officer found discomfort and slight pain during digital examination and opined possibility of penetration could not be ruled out – Corroboration not a sine qua non for conviction in sexual offences – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–14, 25, 39–43].

Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – Delay Not Fatal – Incident occurred on 02.09.2013; FIR lodged on 03.09.2013 – Victim's father was absent from home; victim and mother cannot be faulted – Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula to discard prosecution case, especially in sexual offences; court only examines whether satisfactory explanation has been offered [Para 17].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – Discrepancies Not Going to Core – Discrepancies between victim's statement and his mother's statement regarding number of surrounding houses and whether victim attended school next day – Statements recorded more than six months after incident – Held: Minor discrepancies bound to arise with passage of time and do not shake the core of the prosecution case; each person reacts to a traumatic event in his own way and non-disclosure to neighbours or classmates cannot discredit the victim [Paras 22, 23].

Evidence – Cross-Examination – Failure to Challenge Witness – Recovery of Mobile Phone – Witness (PW4) who proved recovery of mobile phone containing memory card was not cross-examined – Held: Where testimony of a witness is not challenged in cross-examination, the same cannot be challenged during arguments; the recovery of the mobile phone with the memory card and pornographic clip must be accepted as proved, corroborating the victim's version [Para 26].

Evidence – Contradiction of Witness – Section 145 Evidence Act – Previous Statement – Victim's credit cannot be impeached on the ground that showing of pornographic clip was not mentioned in the FIR, as the victim's attention was not drawn to his previous statement in the manner prescribed under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; courts cannot suo motu take cognisance of contradictions not brought on record as per law [Paras 29–32].

Presumption – POCSO Act – Sections 29 and 30 – Foundational Facts – Burden on Accused – Statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act is activated only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts, namely: (i) victim is a child; (ii) alleged incident has occurred; (iii) accused committed the offence; and (iv) supporting medical evidence where physical injury is caused – Once foundational facts are proved, burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities – In the present case, victim's testimony was sufficient to prove foundational facts and the accused failed to lead any rebuttal evidence [Paras 34–39].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 293 IPC upheld – Sentence of seven years simple imprisonment under Section 4 POCSO Act and one year under Section 293 IPC confirmed [Paras 42, 43].

Mining Lease – Lapse of Rights – Cut-off Date under Section 10A(2)(c) – Effect of Non-execution of Lease Deed – Petitioners granted mining lease on 08.01.2017 but lease deed not executed before statutory deadline of 11.01.2017 – Authorities held application became ineligible – High Court examined whether delay attributable to State/Union and non-decision on forest clearance affected petitioner’s rights – Held: Inaction of authorities, particularly failure to decide application dated 20.08.2011 as directed by Supreme Court, materially impacted petitioner’s ability to comply – Matter required reconsideration in light of statutory scheme and administrative lapses [Paras 40–41, 48–49].

Statutory Interpretation – “Grant” of Mining Lease – Section 10A(2)(c) MMDR Act and Rule 8(4) of 2016 Rules – Whether grant is complete upon issuance of letter of intent/order or only upon execution and registration of lease deed – Held: Scheme indicates that mere grant order does not confer vested right unless conditions including execution are fulfilled, however such requirement cannot operate harshly where delay is attributable to State authorities [Paras 28, 45–47].

Forest Clearance – Requirement under Forest (Conservation) Act – Deleted Forest Land – Supreme Court directions dated 08.09.2016 mandating determination of nature of land and decision on approval application – No decision taken by MoEF&CC despite binding directions – Held: Authorities cannot rely on absence of clearance when they themselves failed to decide application within stipulated time [Paras 41, 33–37].

Administrative Inaction – Effect on Statutory Rights – Petitioner's inability to execute lease deed linked to pending approvals and lack of response from authorities – Held: State cannot take advantage of its own delay to defeat accrued rights under saving clause of Section 10A(2)(c) [Paras 26–27, 48].

