Police Protection – Property Rights – Petitioner sought protection against trespass and obstruction by private respondents – Civil court decree granted injunction in petitioner’s favour – Respondents continued interference despite decree – Held: Police bound to ensure protection of lawful possession and prevent breach of peace [Paras 3, 16].

Title and Possession – Purchase Certificate under KLR Act – Petitioner obtained certificate of title through Land Tribunal proceedings – Respondents challenged validity alleging temple ownership – No material to substantiate claim – Devaswom not aggrieved and no valid appeal – Held: Petitioner has valid prima facie title and possession [Paras 8–12].

Civil Court Findings – Binding Nature – Trial court conclusively found that petitioner’s property (Re-survey No.20/1) distinct from temple property (Re-survey No.20/2) – Evidence including admission of respondent supports petitioner’s case – Held: Findings reinforce petitioner’s exclusive possession [Paras 10–11].

Locus Standi – Challenge to Tribunal Order – Appeal filed by Temple Protection Samithi without locus – Devaswom itself did not challenge the order – Held: Challenge to purchase certificate lacks legal basis [Paras 9].

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Entries in settlement register or revenue records do not confer title – Cannot override title obtained through lawful proceedings – Held: Respondents failed to establish any right over property [Para 13].

Devaswom / Government Land – Long Possession with Title – Occupation based on sale deed and purchase certificate cannot be termed unauthorised – Courts should not interfere with such settled possession – Held: Petitioner’s possession lawful unless set aside by competent court [Paras 14–15].

Law and Order – Duty of Police – Interference with established proprietary rights likely to create law and order issues – Police obligated to act when civil rights supported by decree are threatened – Held: Direction for effective police protection justified [Para 16].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Police directed to provide adequate and effective protection to petitioner’s life and property against interference by respondents.

Bail – UAPA Offences – Prima Facie True Test – Section 43D(5) – Allegations of association with Babbar Khalsa International and conspiracy for targeted killings – Mobile data and disclosure statements showing connectivity with co-accused and handlers – Held: Sufficient prima facie material exists – Bail rightly declined [Paras 7, 8]

Bail – Seriousness of Offence – Terror Funding and Target Killings – Allegations of receiving arms, financial assistance and reconnaissance of targets – Involvement in planned killings of specific community leaders – Gravity of offence disentitles accused from bail – Stringent approach warranted [Paras 3, 8]

Bail – Criminal Antecedents – Relevance – Multiple prior FIRs against appellant – Antecedents reinforce prosecution case and risk assessment – Factor against grant of bail [Para 2, 8]

Bail – Custody Period – Not Sole Ground in UAPA Cases – Custody of about 3 years – In view of statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) and seriousness of allegations, long custody alone not sufficient to grant bail [Para 8]

Appellate Interference – Rejection of Bail – No Illegality – Order of Sessions Court found justified – No ground to interfere – Appeal dismissed with direction to expedite trial [Paras 10, 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order rejecting bail upheld – Trial directed to be expedited – Observations not to influence merits of trial.

Criminal Trial – Murder Conviction based on Dying Declaration – Reliability and Suspicion – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside where prosecution case collapsed due to hostile witnesses and suspicious dying declaration – Held, dying declaration must be free from suspicion and inspire confidence; in absence of corroboration and presence of serious procedural irregularities, conviction unsustainable. Acquittal. [Paras 42–49, 59]

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Failure to Record Statements under Section 164 CrPC – Material lapse in investigation – All key witnesses including family and neighbours turned hostile and denied prosecution case – IO failed to secure statements before Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC – Held, such omission creates serious doubt about prosecution version and suggests possible coercion in recording Section 161 statements [Paras 33–38]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Procedural Defects – Declaration recorded by doctor without informing police, not in question-answer form, not read over to victim – Victim survived for 10 days after declaration – No attempt made to record declaration before Magistrate – Held, circumstances render dying declaration highly suspicious and unsafe for sole reliance [Paras 45–48, 52–53, 57]

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Requirement of Corroboration – Where declaration suffers from inconsistencies and suspicious circumstances – Held, as per settled law, suspicious dying declaration requires corroboration; absence thereof fatal to prosecution [Para 43]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Contradictory Prosecution Case – Simultaneous suggestions of homicide and suicide – Prosecution witnesses deposed accidental burn during cooking while earlier statements alleged homicidal act – Held, such contradictions weaken prosecution case fundamentally [Para 41]

Investigation – Lapses – Failure to explain material circumstances – No explanation how locked room opened; seizure witnesses unreliable; medical evidence inconclusive as to homicidal or suicidal burns – Held, cumulative lapses render prosecution case doubtful [Paras 39–40, 32]

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Burn injuries – Doctor unable to opine whether injuries homicidal or suicidal – Held, absence of conclusive medical opinion adds to reasonable doubt [Para 32]

Criminal Appeal – Benefit of Doubt – Where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted [Paras 59–61]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and directed to be released subject to conditions under Section 437 CrPC – Connected applications disposed of.

