Revision Petition – Evidence Closure 

The petitioner-defendant No.1 seeks to overturn the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate's order dated 04.09.2023, which closed his evidence due to his failure to appear in court during the trial. [Para 1-2]

Opportunities Granted – Multiple Opportunities 

The Court remarks that 10 effective opportunities were afforded to the petitioner-defendant No.1 for leading his evidence. However, the defendant availed only three of these opportunities, leading the trial Court to close his evidence. [Para 6]

Health Condition – Genuine Excuse 

The petitioner asserts his non-appearance on 04.09.2023 was on account of genuine health issues, backed by a medical card (Annexure P-5). [Para 3]

Legal Technicalities – Merit-based Decisions 

The Court opines that matters should be decided on their merits, cautioning against non-suiting parties solely based on technicalities. [Para 6]

Decision – Order Set Aside 

The Punjab and Haryana High Court sets aside the trial Court's decision, granting the petitioner one final opportunity to present his evidence, provided he pays ₹5,000 in costs to the plaintiff. [Para 7]

Arbitration and Conciliation – Challenge to Arbitral Award – NHAI challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Dissenting award by one of the arbitrators. NHAI objected to the quantum of damages awarded based on delay in handing over the site. [Para 1-2]

Contractual Agreement – Scope of Concession Agreement – Arbitral Award in the context of a Concession Agreement dated 30.01.2006, related to design, construction, development, finance, operation, and maintenance of a specified section of NH-7 in Tamil Nadu. Contractor awarded different sums against the various claims raised. [Para 2-4]

Defence – Statement of Defence by NHAI – NHAI denied the claims for additional costs, damages, and losses. Argued that the Concession Agreement doesn't provide safeguards for defaults by either of the parties. [Para 5]

Applicability of Contractual Clauses – Dispute over applicability of sub-clauses 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 of the Agreement versus sub-clause 31.2 read with Section 55 and 73 of the Indian Contract Act for calculating damages. [Para 6-8]

Legal Interpretation – Arbitral Tribunal's Award – The tribunal held that sub-clause 31.2 of the Concession Agreement was applicable for material breach by NHAI that affected and delayed the Commercial Operation Date (COD). [Para 9-11]

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference under Section 34 – Court held that its role is not as a court of first appeal and interference with the arbitral award would only be warranted in cases of patent illegality or perversity, in line with the Supreme Court ruling in MMTC Ltd. vs Vedanta Ltd. [Para 12]

Decision – Court’s View – The court found the Arbitral Tribunal's award to be in conformity with the applicable sub-clauses and rejected NHAI's petition challenging the award. [Para 11-12]

Conviction and Sentence – Trial and Appellate Courts – Petitioner convicted under Sections 279 and 304A IPC by the trial court and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months for respective offences. Both sentences to run concurrently. Appeal against the judgment dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. [Para 1-2]

Revision Petition – Grounds for Acquittal – Petitioner contends that both Courts below erred in convicting him without cogent evidence. Issues raised include lack of evidence to establish identity, unexplained delay in lodging FIR, and absence of key witnesses including the Investigating Officer. Alternative submission made regarding compromise with legal heirs of the deceased. [Para 4-5]

Prosecution's Version – Accident and Investigation – Prosecution describes the accident involving a tractor trolley and a truck, resulting in injuries and one death. Accused was arrested, and formalities completed before presenting the challan in Court. [Para 6]

Trial Court Proceedings – Charges and Acquittal – Accused charge-sheeted under multiple sections but acquitted under Sections 337 & 427 IPC. Conviction under Sections 279 & 304A IPC upheld by Appellate Court. [Para 7-8]

Identity of Accused – Key Issue – High Court finds that the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle was not established. Prosecution's failure to examine the Investigating Officer and other key witnesses noted. [Para 9-10]

Evidence and Investigation – Lapses – Prosecution did not prove crucial aspects like the site plan, mechanical examination reports, or the identity of the truck's owner. [Para 10]

