Criminal Law – POSCO – Rape – Conviction Set Aside - Age Determination of Victim – Hierarchical Standards under Section 94 of JJ Act – Trial Court Erred in Relying on Birth Certificate Alone – As per Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12(3)(a) of the JJ Rules, age determination must follow a hierarchical process, prioritizing a matriculation certificate, followed by the date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and lastly, the birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or gram panchayat – The prosecution failed to produce the school certificate despite the victim attending school up to Class 9 – Held: The trial court erred in relying solely on the birth certificate when better evidence was available and not procured, rendering the finding of minority unsustainable [Paras 16-23].

Victim’s Consent – Victim Above 18 Years – No Case Under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act – Both the victim and her mother testified that the victim was over 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident – The victim admitted to a consensual relationship with the accused and denied any rape – Held: In the absence of evidence establishing the victim’s minority and given her consent, no offence under Section 376 IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act is made out against the accused [Paras 23-24].

Section 164 CrPC – Not Substantive Evidence – Trial Court Erred in Considering it for Conviction – A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict testimony given in court – The victim turned hostile during the trial, and her Section 164 CrPC statement could not be relied upon to convict the accused – Held: The trial court’s reliance on the Section 164 CrPC statement was misplaced, and the conviction cannot stand [Paras 25-27].

Investigative Lapses – Non-Compliance with JJ Act Provisions – Directions Issued – The investigating officer failed to collect relevant evidence regarding the victim’s age as mandated under Section 94 of the JJ Act – Held: Directions issued to the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act and ensure the availability of age determination documents in such cases [Paras 30-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were set aside – The fine, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded – Directions were issued to the Director General of Police and Director of Prosecution to ensure compliance with Section 94 of the JJ Act in future investigations.

Public Servant – Necessity of Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Charges Quashed – The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch at the time of the alleged offense, was charged under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, and Sections 409 and 467 IPC, for misappropriation of public funds and forgery in connection with the construction of a public facility – Held: Sections 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC mandate prior prosecution sanction before a court can take cognizance of such offenses committed by a public servant in discharge of official duties – In the absence of such sanction, the trial court's decision to frame charges was unsustainable – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 was quashed [Paras 19-23].

Reasonable Connection Between Act and Official Duty – Protection Under Section 197 CrPC – The alleged acts had a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of the petitioner’s official duties as Sarpanch, making prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – It was established that the alleged acts of forgery and misappropriation were committed in the course of performing official functions, thus falling under the protection afforded by Section 197 CrPC [Paras 17-20].

Prosecution Sanction – Safeguard Against Malicious Prosecution – Section 19 of the PC Act is a legislative safeguard to protect public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution – The lack of prosecution sanction rendered the proceedings against the petitioner invalid, barring the trial court from framing charges or proceeding further [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Revision petition was partly allowed – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 (Kesar Singh) quashed for want of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioners No. 2 (Bhanwar Singh), No. 3 (Mohan Lal Jat), and No. 4 (Rajendra Singh) [Para 24].
 

Criminal Law - Right to Fair Trial – Examination of Defense Witnesses – Section 233 of Cr.P.C. – The petitioners sought to examine eight witnesses, including prominent individuals, as part of their defense in a high-profile dacoity and murder case – Held: The right to present a defense and examine witnesses is integral to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial court erred in rejecting the petition without adequately considering the relevance and necessity of the witnesses sought to be examined – The order was set aside to ensure the defense's right to a fair trial [Paras 15-19, 25].

Witness Examination – High-Profile Individuals – Not Vexatious – The petitioners sought to examine Edappadi K. Palaniswami (former Chief Minister) and V.K. Sasikala, among others, arguing their testimony was relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime – Held: The petitioners demonstrated sufficient cause to summon these witnesses – The examination of high-profile witnesses cannot be dismissed as vexatious without proper scrutiny of the reasons and facts supporting the application [Paras 19-21].

Suspicions Surrounding Investigation – Scope of Defense Evidence – Multiple deaths, including that of a prime accused, and allegations of tampered investigations necessitated the examination of key witnesses to uncover hidden facts – Held: The refusal to summon witnesses critical to the defense's case amounts to a denial of the opportunity to present a fair defense – The court emphasized the importance of evaluating circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence [Paras 20-22].

