Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 120B, 302, 397, and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Reliance on "last seen together" theory – Evidence of the witnesses regarding the accused being last seen with the victim is unreliable – Lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime – Benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused – Conviction set aside. [Para 19-20]

Identification of Dead Body – Failure to establish the identity of the dead body – Relatives identified the deceased based on photographs and belongings – Lack of convincing scientific evidence to establish identity – Doubts regarding the identity of the deceased persist. [Para 29-30]

Motive for Brutal Act – Failure to investigate the motive behind a brutal act – Victim's penis and scrotum found cut off during autopsy – Lack of explanation for such a brutal act – Doubts regarding the genuineness of the prosecution's case regarding motive. [Para 31]

Benefit of Doubt – Accumulation of doubts in the case – Lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime – Accused entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of the accused. [Para 32-33]

Income Tax Appeal – Double Taxation – Unaccounted income admitted by the flagship company (Surya Food &Agro Ltd.) and disclosed before the Settlement Commission – Investment of the same undisclosed income as share capital in respondent companies forming part of the Priya Gold Group – Whether the same undisclosed income can be subjected to taxation again in the hands of the respondent companies (Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited, Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.) – Legal principles regarding double taxation – Judicial precedents supporting the principle that once income is disclosed and taxed in the hands of one entity, it cannot be taxed again when applied as share capital in other companies – Appeal answered in favor of the respondent/assessee, affirming that the undisclosed income, once subjected to tax, cannot be taxed twice. [Para 8-21]

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Limitation Period for Filing Charge-Sheet – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against the rejection of default bail application – Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for default bail and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition – Emphasis on the offence mentioned in the FIR and not the role of the individual accused – Held, the period for completing investigation for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment is ninety days irrespective of the individual roles of the accused – Application for default bail was without merit and rightly dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Role of Offence in Determining Limitation Period – Analysis – Held, Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. emphasizes the offence for which the FIR is registered rather than the individual roles of the accused – The prescribed period for investigation is determined by the nature of the offence (ninety days for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment) – The investigating agency filed the charge-sheet within this prescribed period – The petitioner’s claim for default bail on the basis of a sixty-day period was unfounded. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition for Default Bail – Court dismissed the petition for default bail, confirming the ninety-day period for offences under Section 302 IPC – The petition lacked merit and the orders of the lower courts were upheld. [Para 10]

Counter-Claim Compliance: Omissions in the counter-claim – Whether minor omissions in fulfilling the requirements while filing the counter-claim are grounds to non-suit the counter-claim plaintiff at the first or second appellate stage? – Legal requirements for filing a counter-claim as mandated under Order VIII Rule 6A and 6B of CPC clarified – Omissions in the form and content of the counter-claim not a ground for dismissal in the interest of justice. [Para 13-20]

Title Dispute: Plaintiff claiming title over certain properties – Defendant asserting title based on documents – Plaintiff fails to substantiate claims, and defendant’s evidence supports property ownership – Trial court and appellate court rightly confirmed defendant’s title and possession – Concurrent verdicts upheld. [Para 21-23]

Possession: Plaintiff seeking additional time to vacate property – Defendant opposing, citing financial difficulties – Two months’ time granted to plaintiff for vacating the property, conditioned on filing an affidavit within three weeks confirming the same – Failure to file affidavit within the specified time will void the extension. [Para 26-28]

Obscenity and Privacy – Watching obscene content in private time – Whether it amounts to an offence under Section 292 IPC – Court's role in determining the same – The accused was charged with watching obscene videos in his mobile phone in public – No allegation of distribution or exhibition – Section 292 IPC requires evidence of sale, distribution, or public exhibition – Accused's act of watching in private does not constitute an offence under Section 292 IPC. [Para 6]

Accused acquitted – No offence under Section 292 IPC established – Proceedings quashed - Parental Responsibility – Caution to parents regarding minor children and pornography – The easy accessibility of pornographic content on mobile phones – The need for parents to supervise and guide their children's internet use to protect their well-being and moral values. Petition Allowed.  [Para 9]

Award of Compensation – The trial court computed the amount of compensation based on the minimum wage rate due to lack of sufficient evidence for the claimed monthly income of the deceased – Amount awarded without interest, contrary to Section 4A of the Employee’s Compensation Act. [Para 4]

Appeal for Interest – The appellant appealed solely for the non-award of interest at 12% per annum, citing a violation of the mandatory provision of Section 4(A) of the Employee’s Compensation Act. [Para 6]

Liability of Insurance Company – The respondent No.2-Insurance Company contested that it was only liable to cover the principal award amount, not the interest or penalty due to the insured’s fault. [Para 7]