Partition Suit – Second Partition Suit – Omitted Property – Maintainability – Whether property not included in earlier partition suit can be subject matter of subsequent suit – Held, second partition suit not maintainable for property (CS Khatian No. 21) not included in earlier suit in absence of pleading and proof that omission was intentional or mistaken – Plaintiffs failed to establish circumstances permitting second suit [Paras 33–35, 40]

Res Judicata – Constructive Res Judicata – Omission by Predecessor – Effect on Descendants – Properties which ought to have been included in earlier suit deemed to have been in issue – Descendants bound by conduct of predecessor – Held, claim over CS Khatian No. 21 barred as same was not included in earlier partition proceedings [Paras 41–42]

Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – No Presumption of Joint Property – Plaintiff must prove existence of joint family nucleus – In absence of proof of joint family fund, no presumption arises – Trial Court erred in shifting burden on defendants to prove self-acquisition [Paras 28–31]

Evidence – Failure to Prove Joint Character – Property recorded in name of individual – No evidence of joint family nucleus or linkage to acquisition – Held, CS Khatian No. 21 not proved to be joint family property [Paras 31–32]

Partition – Earlier Compromise Decree – Effect – Properties in CS Khatian No. 23 already subject matter of earlier suit – Second suit maintainable only to extent of unpartitioned portions and implementation of earlier decree – Held, limited maintainability for Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn and unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 [Paras 39, 46–48]

Partition Law – Exceptions for Second Suit – Applicability of Sasi Mohan Saha principle – Three situations analysed – Present case does not fall within first or second exception; partially covered under third for execution/working out of earlier decree [Paras 34–39]

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Absence of Necessary Averments – No explanation in plaint for omission of property in earlier suit – No evidence led to show intentional exclusion – Held, fatal to maintainability of claim [Paras 7, 40]

Appellate Interference – Erroneous Preliminary Decree – Inclusion of property without proof of joint ownership – Held, preliminary decree liable to be set aside to that extent [Para 45]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned preliminary decree set aside insofar as it includes CS Khatian No. 21 – Matter remanded to Trial Court for determination of shares limited to unpartitioned portions of CS Khatian No. 23 (Bakshi Bandh Tarn and Telai Tarn) – Parties permitted to adduce further evidence – No order as to costs – Connected applications disposed of.

Murder – Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant (original Accused No.3), a SRPF personnel, convicted by the Sessions Court for murder of deceased Kishor Khatri committed on 03.11.2015 at Somthana Shivar, Akola – Deceased was taken by Accused No.2 from Balaji Mall in a Tata Safari vehicle and found dead on a kachcha road – Ocular testimony of PW 5 and PW 10 established that appellant inflicted a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and Accused No.2 thereafter fired a gunshot – Conviction under Sections 302 read with 34 and 120-B IPC confirmed – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 53-55].

Homicidal Death – Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem – Death of deceased held established as homicidal on the basis of post-mortem report of PW 6-Dr. Nikhil Ingle disclosing a deep chopped wound on the neck and a gunshot entry and exit wound on the chest – Both injuries independently held sufficient to cause death – Ballistic expert PW 13 opined that empty cartridge recovered from the scene was fired from the country-made pistol seized from the vehicle of Accused No.2 – Nature of injuries incompatible with self-infliction or accident [Paras 11-18].

Chance Witnesses – Admissibility – Credibility – PW 5 and PW 10 described as chance witnesses by defence – Held: Evidence of chance witnesses cannot be discarded merely on that ground if presence is natural and testimony reliable – Presence of PW 10 at Somthana established by documents showing uncle's residence there – Delay in approaching police explained by fear of influential accused – Testimony consistent on material particulars and corroborated by medical evidence – Followed: Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana, (1983) 3 SCC 327; Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 9 SCC 650; Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 [Paras 20-30].

Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Admissibility – Detailed Description Not Mandatory – Appellant contended that recovery of Kukari was inadmissible as the memorandum lacked detailed description of the place of concealment – Held: What is essential under Section 27 is the free will and volition of the accused to make a statement leading to discovery – Accused led police to spot and produced weapon from beneath a mango tree – Recovery duly proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer and consistent with medical evidence – To require detailed description of place of concealment would run contrary to the very essence of voluntary disclosure – Followed: Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760; Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor, 1946 SCC OnLine PC 47; Subramanya v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255 [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Inference from Circumstances – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – No direct evidence of prior agreement between accused persons – Held: Agreement constituting conspiracy may be inferred from proved circumstances and conduct before, during and after occurrence – Deceased taken by Accused No.2 to secluded location – Appellant present at spot armed with Kukari – Successive assault with two lethal weapons on vital parts indicates preparation and concert – Both accused absconded after incident – Chain of circumstances reasonably establishes prior meeting of minds – Absence of proof of motive not fatal where reliable ocular evidence of participation exists – Distinguished: K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631 [Paras 43-52].

