Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304 (Part II) and 328 IPC – Appeal against conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malda – Appellant convicted for causing death by administering poisoned alcoholic drink and causing grievous harm with knowledge – High Court modified sentence but upheld conviction – Evidence from medical reports and witness testimonies confirmed poisoning leading to death and serious illness [Paras 1, 5, 20, 27-32].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court examined multiple witness accounts and medical evidence to ascertain the cause of death and the circumstances of poisoning – Several witnesses testified to having consumed poisoned ‘Tari’ at appellant’s residence, corroborated by medical evidence of poisoning and subsequent death and illness [Paras 6-19].

Legal Precedents and Application – Relied on Supreme Court judgments concerning murder by poisoning, establishing lack of direct motive but knowledge of harmful consequences suffices for conviction under IPC sections dealing with unintentional murder and administering poisonous substances [Paras 23-26].

Decision – Modified Sentence – High Court found trial court’s decision on conviction correct but reduced the substantive sentences for both offences to 5 years, maintaining that both sentences run concurrently, thus modifying the severity but not the fact of the conviction [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Conviction for involuntary manslaughter (304 Part II IPC) and causing hurt by means of poison (328 IPC) after administering poisoned ‘Tari’ (local alcohol), resulting in one death and multiple hospitalizations – Challenge based on lack of direct evidence of motive and possession of poison – High Court modifies the sentence but upholds conviction based on indirect evidence of knowledge of the harmful nature of the substance administered – Sentences reduced to five years each for both counts, to run concurrently. [Paras 1-32]

Evidence Assessment – Multiple eyewitness accounts (PW2, PW3, PW8) corroborate consumption of poisoned ‘Tari’ at appellant’s residence – Medical evidence (PW6, PW9, PW14) confirms death and injuries due to poisoning – Conviction based on doctrine of transferred malice and administering of a harmful substance with knowledge of its potential for grievous harm [Paras 6-18, 24]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 regarding the need to establish motive, possession of poison, cause of death by the poison, and opportunity to administer poison – High Court finds sufficient indirect evidence to establish the necessary linkage despite the absence of direct evidence on motive and possession [Paras 23, 26]

Decision – High Court modifies the trial court’s sentencing, reducing imprisonment terms but upholding conviction under IPC Sections 304 Part II and 328 due to the harmful knowledge attributed to the appellant – Directed to surrender within 30 days to serve the modified sentence. [Paras 29-35]

Property Law – Usufructuary Mortgage – Right of Redemption – Regular second appeal challenging lower courts' decrees affirming respondent's ownership by prescription due to non-redemption within 30 years – Supreme Court precedent underscores that "once a mortgage, always a mortgage," no time limit extinguishes right to redeem – High Court sets aside lower courts' judgments and dismisses the suit – "A usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely due to the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage" – Appeal allowed; plaintiff's claim dismissed as the suit was not maintainable. [Paras 9-12]

Res Judicata and Habitual Litigation – Appeal against Trial Court and First Appellate Court decisions dismissing plaintiff’s claim for ownership and injunction against co-owners – Historical sequence of suits filed by plaintiffs on similar grounds, leading to findings of habitual, frivolous litigation – No substantial evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims about land mortgage and redemption – Consecutive dismissals in earlier suits acknowledged – Co-ownership acknowledged, barring injunction against co-owner – [Paras 2, 4, 8].

Condonation of Delay – Analysis of 409-day delay in filing present appeal – Application devoid of sufficient details to explain delay – Mandatory requirements under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, not met – Insufficient cause shown – Delay not condoned – [Para 7].

Ownership and Possession – Plaintiffs previously acknowledged defendant-respondents' ownership by filing suit for adverse possession – Inconsistent litigation positions weaken plaintiffs’ claim – Lack of new substantial question of law arising from facts – [Para 8].

Decision: No plausible explanation for delay in filing appeal – Condonation of delay denied – Regular second appeal and all pending applications dismissed as meritless [Paras 7-9].

Factual Background - Appeals arise from convictions for participating in a fatal gang attack where firearms and baseball bats were used - FIR registered based on a detailed complaint by an eye witness (Ex.PW-4/A) describing the attack on 10th June 2012 at Jalandhar Bye-pass, Ludhiana - The motive traced back to a previous altercation and a compromised FIR involving the accused - Appellants convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 28th October 2022 for murder under Section 302/149 IPC and rioting under Section 148 IPC - Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and one year for rioting, sentences to run concurrently - Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 427, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC [Paras 1-5].

Trial Proceedings - During trial, 20 witnesses examined, extensive material evidence presented including forensic and medical reports affirming cause of death as firearm injury - Appellants' participation and presence at the crime scene confirmed through multiple eye witness accounts [Paras 6-20].