Statutory Mandate – The High Court concluded that the lack of interest in the original award was contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 4A(3)(a) and thus suffers from perversity. [Para 12]

Modification of Order – The appeal was allowed, and the High Court ordered that simple interest at 12% per annum should be added to the original award amount from the date of the accident. [Para 13]

Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Court's Responsibility - The executing court's duty to enforce the court's verdict as per the decree is established, and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. In case of ambiguity in the description of the property in the appellate decree, the court is directed to consider the original trial court decree for clarity. [Para 18-20]

Precedents and Interpretation - Reiteration of well-established legal principles that executing court cannot go beyond the decree and must enforce the judgment in its face value. However, in case of ambiguity, it becomes the bounden duty of the Court to interpret the decree while giving true effect to it. [Para 16, 17]

Decree Specificity - Importance of a clearly articulated decree that leaves no room for ambiguity in order to facilitate smooth execution. Citing Rule 106 of Civil Court Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which underlines the necessity for a decree to be drawn up in a manner that does not require reference to any other document for its understanding and execution. [Para 7, 11-13]

Appeal and Amendment - The scope for amending decrees and judgments is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes as per Section 152 of the CPC. If a substantial mistake exists, the remedy lies in a review of the judgment. [Para 10, 14]

Relief Granted - The impugned order of the executing court set aside. The court directed to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with the law, taking into consideration the original trial court decree for a clear description of the property. [Para 20]

Family Law – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty – Appeal filed by appellant-wife against decree of divorce granted in favor of respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) – Appellant alleges dowry harassment and cruelty by respondent and his family – Respondent alleges mental cruelty by appellant. [Para 1, 17-18]

Settlement Deed – Agreement between parties to live separately and not to make dowry demands – Appellant alleges non-compliance and continued harassment by respondent – Court finds contradictions in appellant’s statements and lack of evidence to substantiate her claims. [Para 25-26, 43-44]

Dowry Harassment – Insufficient Evidence – Mere filing of FIR not sufficient to prove allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment without being substantiated by cogent evidence. [Para 11-12]

Counter-Blast – False Complaints – Court observes that complaints against respondent and his family appear to be a counter-blast to the divorce petition. [Para 14]

Mental Cruelty – Definition and legal precedents – Court examines conduct of both parties throughout marriage – Finds appellant’s allegations of dowry harassment, molestation, and attempted murder unsubstantiated – Considers respondent’s allegations of mental cruelty by appellant. [Para 21-23, 27-29, 33-34]

Evidence and Credibility – Court notes contradictions in appellant’s statements and lack of evidence to support her allegations – Gives weight to respondent’s consistent narrative and circumstances leading to their living separately. [Para 24, 26, 28-29, 45-46]

Desertion – Appellant claims respondent deserted her, making him ineligible for divorce – Court finds respondent’s act justified due to appellant’s mental cruelty, negating claim of desertion. [Para 47]

Decision – Court concurs with Principal Judge, Family Court – Dismisses appeal and upholds divorce decree granted in favor of respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Para 48-49]

Statutory Framework – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act - accused being charged under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The legislation requires a minimum sentence of 7 years for offenses under Section 4 and 10 years under Section 6. [Para 1, 7, 8]

Facts – Attempt to Commit Penetrative Sexual Assault - prosecution charged the accused based on the evidence presented, which primarily consisted of the victim's and her mother's testimony and a medical report. The court assessed whether the accused committed penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault. [Para 2-5]

Evidence and Inference – Lack of Penetrative Assault - Special Judge found that there was insufficient evidence to prove penetrative sexual assault but concluded that there was an attempt to commit penetrative sexual assault based on the victim's and medical testimony. [Para 4-5]

Sentencing – Inconsistency with Statutory Mandate - Special Judge sentenced the accused to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment, which is below the minimum sentencing guidelines under the POCSO Act for the attempted offenses. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion – Limitations and Requirements - the court has limited discretion in sentencing and cannot impose a sentence lesser than the statutory minimum, specifically referring to the provisions under the POCSO Act. [Para 9]

Oversight – Role of Special Public Prosecutor and State - Neither the Special Public Prosecutor nor the State took steps to address the inconsistency in the sentencing, highlighting a critical oversight in the case. [Para 10-11]

Decision: The judgment points out a glaring error in the sentencing, which is inconsistent with the POCSO Act's minimum sentencing guidelines. The Court stresses the importance of following statutory requirements and criticizes the oversight of the Special Public Prosecutor and the State in not addressing the error. [Para 10-11]