Criminal Law – Murder – Conspiracy and Evidence Destruction – Section 120B and Section 302 IPC – The appellant, along with two co-accused, conspired to murder her 4-year-old daughter to eliminate her as an obstacle to her immoral lifestyle with her co-conspirators – The child's body was exhumed from a plot after the appellant misled the police with a missing complaint –  Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence was sustained by the court – Appellants A1, A2, and A3 charged with conspiring to kill a minor child (X) and conceal her body – Prosecution relied on the "last seen" theory, recovery of the body, and incriminating materials collected from the crime scene – Conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court was set aside, and the court held that the evidence established culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC – Held: Prosecution established a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 10-63].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Witnesses – Witnesses (PW1, PW3, PW5) corroborated the presence of the appellants at the crime scene on the day of the incident – PW3 and PW5 saw A1, A2, and A3 in the house where the crime occurred – The reliability of their testimony was not undermined despite discrepancies in call records – Held: Testimonies of witnesses, corroborated by forensic and mobile phone records, were credible and supported the prosecution case [Paras 36, 53].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – The court examined the applicability of the last seen theory where A3 was last seen with X – Time gap between last sighting and the discovery of the body was significant – Held: Last seen theory, although weak, was supported by other evidence in this case – However, the time gap required cautious application of the theory, and other evidence was necessary for conviction [Paras 37].

Discovery of Body – Recovery of the body based on the disclosure statements of the appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – The court examined the recovery process and compliance with legal requirements – Held: The discovery of the body and recovery of incriminating materials (MO1) corroborated the prosecution's case and was admissible under Section 27 [Paras 38, 53].

Murder or Culpable Homicide – Nature of injuries inflicted on the victim suggested culpable homicide – No conclusive evidence of intent to murder – PW19 (forensic expert) stated that injury No. 25 was fatal but did not conclusively establish intent to kill – Held: Prosecution failed to prove intent to kill under Section 300 IPC, but evidence pointed to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC [Paras 39-49].

Sexual Assault – Conviction under POCSO Act – The trial court convicted A1 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act based on presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 – Forensic expert (PW19) stated no evidence of penetrative sexual assault – Held: Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act not applicable as prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence under POCSO Act set aside [Paras 54-59].

Criminal Conspiracy – Conviction under Section 120B IPC – Call records and witness testimonies established a conspiracy between A1, A2, and A3 to kill X – Continuous calls between A1 and A2 before and after the incident, coupled with the discovery of the body, indicated a premeditated conspiracy – Held: Conviction for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC upheld [Paras 50-53].

Decision: Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants found guilty under Section 304 Part I and sentenced to life imprisonment with fines – Conviction under POCSO Act and JJ Act for A2 also set aside – Criminal conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC sustained [Paras 62-63].
 

Trade Mark Infringement - Well-known Mark Status - The petitioner, LEGO Juris A/S, sought the cancellation of the respondent’s registration of similar marks in Class 30, alleging likely consumer confusion and infringement on its well-known mark, LEGO, used for toys. Although the petitioner's well-known mark status in India was pending recognition at the petition date, its international status was substantiated - Held: The petitioner was entitled to well-known mark protection in India for preventing confusion across classes, benefiting from Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act [Paras 21-25, 27].

Likelihood of Confusion - Different Product Classes - The Court observed that despite distinct product classes (toys vs. confectionery), both parties' marks targeted children, increasing the risk of confusion due to visual similarity and brand association. The 1st respondent’s adoption of “LEGO” was determined to be dishonest and deceptive - The impugned marks are to be removed from the register for infringing on the petitioner’s distinctive mark [Paras 29-33, 35].

Rectification Order - Removal of Infringing Marks - The petition was allowed, directing the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the respondent’s marks “LEGO CUTEHEART” and “LEGO COFFYBOND” in Class 30 from the Trade Marks Registry. The Court held that the respondent's registration under a different class did not justify continued use of a deceptively similar mark given the petitioner’s well-known status [Para 38].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Serious Offenses and Settlements – Rape and POCSO Act Offenses - accused was charged with offenses under Sections 6 read with 5(n)(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and Sections 450, 376(3)(2)(n)(f) of the IPC. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings on the grounds that he had married the de facto complainant, and they were now living happily – The court emphasized that serious offenses such as rape and those under the POCSO Act generally cannot be quashed on the basis of a settlement between the offender and the victim due to the public interest involved and the impact on society [Paras 4-8].

Quashing of Proceedings – Humanitarian Consideration in Exceptional Cases - accused initially had a relationship with the de facto complainant that led to the charge of sexual molestation, he later married the complainant, and they were living peacefully. The court found this to be an exceptional situation where quashing was deemed appropriate to ensure the peaceful family life of the parties and avoid subjecting them to the hazards of litigation – Hence, the court deviated from the general principle against quashing in such cases and allowed the quashing of the proceedings [Para 9-11].