Vested Rights – Letter of Intent and Grant Order – Whether enforceable right accrues prior to execution – Held: No absolute vested right arises merely on issuance of LOI or grant order, but rights crystallize where petitioner has complied and delay is not attributable to it [Paras 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Impugned communication dated 17.11.2017 and consequential actions subject to reconsideration – Authorities directed to re-examine petitioner’s claim in light of Supreme Court directions and administrative lapses, including failure to decide forest clearance application – Appropriate decision to be taken in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Liberal Approach – Delay Not a Bar – Petitioner, an uneducated and underprivileged widow who worked as a domestic help, filed suit challenging a Deed of Gift procured by her employer through fraud and forgery – During cross-examination of DW1, it was noticed that the Deed of Revocation executed on 13.02.2013 had not been incorporated in the plaint due to bona fide mistake and inadvertence – Amendment sought to incorporate facts of revocation and an additional prayer – Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the Deed of Revocation was itself invalid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act and was irrelevant since the Deed of Gift was challenged as a forged document – Held: Delay is no ground for refusal of amendment; amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit; defendants can be compensated with costs; trial court erred in rejecting the application [Paras 11-14].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Merits of Amendment Not to be Examined – Court considering an application for amendment of pleadings cannot go into the merits or validity of the amendment; the only question is whether the amendment is necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties – Trial court erred in holding that the Deed of Revocation was invalid under Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act at the stage of considering the amendment application – Legal consequences of the revocation are to be decided at the final stage – Held: Merits of the amendment should not have been examined [Para 13].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 – Not an Absolute Bar – The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 was incorporated to curtail inordinate delay but does not operate as an absolute bar to amendment after commencement of trial – Where the petitioner is an uneducated widow who had to rely on her advocates and the omission was due to bona fide mistake, the amendment deserves to be allowed upon payment of costs – Amendment will not alter the cause of action or deprive defendants of any valid defence [Paras 11, 14].

Decision: Revisional application disposed of – Impugned order set aside – Amendment allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- in favour of the defendants within four weeks – Amended plaint to be filed within four weeks; defendants at liberty to file additional written statement.

Criminal Law – Quashing of proceedings – Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS – Scope and limits – FIR and victim statements disclose serious allegations of rape, administration of stupefying substance and blackmail – Presence of supporting material including alleged objectionable videos – Held: Where allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and raise triable issues, inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to stifle prosecution; quashing refused [Paras 8–11]

Rape and sexual exploitation – Allegation under guise of exorcism – Victim allegedly administered ‘Prasad’ containing stupefying substance leading to unconsciousness and sexual assault – Subsequent repeated rape on threat of making videos viral – Held: Allegations indicate abuse of position of influence and coercion; require full-fledged trial [Paras 3–4, 9]

Blackmail and extortion – Sections 506 and 384 IPC – Allegation of recording objectionable videos and threatening victim with publication to compel sexual acts – Accused found prima facie in possession of such material as per supplementary affidavit – Held: Possession of such material lends prima facie corroboration to prosecution version; matter cannot be adjudicated at quashing stage [Para 9]

Delay in FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after two years of initial incident – Defence raised delay and alleged false implication due to enmity – Held: Delay and defence of false implication are matters of evidence and trial; cannot be grounds for quashing when allegations are otherwise credible [Paras 5, 9]

Consent – Plea of consensual relationship – Accused claimed love affair and consensual sexual relations – Victim denied such relationship and alleged coercion through blackmail – Held: Disputed question of consent cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS; requires trial [Para 9]

Inherent powers – “Rarest of rare” standard – Powers under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS are wide but to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice – Not to be invoked where factual matrix discloses prima facie offence – Held: Case does not fall within parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal and subsequent precedents [Para 10]

Evaluation of evidence – Impermissibility at quashing stage – Court cannot conduct mini-trial or weigh defence evidence such as alleged monetary transactions or enmity – Held: Such defences to be examined during trial [Paras 5, 9]

Decision: Application dismissed – Charge sheet and criminal proceedings upheld – Trial to proceed in accordance with law.