Administrative and Security Concerns – Witness Examination Justified – The petitioners sought to examine senior administrative officials to ascertain the reasons for the withdrawal of security at the crime scene and their knowledge of the premises – Held: Examining such witnesses was essential to address gaps in the investigation and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the case – Rejection of their examination by the trial court was erroneous [Paras 22].

Decision: The Criminal Revision was allowed, and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, in Crl.M.P. No. 292 of 2021 in S.C. No. 2 of 2018, dated 30.04.2021, was set aside. The trial court was directed to permit the petitioners to examine the eight witnesses sought. The Sessions Court was also directed to complete the trial in accordance with the law, giving due opportunity to both the prosecution and the defense to present their cases [Paras 25-26].
 

Divorce by Mutual Agreement – Recognition of Mubara’at – Declaration of Divorce Granted – The appellant sought a declaration of matrimonial status after claiming to have given triple talaq. The matter was resolved through a mubara’at (mutual agreement) dated 15.06.2024, wherein both parties agreed to dissolve the marriage subject to payment of Rs.30,00,000/- by the appellant to the respondent. The Court upheld the validity of mubara’at as a recognized form of mutual divorce under Muslim Personal Law and declared the marriage dissolved. [Paras 8-12]

Scope of Judicial Role in Mubara’at – Limited Inquiry Sufficient – The Court emphasized that in cases of mutual agreement for divorce under mubara’at, the judicial role is limited to verifying the voluntariness and mutual consent of the agreement. No detailed inquiry is required. Once mutuality is established, the marital status must be declared as divorced. [Paras 9-10]

Applicability of Shariat Law – Validity of Extrajudicial Divorce – The Court reiterated that under Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), marriage can be dissolved through mutual consent without judicial intervention, provided the intention of both parties is clear. Mubara’at is one of the recognized modes of dissolution of marriage. The Court relied on precedents including Zohara Khatoon v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (1981) 2 SCC 509, and Asbi K.N. v. Hashim M.U., 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 3945. [Paras 7-9]

Setting Aside Family Court Order – Scope of Family Court Jurisdiction – The Family Court had dismissed the husband’s suit for declaration of marital status at the admission stage on the grounds of procedural deficiencies in the alleged triple talaq. The High Court held that the Family Court erred in dismissing the suit without considering the mubara’at agreement. The Family Court’s order was set aside, and the marital status was declared in light of the mutual agreement. [Paras 13-15]

Decision: The appeal was allowed in terms of the mutual agreement (mubara’at) dated 15.06.2024. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared dissolved by mutual consent. The Family Court’s order dated 04.07.2019 dismissing the suit was set aside. The matrimonial status of the parties was declared as "divorced."

Criminal Law – POCSO and Rape  – Conviction Reversed – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for alleged rape of a minor victim, who later delivered a child – Trial Court relied on the victim's birth certificate and statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC to conclude the victim's minority and convict the accused – High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of the victim's age as required under Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Statement under Section 164 CrPC not treated as substantive evidence due to victim turning hostile – Appeal allowed, and conviction set aside [Paras 1–28].

Evidence – Determination of Victim's Age – Procedural Lapse – Prosecution relied on the victim's birth certificate from a panchayat to establish her minority – High Court ruled that, as per Rule 12(3)(a) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, age must be determined hierarchically: matriculation certificate (if available), date of birth certificate from the school first attended, and then the birth certificate issued by a local authority – Victim had studied in school; thus, her school certificate should have been obtained – Prosecution’s failure to collect and present the best evidence undermined its case [Paras 17–23].

Substantive Evidence – Statement Under Section 164 CrPC – Evidentiary Value – High Court reiterated that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence but can only be used to corroborate or contradict the witness in court – Victim turned hostile during trial, denying allegations of rape – Trial Court erred in relying on her Section 164 statement as substantive evidence to convict the appellant – Precedents from R. Palanisamy v. State and Pankaj v. State of H.P. followed [Paras 25–27].