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – High Court sets aside the impugned judgments of conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court due to non-establishing of the identity of the accused-petitioner as the driver of the offending vehicle. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Allegations of penetrative sexual assault on a child – Appellant convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment – Appeal against conviction – Medical examination of victim reveals no injury or signs of sexual assault – Prosecution's case questioned on grounds of falsity and improbability – Key points raised by the defense in support of innocence. [Para 12]

Evidence – Medical examination – Importance of medical reports in cases of sexual assault – No signs of injury or assault found during the medical examination of the victim – Examination of the appellant also reveals no indication of unnatural sexual offense – Significance of medical findings in assessing the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 16-19]

POCSO Act – Interpretation of Section 6 – Elements of penetrative sexual assault – Penetration is sufficient for the offense, regardless of semen emission or injury – Requirement of assessing the victim's statement in cases of sexual assault – The need for considering facts and circumstances in each case. [Para 20]

Inference – Medical report supports the defense's argument – Lack of injury or signs of sexual assault on the victim – Raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's case – Relevance of medical evidence in assessing the guilt of the accused – Conviction based on the victim's statement may not be sustainable without corroborating evidence. [Para 21]

Evidence – Medical Examination – Lack of injury on victim and appellant's private parts – Contradiction with the prosecution's claim of penetrative sexual assault – Significance of medical evidence in sexual assault cases. [Para 22-23]

Sexual Offences – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Necessity of injury in penetrative sexual assault – Reference to medical jurisprudence and legal provisions – Lack of evidence to support prosecution's claim. [Para 25-26]

Identification – Child victim's inability to identify the accused – Inconsistency with prosecution's claim – Impact on the case's credibility – Age of the victim and its relevance in the case. [Para 35-37]

Non-examination of material witnesses – Failure to produce a key witness – Adverse inference against the prosecution – Potential impact on case outcome. [Para 38]

Age of the child victim – Failure to prove the age of the victim – Insufficiency of evidence to establish the victim's age. [Para 40-41]

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Immediate release of the appellant ordered – Direction for personal bonds and appearance in case of further legal proceedings. [Para 43-44]

Legal Proceedings - Quashing of summoning order and proceedings in a complaint case - Allegations of bigamy against the applicants - Lack of evidence to establish a valid second marriage - Malicious prosecution - Prima facie case not made out. [Para 3-13]

Court's Duty - Protection of apparently innocent persons from frivolous prosecution - Quashing of proceedings to prevent grave miscarriage of justice - Inherent power of the Court exercised in favor of the applicants. [Para 13]

Quashing of Proceedings - Impugned summoning order and further proceedings quashed - Complaint case against the applicants dismissed. [Para 14-15]

Quashing Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC: High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC should not be exercised to quash proceedings merely due to a settlement between parties, especially in serious offences such as those under Section 306 and 305 IPC. Offences of this nature are against society and not just against individuals. [Para 15, 50]

Serious Offences – Classification: Offences under Section 305 and 306 IPC categorized as serious and heinous, deemed as crimes against society. Settlement between the accused and complainant, including financial settlements, should not lead to quashing of these proceedings. [Para 50, 13]

Section 305 IPC – Ingredients: For an offence to be made out under Section 305 IPC, it must involve suicide by a person who is a minor, or delirious, or an idiot, or intoxicated, and the accused must have abetted the commission of the suicide. [Para 14, 305]

Framing of Charges – Trial Court’s Duty: The Trial Court must consider available materials on record while framing charges or at relevant stages in accordance with the law. [Para 15]

Trial to Proceed – Quashing Unwarranted: The present case contains prima facie material against the petitioners, warranting a trial. Quashing such a case would result in a miscarriage of justice. [Para 16, 17]

Miscellaneous – Disposal and Compliance: All connected applications disposed of; interim orders, if any, are vacated. Directions for urgent certified copies of this judgment and its dispatch to the trial court for compliance. [Para 18-21]

Criminal Bail Application – Narcotics Offences – Applicant charged under Sections 8(c), 20, 22 & 29 of the NDPS Act – Retraction of statement made under Section 67 NDPS Act – No recoveries from the Applicant – Lack of independent evidence linking the Applicant to the alleged offences – Constitutional guarantees and admissibility of confessional statements – Bail granted to co-accused – Parity argument – Section 37 of the NDPS Act not applicable to the Applicant.