Witness Testimonies and Defense Challenges – Detailed analysis of eyewitness accounts affirming the involvement of appellants in the murder – Defense attempts to negate charges through cross-examination proved ineffective. [Paras 17-22]

Post-mortem Findings and Medical Evidence – Autopsy report confirming death due to firearm injuries with detailed injury description – Medical evidence supports the eyewitness accounts and establishes the fatal nature of the assault. [Paras 26-29]

Final Judgment and Execution of Sentence – Appeals dismissed due to lack of merit, affirmation of trial court’s conviction and sentence – Detailed directive for the immediate execution of sentences and handling of case properties. [Paras 31-33]

Appeal against Dismissal of Suit – Challenge against the judgment dated 24^th February 2014 and review petition dismissal dated 29^th August 2014 concerning recovery of misuser charges on leased property – Appeal allowed – Single Judge dismissal set aside due to inadequate consideration of pleadings and issues framed – Appeal succeeds on grounds that the trial court failed to consider vital evidence and did not adjudicate on framed issues as mandated by Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC – Misuser charges paid under protest and without prejudice – Case remanded for retrial – [Paras 1-2, 19-22].

Lease and Misuser Charges – Dispute over legality of misuser charges levied by L&DO on appellant post purchase of leasehold property from Erstwhile Owners – Appellant contends payments were excessive, arbitrary, and not compliant with relevant regulations – [Paras 4-6, 14-16].

Pleading and Evidence – Initial judgment dismissed due to purported lack of pleadings and evidence regarding payment of charges under coercion – Appellate Court finds sufficient pleadings were indeed presented – Misuser charges questioned on validity and imposition process – Trial court failed to adjudicate on issues despite comprehensive pleadings and framed issues – [Paras 9, 14, 19].

Restoration of Suit – Appellate decision restores original suit and mandates retrial on merits, addressing all issues initially framed – [Para 21].

Decision: Judgment allowing the appeal, setting aside the initial dismissal, and restoring the suit for further proceedings. Misuser charges to be reviewed on substantive legal and factual grounds as framed in issues – [Paras 20-23].

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Provision of Statutory Benefits – Public Interest Litigation – Delhi High Court mandates immediate provision of educational materials in kind rather than cash to ensure compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and related rules, highlighting administrative failures in GNCTD and MCD – Calls for an enhancement of financial powers of the MCD Commissioner to resolve procurement issues. [Paras 1-7, 9-14, 17, 25-26, 40]

Non-Compliance with Statutory Obligations – Delhi High Court identifies a lack of coordination and administrative impasse in MCD, exacerbated by non-functional Standing Committees, leading to failure in providing educational materials to students as per statutory requirements – Court stresses the need for immediate action to rectify the deficiencies to safeguard the fundamental rights of students under Article 21A. [Paras 10, 12-14, 23-26]

Judicial Directions for Administrative Reforms – In response to the failure of GNCTD and MCD to provide statutory educational benefits, Delhi High Court directs immediate delegation of financial powers to MCD Commissioner and criticizes the administrative inertia – Court emphasizes the urgency of fulfilling constitutional and statutory obligations towards school children. [Paras 16, 23-26, 35-37, 39-40]

Responsibility of Government Authorities – Delhi High Court holds GNCTD and MCD accountable for not ensuring the provision of free textbooks, writing materials, and uniforms, violating the statutory rights of children – Court orders immediate procurement of these items despite administrative and financial constraints, underscoring the urgency due to imminent school vacations. [Paras 5, 9-11, 15, 27-29, 31, 33-37]

Decision – Immediate Action Required – High Court emphasizes immediate need for action, overriding bureaucratic impediments, to ensure provision of statutory educational benefits, underscores the urgency given by upcoming academic breaks and fundamental education rights [Para 40].

Rent Act - Quashing of Eviction Order – Appeal against dismissal of eviction petition – Landlords' plea under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of possession of the subject premises – Landlords claim bona fide requirement for reconstruction of premises and settlement in India due to advanced age and insufficient accommodation – Tenant contests, alleging lack of evidence and bona fides – Trial court dismisses eviction petition for failure to prove bona fide requirement – High Court intervenes under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act – Holds eviction order unsustainable due to perversity in Rent Controller's reasoning – Landlords' desire to return to India for settling down and arranging matrimonial alliances for their children upheld as bona fide – Lack of specific pleadings and affirmative evidence from tenant's side – Court allows eviction petition, granting landlords possession of subject premises – Execution of possession order deferred for six months.

Land Consolidation – Jurisdiction Under Section 42 – Petitioners challenged orders passed under Section 42, arguing improper handling of consolidation proceedings and non-compliance with previous orders – Court found that authorities improperly exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 42, which is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, and should not be used for re-partitioning or revising finalized schemes – Previous orders impacting the petitioners were set aside [Paras 1-25].

Consolidation Scheme – Section 22 Updates – Finalized consolidation scheme and records updated under Section 22 should not be altered through Section 42 jurisdiction – Proper remedy for re-partitioning lies under Section 21 before finalization, or under Section 36 for re-notification of consolidation – Petitioners' land rights affected without due process – Orders quashed, and liberty granted to seek civil court remedies [Paras 16-26].

Relief – Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Liberty to seek declaratory relief in civil court – Option for government to issue fresh consolidation notification under Section 36 [Para 26].