Investigation Lapses – Non-Recovery of Bullet – Held: Minor lapses in investigation do not enure to the benefit of accused when substantive evidence otherwise inspires confidence – Non-recovery of bullet, absence of fingerprint examination and non-examination of tyre marks do not affect the core of the prosecution case established by reliable ocular, medical and ballistic evidence [Para 40].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B IPC confirmed.

Electrocution – Compensation – Minor Child – Severe Permanent Disability – Petitioner (6-year-old child) suffered 92% permanent disability due to contact with 11 kV high tension line – Amputation of right arm and deformity in left hand – Distribution licensee held liable – Compensation enhanced applying principles of just compensation [Paras 2.1, 21, 25]

Strict Liability – Electricity as Hazardous Activity – Duty of Distribution Licensee – Electricity being inherently dangerous, Nigam under statutory duty to ensure safety – Failure to maintain safe distance and protective measures – Liability attracted irrespective of fault – Case falls within strict liability [Paras 11–12]

Res Ipsa Loquitur – Applicability – Accident due to live high voltage wire passing close to residence – Occurrence itself establishes negligence – Burden shifts on Nigam – Liability affirmed [Para 12]

Contributory Negligence – Child Victim – Inapplicability – Tender age child cannot be attributed contributory negligence – No material to prove fault of petitioner or her guardian – Entire liability on Nigam [Para 12.1]

Compensation – Public Law Remedy – Maintainability – Acceptance of compensation under policy does not bar claim for higher compensation – Clause 4 of policy expressly preserves additional remedies – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 9.3, 14]

Compensation Policy – Nature – No-Fault Liability – Instructions dated 15.07.2019 provide compensation on humanitarian basis – Payment under policy is in addition to legal entitlement – Does not restrict right to claim just compensation [Paras 9–10, 26]

Challenge to Policy – Rejection – Policy prescribing uniform norms including application of Employees’ Compensation Act to minors held not arbitrary – Being a concession, adequacy cannot be questioned – Does not infringe vested rights [Para 26]

Assessment of Compensation – Principles – Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Damages – Compensation must include loss of earning capacity, future prospects, medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, attendant charges, etc. – Courts must award “just compensation” and not token damages [Paras 16–17]

Notional Income – Minor Victim – Determination – Notional monthly income of Rs.20,000/- adopted with 40% future prospects – Multiplier method applicable even for children [Para 19]

Functional Disability – Assessment – Though medical disability 92%, functional disability assessed at 70% of whole body – Impact on entire life considered [Para 21]

Attendant Charges – Multiplier Method – Victim requiring lifelong assistance entitled to attendant charges calculated using multiplier – Even if family provides care, compensation payable [Para 22]

Future Medical Expenses – Prosthetic Limb – Victim entitled to compensation for advanced prosthetic limb, maintenance and replacement – Financial security for future treatment necessary [Paras 24–25]

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities – Substantial compensation required for lifelong trauma, disability, loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects – Recognised heads [Paras 18, 29–30]

Child Victim – Loss of Future Life Opportunities – Court recognizes impact on education, social life, marriage and dignity – Compensation must reflect lifelong deprivation [Para 22]

Quantum of Compensation – Comprehensive Award – Total compensation assessed at Rs.99,93,600/- under multiple heads including income loss, attendant charges, medical expenses, pain and suffering, prosthetic limb, etc. [Para 25]

Interest – Award – Compensation to carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of petition till realization [Para 28]

Disbursement – Safeguards – Majority of compensation to be kept in fixed deposit till minor attains majority – Monthly withdrawal permitted for care and maintenance [Para 29]

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – Petitioner awarded compensation of Rs.99,93,600/- with 7.5% interest – Compensation over and above amount already paid under policy – Directions issued for structured disbursement and protection of minor’s interest.

Money Laundering – Challenge Show Cause Notice – Supply of Relied Upon Documents – Rule 13(2) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Petitioners challenged show cause notice dated 25.11.2025 issued under Section 8(1) of PMLA and prayed for supply of all Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) in a bound paper book – Despite repeated requests, petitioners contended that complete RUDs were not served; only RUD-1, RUD-2A, RUD-2B and RUD-3 were received through email – Petitioners filed para-wise comments before the Adjudicating Authority without prejudice to their rights – Held: It is for the Adjudicating Authority to decide whether documents already supplied are the complete RUDs or not; writ petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17, 24, 28–30].

