Civil Law - Validity of Sale Deeds – Protection of Rustic Village Widows – Application of Legal Test – The appellant, an illiterate widow, alleged that the respondents fraudulently obtained four sale deeds from her under the pretext of executing a power of attorney – The trial court declared the sale deeds void due to misrepresentation, but the first appellate court reversed this decision based solely on the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement – Held: Courts must apply the legal test laid down in Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, which requires proving that an illiterate woman understood the nature of the transaction – The first appellate court erred in failing to apply this test and blindly relying on the Sub-Registrar’s endorsement [Paras 21-23, 35].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Beneficiary of Transaction with Illiterate Woman – The Supreme Court and Privy Council have consistently held that in transactions involving illiterate women, the burden lies on the party benefiting from the document to prove it was executed with full knowledge and free consent – The respondents failed to produce material witnesses, including the deed writer and attesting witnesses – Held: As per Hemchandra Roy Chowdhury v. Suradhoni Chowdhurani and Mst. Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur Rai, mere registration of a document does not establish its validity if the executant is an illiterate, rustic widow – The failure of the respondents to discharge this burden strengthens the appellant’s claim [Paras 24-26, 31-33].

Counterclaim – Procedural Deficiency and Lack of Court Fee Payment – The respondents filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of possession but failed to pay the requisite court fees, and the appellant was not given an opportunity to file a written statement – The first appellate court erroneously granted relief based on this procedurally defective counterclaim – Held: As per Order VIII Rule 6(A) CPC, a counterclaim must be treated as a plaint, and failure to comply with procedural requirements renders it unsustainable [Paras 12-14].

Presumption of Title – Record of Rights Does Not Confer Ownership – The first appellate court granted title to the respondents based on entries in the Record of Rights – The High Court held that such entries are only prima facie evidence of possession and do not establish ownership – Held: The first appellate court’s reliance on revenue records to determine ownership was legally flawed [Paras 19, 35].

Decision: Second appeal allowed. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and the trial court’s decree declaring the sale deeds void was restored.

Criminal Trial – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Violation of Section 313 CrPC – Conviction Modified - Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC without being confronted with incriminating evidence relatable to Section 302 charge – Statement under Section 313 CrPC confined only to dowry death allegations under Section 304-B IPC – Held: Serious prejudice caused to accused by failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC resulting in violation of right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, conviction maintained under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 44-52].

Dowry Death – Hostile Witnesses – Use of Partial Testimony – Conviction Supported - Evidence of P.W.-1 (father) though partly hostile, accepted to the extent it corroborated prosecution case regarding demand of dowry – FIR narration supported by hostile witness’ statement during examination-in-chief – Held: Conviction under Section 304-B IPC sustainable despite witnesses turning hostile, as their admissible portions corroborated the prosecution case [Paras 27-33].

Presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Failure of Defence – Conviction Confirmed - Appellant failed to rebut presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act regarding unnatural death inside matrimonial home – Defence offered no explanation or evidence – Prosecution established homicidal death by throttling – Held: Prosecution successfully discharged initial burden leading to appellant’s conviction under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 23-25].

Fair Trial – Section 313 CrPC – Fundamental Right - The Court reaffirmed that under Section 313 CrPC, accused must be confronted specifically with adverse evidence regarding each charge to enable fair defence – Non-compliance amounts to violation of natural justice and Article 21 – Held: Appellate court modified conviction appropriately to ensure fair trial principles are upheld [Paras 34-52].

Decision – Conviction under Section 302 IPC Set Aside – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC Confirmed - Sentence Modified - Appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC quashed – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC affirmed with sentence reduced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine maintained – Appellant to be released after serving modified sentence if not wanted in other cases [Paras 52-55].

Framing of Charge under Section 324 IPC – Justified under Section 216 CrPC – The appellant Ram Kailash Singh was charged under Section 324 IPC on the day of judgment. The Court held that Section 216 CrPC permits such alteration if no prejudice is caused – Held: Since full cross-examination had occurred and no objection was raised, framing of charge immediately prior to judgment was legally permissible and caused no prejudice [Paras 19-22].

Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Injury to Eye Witness Corroborated by Medical Evidence – Injured victim PW13 deposed that he was assaulted by Ram Kailash Singh with a rod, sustaining head and facial injuries – Testimony corroborated by PW20 (doctor) who treated him and found cut injuries requiring stitches – Held: Ocular and medical evidence established the offence under Section 324 IPC beyond doubt [Paras 26-28, 33-35].

Unlawful Assembly and Common Object – Conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC Sustainable – Although no charge under Sections 307/149 IPC was framed, the Court held that conviction was valid under Section 222(3) CrPC as an attempt to commit an offence is included within the substantive offence – Held: Accused formed unlawful assembly, hurled bombs at the victim Dukhiram intending to cause death – Conviction under Section 307/149 IPC upheld [Paras 40-44, 52-55].

Absence of Convincing Link to Section 302 IPC – Conversion to Attempt to Murder – Victim Dukhiram died two days after the bomb attack. Though injuries were serious and homicidal, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the death was directly due to the bombing – Held: Trial court rightly convicted the accused under Section 307/149 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 60-62].