Consent and Age – Allegation of Rape – Victim admitted to consensual physical relations with the accused and denied being raped – High Court noted that without clear evidence of the victim's minority, consensual relations could not amount to rape under Section 376 IPC or an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Victim's testimony and that of her mother supported the defense’s claim that she was an adult at the time of the incident [Paras 22–24].

Investigative Directions – Lapses in Evidence Collection – High Court observed procedural lapses by the Investigating Officer in failing to collect proper evidence regarding the victim's age as per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Directed the Director General of Police to ensure compliance with proper procedures in future investigations – Instructions also issued to public prosecutors to verify compliance before trial [Paras 30–33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – Fine, if deposited, to be refunded – Appellant directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A CrPC for six months to ensure appearance if further appeal is filed [Paras 28–33].

RERA Compliance – Violation of Approved Plan – Builder Held Liable – The developer created additional car parking spaces beyond the CMDA-approved plan and sold them for profit – CMDA found that common areas and designated spaces were converted into car parks, causing congestion – Held: The developer’s actions violated the provisions of the RERA Act and CMDA guidelines, and compensation for mental agony was upheld [Paras 30-32].

Car Parking Allocation – Violation of Agreement Terms – Restoration Ordered – The complainant was allotted a specific car parking slot, which was later reassigned to another flat purchaser – Held: The car park originally allotted to the complainant shall be restored, and the developer is directed to provide an alternative covered car park to the other flat purchaser as per their agreement – Non-transparent practices by the developer criticized [Paras 33-35].

Compensation for Delay – Mental Agony and Legal Expenses – Award Upheld – The complainant suffered delays in possession and mental agony due to the developer’s actions – Compensation awarded for defects, maintenance charges, mental agony, and legal expenses upheld – Complainant entitled to withdraw Rs. 5,97,867 along with interest [Paras 36].

RERA Jurisdiction – Powers of Adjudicating Officer and Appellate Tribunal – Confirmed – The Appellate Tribunal correctly upheld compensation under RERA while noting limitations on the Adjudicating Officer’s powers in refund-related matters – The developer’s reliance on precedents like Newtech Promoters was distinguished, as compensation here was lawfully adjudicated [Paras 8-10].

Developer’s Conduct – Breach of Transparency and Good Faith – Condemned – The developer acted against the principles of good faith and transparency required under the RERA Act – Delay in addressing the complainant’s concerns and refusal to register the sale deed contributed to prolonged litigation – Builder held solely responsible for the dispute [Paras 27-33].

Decision:  CMSA Nos. 16 of 2020, 17 of 2023, 87 of 2022, and 89 of 2022 dismissed.

Restoration of the original car parking slot to the complainant upheld. Developer directed to allocate a covered car parking space to the other flat purchaser. Compensation of Rs. 5,97,867 with 8.35% interest per annum allowed.
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Motive – Weak and Unsupported – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged that the appellant killed the deceased following a dispute involving the non-repayment of a loan and an alleged offensive utterance by the deceased – Held: The prosecution failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim of the alleged utterance or motive – Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof – Motive remains unproven, making the prosecution's case tenuous [Paras 9-10].

Last Seen Theory – Contradictions and Unreliability of Witnesses – The prosecution relied on the testimonies of two witnesses (PW5 and PW6) to establish the last seen theory – PW5 admitted during cross-examination that his house was not near the crime scene and that he had not seen the accused and deceased together – PW6’s testimony was riddled with contradictions, and his silence about the alleged confession by the accused was deemed unnatural – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the last seen theory beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 12-19].

Discovery of Fact – Recovery Evidence Doubtful – Credibility of Witnesses Questioned – Recovery of the alleged murder weapon (bill hook) and blood-stained materials from the accused was presented as a key link in the chain of evidence – However, the witnesses (PW7 and PW8) providing testimony for the recovery contradicted each other, with PW8 denying any knowledge of the accused’s confession – Held: Recovery of evidence becomes doubtful, breaking the chain of circumstances required for conviction in cases based on circumstantial evidence [Paras 25-27].

Scientific Evidence – Lack of Fingerprint Analysis – Investigation Flawed – Investigating Officer failed to lift fingerprints from material objects found at the scene of the crime, including the brandy bottles allegedly used by the accused and deceased – Held: The omission to secure fingerprint evidence in a case of this nature demonstrates investigative lapses and weakens the prosecution’s case [Para 28].