Service of Notice – Electronic Mode – Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) of Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 – Service of show cause notice through email is valid service under Rule 13(3)(iii) and Rule 13(11) read with Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Petitioners' contention that documents were required to be supplied in a bound paper book does not affect the validity of the service of the notice itself – Held: No illegality found in service of notice through electronic mode [Para 20].

Reason to Believe – Adjudicating Authority – Section 8(1), PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority recorded prima facie reasons to believe that petitioners were involved in money laundering in connection with seizure of cash of Rs. 3,00,12,000/- and a mobile phone from their premises – The belief must be based on reasonable grounds and not on mere suspicion – Held: No illegality found in recording of reasons to believe by the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 26, 25].

Adjudicating Authority – Powers – Section 11, PMLA – The Adjudicating Authority has the same powers as a Civil Court including inspection of documents, compelling production of records, examining witnesses on oath and issuing commissions – Petitioners at liberty to avail these remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and, if aggrieved, prefer appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA [Paras 22–23, 30(c)].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Adjudicating Authority directed to first decide whether the documents requested by petitioners are relied upon documents and, if found to be so and not served, to direct the ED to supply the same within two weeks – Petitioners to be given opportunity to file supplementary reply within two weeks of supply – Parties at liberty to avail remedy under Section 26 of PMLA if aggrieved by any order on supply of RUDs – Interim order vacated.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summoning Order – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Streedhan – Section 406 IPC – Applicant No.1 (wife) lodged FIR against opposite party No.2 (husband) for offences under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Charge-sheet filed against the husband – Maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month for the son awarded against the husband – Thereafter, husband filed a complaint alleging that on 29.09.2018 the applicants entered his house and took away Rs. 6,400/-, ornaments worth Rs. 1,50,000/- and household articles – Applicants summoned under Sections 323, 504 and 406 IPC by the learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner without proper application of judicial mind – Held: Streedhan is the absolute property of the wife with full rights of disposal; the husband or in-laws have no control over streedhan; the husband may use it in distress but has a moral obligation to restore the same – Streedhan does not become joint property of husband and wife – Ingredients of Sections 405 and 406 IPC not attracted on the facts of the case; the summoning order was passed without considering the definitions under Sections 405 and 406 IPC and is contrary to the facts of the case – Complaint appears to be a counterblast to the prior proceedings initiated by the wife [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Application allowed – Summoning order dated 17.11.2022 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No. 8240 of 2018 set aside – Entire proceedings of the aforesaid case quashed.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – Substantial Question of Law – Appellants (defendant Nos.1 and 2) challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for declaration of title and possession over a vacant site of 435 Sq.yds – Plaintiffs relied on registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 (Ex.A-1) as proof of title – Defendants claimed the property as ancestral, supported only by self-serving statements and no documentary title – Held: No substantial question of law arises; second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission [Paras 13–15, 29–30].

Presumption as to Ancient Documents – Section 90, Indian Evidence Act – Ex.A-1 registered sale deed dated 06.05.1968 is more than 35 years old – When a document over 30 years old is produced from proper custody, the court may presume due execution and attestation without examining the attesting witnesses – Contention of the appellants that Ex.A-1 was not proved for want of examination of attestors held unsustainable [Paras 20–21].

Ancestral Property Claim – Absence of Documentary Evidence – Defendant No.1 did not enter the witness box – Defendant No.2 admitted in cross-examination that no registered document exists in their favour for the suit site and he did not even remember its survey number – The gift deed dated 16.10.2006 relied upon by defendants was executed only five months prior to the suit and its original was not filed – Sale deed in favour of defendant No.3 executed just eight days before the suit – Held: Defendants failed to establish any title or ancestral character of the suit property [Paras 22–24].

Adverse Inference – Non-Entry into Witness Box – Defendant Nos.1 and 3 did not enter the witness box to prove their defence – Held: A presumption arises that the case set up by a party who does not offer himself for cross-examination is not correct [Para 25].

Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Registration Does Not Confer Title – Mere execution and registration of a document does not create new title – Transfer of immovable property governed by the principle that no person can transfer a better title than what he himself possesses – Gift deed and sale deed created by defendants over a property in which they had no title cannot bind the plaintiffs [Para 23].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Daughters of Plaintiff No.1 Not Made Parties – Held: Suit was filed by plaintiff No.1 against third-party trespassers for declaration of title and possession; defendants are not co-sharers – Objection regarding non-joinder of daughters is unsustainable in the circumstances [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed at the stage of admission – Concurrent findings of both courts below confirmed – Defendants granted three months' time to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property – No costs.