Direct Participation of Musafir Rai – Eyewitnesses Credible and Consistent – Multiple witnesses (PW3, PW4, PW5) consistently named Musafir Rai as one of the attackers who hurled bombs at the victim – Their testimonies were corroborated by medical and forensic evidence (PW20, PW21) and confirmed by chemical reports (Exhibit 7) – Held: Conviction of Musafir Rai is based on credible and consistent evidence [Paras 47-55].

Explosive Material Evidence – Scientific Corroboration through Forensic Reports – Seizure of bomb remnants and chemical examination confirmed use of arsenic and potassium chlorate, substances banned under the Explosives Act – Held: Forensic evidence strongly supported prosecution’s case of bomb use in the attack [Paras 53-55].

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Conviction of Ram Kailash Singh under Sections 324, 148, and 307/149 IPC and of Musafir Rai under Sections 148 and 307/149 IPC upheld. Appellants directed to surrender within two weeks or face arrest.

Regularization of Special Assistant Public Prosecutors – No Vested Right to Permanent Appointment – The petitioners, engaged under Section 25(3) of CrPC, sought regularization on the ground that they performed the same functions as A.P.Ps. under Section 25(1) – The Court held that their appointments were contractual and not against sanctioned posts – Held: Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the appointment follows statutory rules and is against a permanent vacancy [Paras 20-23].

Parity in Pay Scale – No Equal Pay for Equal Work Between Contractual and Regular Employees – The petitioners argued that they should receive the same pay and benefits as regular A.P.Ps. since their duties were identical – The Court rejected this claim, emphasizing that employment under Section 25(3) CrPC was temporary and lacked service conditions akin to regular government employees – Held: Mere similarity in work does not entitle contractual employees to equal pay with regular employees [Paras 22-23].

Government Policy – Appointment of Special A.P.Ps. is Temporary and Contingent on Exigencies – The government, in response to the Supreme Court’s directives in S.B. Shahane v. State of Maharashtra, created temporary posts of Spl. A.P.Ps. to meet workload demands – The Court ruled that temporary engagements cannot evolve into a permanent cadre unless expressly provided by law – Held: The Government has the discretion to determine recruitment policies, and ad hoc appointments cannot seek tenure benefits [Paras 19, 25-26].

Judicial Precedents – No Automatic Regularization Without Statutory Backing – The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which held that irregular appointments cannot be regularized without adherence to statutory procedures – Held: Petitioners’ claim for permanent absorption is untenable in the absence of a recruitment process through MPSC [Para 26].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed. Petitioners were not entitled to regularization or parity in service benefits. The government’s recruitment policies and service classification were upheld.
 

SARFAESI Act – Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court – Dispute Filed After Action Initiated by Secured Creditor – Held Not Maintainable – The sugar factory’s property was taken over by Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank under the SARFAESI Act and sold to Astoria, later purchased by the petitioner – Depositors filed disputes in Cooperative Court without impleading the Bank or Astoria – Held: In view of Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act, Cooperative Court had no jurisdiction – Dispute and execution proceedings were not maintainable [Paras 14–19]. 
 
Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Bank and Purchaser Not Impleaded – Decree Passed in Their Absence – Decree Held to Be Nullity – The factory had disclosed in its reply that the property was already in possession of the Bank, but the depositors failed to implead the Bank or Astoria – Held: Non-joinder of necessary parties vitiated the Cooperative Court’s judgment – Appellate Court erred in not considering this [Paras 16, 18]. 
 
Special Law vs. General Law – SARFAESI Act Prevails Over MCS Act – Central Law Overrides State Enactment – The Court reiterated that once action is taken under SARFAESI Act, its provisions override those of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act – Civil Courts or Cooperative Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with such proceedings [Paras 15, 17]. 
 
Successor-in-Interest – Right to Challenge Proceedings – Petitioner Recognized as Successor of Astoria – Entitled to Challenge Decree – The petitioner, having purchased the property from Astoria, was recognized by earlier orders of the Court as having a right to contest proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s appeals should have been considered on merits by Appellate Court [Paras 9, 19]. 
 
Judgment – Writ Petitions Allowed – Orders of Cooperative Appellate Court Set Aside – High Court held that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction due to prior SARFAESI action and the nonjoinder of necessary parties – Appeals allowed, and execution proceedings quashed [Paras 20]. 
 

Anticipatory Bail – Allegation of Forged Certificates – Parity with Co-Accused – Bail Granted till Police Report – The applicants were accused of submitting forged documents for pharmacist registration – Held: Since co-accused similarly placed had been granted anticipatory bail and no distinguishing factor emerged, applicants are entitled to same protection – Bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. [Paras 5, 8–10].

Prolonged Investigation – Applicants Cooperating – No Custodial Interrogation Needed – Investigation pending for over 3 years and applicants had cooperated – Held: Arrest not warranted in absence of necessity for custodial interrogation; protection from arrest justified [Paras 6, 9].