Criminal Conspiracy – Allegation of involvement in drug trafficking – No recoveries of drugs or contraband from the Applicant – Section 29 NDPS Act not established – Independent, corroborative, and affirmative evidence required for charges under Section 29 NDPS Act. [Para 10-13]

Evidence – Inadmissibility of section 67 statements – Statutory bar to their admissibility – No discovery of 'fact' under Section 27 IEA – Prior knowledge of details by the prosecution – Retraction of statement under section 67 – Statements by co-accused insufficient to establish guilt. [Para 33-36]

Bank Transactions – Insufficient to establish guilt – Transactions related to stock market and friendly relationships – Lack of evidence linking transactions to the drug syndicate – Reliance on bank transactions without further corroborative material misplaced. [Para 23-28]

Parity – Grant of bail to co-accused with similar circumstances – Triple test for bail conditions – Flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses addressed by stringent bail conditions – Applicant granted bail. [Para 37-43]

Criminal Appeal – Challenge to denial of regular bail – Appellant seeks to set aside the impugned order dismissing his bail application – Arrested in a case related to a terror module planning IED Blasts – Allegations based on co-accused's disclosure statements and witness statements – Appellant's limited role as a middleman and lack of knowledge about the purpose of consignments emphasized. [Para 1-10]

UAPA Appeal - Bail - Applicability of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA - Assessment of the scope of exercise in an appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act against the dismissal of a bail petition - Reference to principles laid down in Watali and Vernon - Examination of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA - Two conditions for denying bail under the section - Public Prosecutor's opportunity to be heard and prima facie belief in the accusation's truth - Guidance from Watali on the concept of "prima facie true" - Surface analysis of probative value of evidence - Overview of principles from Watali and Vernon - Broad assessment of evidence without detailed analysis - Relevance of CDR analysis - Examination of the appellant's role in a conspiracy involving IED bomb blasts - Differentiating from Vernon's case - Reference to Ghulam Mohd. Bhat case - Subjective nature of assessment - Difficulty in reaching a conclusion that accusations are not prima facie true - Role of the appellant as a link in a terrorist network - Discussion of conspiracy principles - Admissibility of evidence in conspiracy trials - Conclusion that reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusation is prima facie true - Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 11-32]

False FIR - Abuse of process of law - Mala fide intent - Quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC - Petitioner, an Afghan refugee, faced charges of forgery, theft, and molestation based on two complaints by the respondent no.2 - First complaint alleged forgery and theft, while the second complaint introduced allegations of molestation - CCTV footage was not shared with the police - Delay in filing the second complaint without adequate explanation - Material contradictions between the two complaints - Respondent no.2 materially changed the nature of allegations - Supreme Court precedent allowed quashing of proceedings if they are manifestly frivolous or vexatious and instituted with ulterior motive - Judicial conscience satisfied that proceedings were a misuse of the process of the court and ought to be quashed. [Para 1-33]

Legal Principles – Inherent Powers of High Court Under Section 482 CrPC – Discussion on the scope and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for exercising the inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. [Para 13-17]

Jurisdiction – Scope of Judicial Scrutiny in Quashing Proceedings – Court emphasized that it is not just enough to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone, but to look into other attending circumstances, if the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious. The Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case. [Para 15]

Inconsistencies in Complaints – Varied and improved allegations in subsequent complaints viewed with suspicion. The Court noted the substantial changes in the allegations made in the first complaint dated 13th July 2021 and the second complaint dated 10th September 2021, especially concerning physical abuse and molestation. [Para 23-24]

Delay and Omissions – Lack of prompt filing of specific allegations and failure to provide CCTV footage. The Court found it suspicious that the complainant waited for two months to file a fresh complaint and did not provide the CCTV footage of the alleged incident. [Para 24-27]

Charge Sheet – Omission of Original Offences – The Court observed that the charge sheet filed only mentioned offences under Sections 354/506 of the IPC and did not include the initial allegations of forgery and theft, without any grievance raised by the respondents. [Para 26]

Decision – In light of the aforementioned circumstances, including inconsistencies in the complaints and lack of promptness, the Court considered invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 18, 27]