Legal Principles – Circumstantial Evidence – Complete Chain Required – Citing Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and other precedents, the Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence:

Every link in the chain of circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
All circumstances must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
Missing links in the chain cannot sustain a conviction [Paras 21-23].
Judgment Erroneous – Acquittal Granted – The Trial Court failed to analyze the evidence in accordance with the principles governing circumstantial evidence – The lack of motive, failure to prove the last seen theory, and the inconsistencies surrounding recovery of evidence rendered the prosecution's case unproven – Conviction and sentence set aside, and appellant acquitted [Paras 24-30].

Decision
The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the conviction and life imprisonment imposed on the appellant by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharapuram, in SC No. 173 of 2016, dated 31/01/2019, were set aside.

The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and any fine paid was directed to be refunded. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant, was ordered to stand canceled [Para 31].

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction to Take Cognizance – Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. – Complaint Not Filed in Competent Court – Quashing of Complaint Ordered – A complaint alleging forgery and conspiracy regarding a document used in Regular Civil Suit No. 427/1999 was filed before a Magistrate not having jurisdiction under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., which mandates that only the court where the document was produced can take cognizance – Held: Magistrate erred in taking cognizance as he lacked jurisdiction; complaint quashed [Paras 11-13, 17].

Delay in Filing Complaint – Absence of Explanation – Abuse of Process of Law – Complaint Quashed – The complaint was filed approximately six years after the dismissal of a related appeal in 2004 without any explanation for the delay – Held: The delay in filing the complaint coupled with the lack of credible allegations rendered the proceedings an abuse of process of law, warranting quashing of the complaint [Paras 6, 14, 16, 17].

Abuse of Legal Process – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint Filed Maliciously to Harass Applicant – Complaint Quashed – Allegations of conspiracy and forgery were deemed to be mala fide and intended to harass the applicant, as they were filed after the dismissal of a related civil appeal – Held: Quashing of complaint was necessary to prevent abuse of legal process and ensure ends of justice [Paras 13, 14, 16, 17].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Quashing of Complaint – No Prima Facie Case Made Out – Complaint Quashed – High Court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute the offences alleged, and continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to an empty formality – Complaint quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 16, 17].

Costs Imposed on Original Complainant – Filing of Frivolous Complaint – Rs. 50,000 Directed to be Paid – The original complainant was directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs for wasting the court’s time by filing a frivolous and malicious complaint – Amount to be deposited with the District Library of Jamnagar District Court [Paras 18, 19].

Decision: The application was allowed, and the impugned Criminal Inquiry No. 59 of 2010 and consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside. The original complainant was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs for filing a frivolous complaint. Rule was made absolute [Paras 17-19].
 

Dowry Death – Essential Ingredients – Section 304-B IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court identified the four essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC: unnatural death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment soon before death, and cruelty connected to dowry demand. It found sufficient evidence that the deceased was subjected to prolonged cruelty linked to dowry demands, which culminated in her death – Held: Conviction under Section 304-B IPC justified [Paras 9-11.4.2].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Homicide in Matrimonial Home – Burden on Accused – The court emphasized that when a death occurs within the matrimonial home, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances. Failure to provide a cogent explanation and the hurried cremation of the deceased raised strong adverse inferences – Held: Accused failed to discharge their burden; conviction warranted [Paras 12-12.7].

Standard of Proof in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal on Grounds of Misreading Evidence – The court reiterated that appellate courts can reverse acquittals where evidence has been misread or ignored, particularly in social welfare cases like dowry deaths. The Trial Court’s hyper-technical approach and failure to appreciate evidence were corrected – Held: Acquittal overturned; conviction recorded under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 201 IPC [Paras 13-15].

Sentence – Stringent Measures for Dowry Deaths – Deterrence Emphasized – Given the societal prevalence of dowry-related crimes, the court imposed seven years’ imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC, alongside concurrent sentences for Sections 498-A and 201 IPC. Monetary fines were also levied – Held: Sentencing to act as deterrence [Paras 16-16.3].