Decision: Quashing Allowed - The petition was allowed, and all further proceedings in S.C.No.278/2020 were quashed to avoid disturbing the married life of the petitioner and the de facto complainant [Para 11].
 

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Overturned – Eyewitness Testimonies – Three eyewitnesses, including the father and daughter of the deceased, testified against the accused, stating that he attacked his wife with a Kassi – Trial court disregarded these statements due to minor contradictions in timing and procedural flaws in the investigation – Held: The High Court found the contradictions insignificant and the testimonies credible and consistent on material facts – Acquittal overturned [Paras 9.3, 11].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – The Kassi used in the crime was recovered based on information provided by the accused – FSL report confirmed that human blood on the weapon matched the blood group of the deceased – Trial court dismissed this evidence due to contradictions regarding the timing of police arrival at the crime scene – Held: Recovery of the weapon was crucial evidence supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13].

Appellate Review – Standard of Interference – The appellate court is empowered to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on misreading or omission of material evidence – In this case, the trial court failed to appreciate key evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic findings – Held: Acquittal found to be perverse and legally unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment awarded with a fine of ₹10,000, in default of payment, six months' rigorous imprisonment – Bail bonds cancelled, respondent to be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 16, 17].

Criminal Law – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissed - Exercise of Extraordinary Power – The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them for offenses under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC – The deceased had given a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. alleging harassment by the petitioners – The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie involved in the offenses and that custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide – Held: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly, particularly in serious cases where custodial interrogation is required to ascertain the truth – Petitions dismissed [Paras 25, 67, 83].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity in Investigation – The Court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving serious allegations like abetment to suicide – Held: Effective interrogation of a suspect is crucial and may be rendered ineffective if the suspect is granted pre-arrest bail – The need for custodial interrogation outweighs the liberty of the individual in this case [Paras 67, 83].

Consideration for Grant of Anticipatory Bail – The Court referred to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which highlight the necessity to balance individual rights, public interest, and fair investigation while considering pre-arrest bail – The grant of pre-arrest bail is not a rule but an exception and should be granted only when the court is convinced of exceptional circumstances [Paras 21, 25].

Decision:

Petitions for pre-arrest bail dismissed – The nature of the offense and the necessity for custodial interrogation disentitled the petitioners from the concession of bail – Observations made are confined to the disposal of these petitions and shall not impact the merits of the case [Para 83].

Compensation – Death Due to Negligence – Maintainability Under Article 226 – The petitioners sought compensation for the death of their minor son caused by the alleged negligence of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in maintaining its premises – Held: The High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 for compensation in cases of violation of fundamental rights, including Article 21, where the State's negligence is evident – The Court found sufficient evidence of negligence by MCD in failing to maintain the premises, leading to the death – The writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 15-18].

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Application in Public Law Remedy – The Court applied the maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitur,' presuming negligence on the part of MCD – It was established that the falling of a slab from the MCD-owned premises caused the death, indicating clear negligence in maintaining a safe environment for the public – Held: The principle allows for the presumption of negligence based on the circumstances surrounding the case, justifying the awarding of compensation [Paras 19-21].

Quantum of Compensation – Calculation – The petitioners sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 – The Court applied principles from prior judgments, considering factors such as the age of the deceased, potential future prospects, and minimum wage rates – The Court awarded Rs. 10,00,000 along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of death until realization – The compensation was computed based on loss of dependency and pecuniary losses, with the amount being adjusted for inflation [Paras 22-34].

Decision – Compensation Awarded – The Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to pay Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of death – In case of non-compliance, the petitioners would be entitled to an additional simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum – The writ petition was disposed of with these directions [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC – Appellants convicted for dowry death and cruelty towards the deceased (Paramjit Kaur) – Trial court sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC and 1 year under Section 498-A IPC – Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was unreliable and there was no evidence of cruelty or demand for dowry – Held: The prosecution proved that the deceased died due to poisoning within 7 years of marriage, and there was credible evidence of harassment and demand for dowry – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-32].

Dying Declaration – Reliability – The deceased, Paramjit Kaur, made a dying declaration implicating her husband (Mohinder Singh), father-in-law (Amrik Singh), and other relatives for harassment and dowry demands – The appellants argued that the dying declaration lacked a doctor’s fitness certificate – Held: The declaration, recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found credible and supported by other evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports – The absence of a doctor's certificate did not invalidate the declaration [Paras 8-10, 30].

Presumption under Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act – Dowry Death – The deceased died within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to harassment related to dowry – The court applied the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused – The appellants failed to rebut this presumption, and the prosecution’s evidence supported the conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC [Paras 11-12, 26-31].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem and chemical analysis confirmed that the deceased died of poisoning by aluminium phosphide – The medical evidence corroborated the prosecution's case that the death was unnatural and related to dowry demands – No discrepancies in the medical testimony were found [Paras 19-21, 29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC upheld – Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of [Paras 32-33].