Judicial Discretion – Limited Protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court Guidelines Followed – Court relied on Nathu Singh v. State of U.P., 2021(6) SCC 64 – Held: Interim protection till filing of charge sheet permissible under settled law [Para 9].

Judgment – Anticipatory Bail Granted with Conditions – Application disposed of – Court directed that in case of arrest before filing of charge sheet, applicants be released on bail on furnishing bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed regarding cooperation, non-inducement of witnesses, and travel restrictions [Paras 10–11].

Prevention of Corruption – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – The trial court acquitted the respondent, a public servant, of bribery charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – The prosecution contended that the accused was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- and that there was sufficient evidence to convict him – Held: Since the prosecution raised substantial grounds, the Court granted leave to appeal and listed the case for final arguments [Paras 4-7].

Appreciation of Evidence – Alleged Failure by Trial Court – The State argued that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence, including the complainant’s testimony, trap proceedings, and the validity of sanction – The Court found prima facie merit in the State’s contention that the acquittal required reconsideration – Held: The issue of evidentiary appreciation warranted full appellate scrutiny [Paras 4-5].

Sanction for Prosecution – Compliance with Legal Requirements – The prosecution submitted that proper sanction had been obtained before initiating proceedings – The Court noted that this aspect required a detailed examination in the appeal – Held: The question of whether the sanction was valid and properly considered by the trial court would be reviewed in the appeal [Para 5].

Decision: Leave to appeal granted. The matter was converted into a criminal appeal and listed for arguments on 24/03/2025.

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Financial Independence of Wife – Rejection Justified – The petitioner, a highly qualified woman with a Master’s degree in International Business from the University of Wollongong, Australia, sought interim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC – The Family Court denied maintenance, citing her previous employment history, LinkedIn profile, and WhatsApp conversations indicating a deliberate effort to remain unemployed for financial benefits – Held: A qualified wife with a proven employment record cannot claim maintenance solely based on unemployment, especially if there is evidence suggesting intentional avoidance of work [Paras 28-31] – Decision: The Family Court's decision rejecting interim maintenance was upheld, as the petitioner failed to prove genuine financial hardship.

Interim Maintenance – Prima Facie Assessment – Judicial Discretion – The Court examined WhatsApp chats where the petitioner and her mother allegedly discussed avoiding employment to claim maintenance – The Family Court's reliance on these messages, along with her employment history, was upheld – Held: While WhatsApp conversations need detailed scrutiny at trial, they can be considered at the interim stage if they prima facie suggest mala fides in claiming maintenance [Paras 32-33, 43] – Decision: The Court found no error in the Family Court’s reliance on prima facie evidence to deny interim maintenance.

Legal Principles – Capable of Earning vs. Actual Earning – The petitioner argued that mere capability to earn does not bar maintenance – The Court distinguished between cases where wives are unable to earn and cases where they intentionally avoid employment – Held: If a wife is qualified and has a history of gainful employment, she cannot remain idle and claim maintenance merely on the basis of unemployment [Paras 36-38, 46] – Decision: The petitioner’s plea was rejected as there was sufficient evidence of her previous employment and deliberate avoidance of work.

Husband’s Financial Status – Relevance in Maintenance Claims – The petitioner contended that the respondent, despite claiming unemployment, had undisclosed income – The respondent produced a termination letter to substantiate his lack of earnings – Held: A husband’s financial status is relevant but does not override the requirement that the wife must demonstrate genuine financial need for maintenance [Paras 45, 47] – Decision: The petitioner failed to establish a financial necessity for interim maintenance, and the claim was dismissed.

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – The petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order under the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court – The Court reaffirmed that revisional power is limited to cases of palpable error or arbitrary exercise of discretion – Held: The Family Court’s order was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference [Paras 33, 50-51] – Decision: The High Court refused to interfere, upholding the Family Court’s findings and dismissing the revision petition.
 

Bail – Rape – Promise to Marry – Absence of Misconception of Fact – The petitioner was accused of repeatedly engaging in sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant under the pretext of marriage and later refusing to marry her – The Court examined whether the alleged act constituted rape due to vitiation of consent – Held: In light of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 921], sexual relations based on a promise to marry do not constitute rape unless it can be shown that the promise was false from the outset and was the sole reason for consent – Bail granted [Paras 8-9].

Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Principle Reaffirmed – The Court reiterated the well-established principle that bail should be granted unless there are strong reasons to deny it – Referring to P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (16) SCALE 870] and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India [2024 KHC 6431], the Court emphasized that denying bail in deserving cases would violate Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and there were no compelling reasons to continue detention [Paras 10-11].

Conditions for Bail – Safeguards Against Witness Intimidation and Flight Risk – The Court imposed stringent conditions, including restrictions on travel, non-interference with witnesses, and cooperation with the investigation – Held: Bail granted subject to strict compliance with conditions [Paras 12].

Decision: Bail granted. The petitioner shall be released on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, non-interference with witnesses, restriction on foreign travel, and prohibition from committing similar offences. The prosecution and the victim are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court to seek cancellation of bail in case of any violation of the conditions.