Criminal Conspiracy – Adulterous Relationship – Murder – Evidence – Prosecution proved beyond doubt that the first accused, Nino Mathew, committed the murders of Omana and Swasthika and attempted to murder PW1 in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with the second accused, Anu Shanthi, with whom he had an adulterous relationship – Evidence included testimony of PW1 identifying the voice and presence of the first accused, material recoveries, forensic evidence, and eyewitness accounts [Paras 2-43, 63].

Circumstantial Evidence – Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act – The burden of proving facts within the special knowledge of the accused lies on them – First accused failed to explain his presence at the crime scene and possession of stolen items, thereby strengthening the prosecution's case [Paras 61-62].

Admissibility of Evidence – Recovery of Material Objects – MOs 1, 2, 5, 9-11, and 21-24 recovered based on the first accused's disclosure statement under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act were admissible and corroborated the prosecution's case – Forensic reports confirmed the presence of blood on weapons and clothing, matching the victims’ blood group [Paras 50-52].

Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Death Penalty – Trial court's imposition of the death penalty on the first accused confirmed – Crime deemed to fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ category due to its brutal nature, conspiracy, and motive driven by adulterous relationship – Sentence also included fines and compensation to victims' family [Paras 7, 12-13, 67].

Information Technology Act – Section 67A – Both accused found guilty under Section 67A for transmitting explicit content – Evidence showed exchange of sexually explicit photographs and videos between accused [Paras 39, 68].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences, including death penalty for the first accused, upheld – Compensation ordered for victims’ family [Paras 33, 67].
 

Election Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 329(b) of the Constitution - Petitioner sought declaration of electoral malpractices and repolling - High Court held that disputes relating to election process should be resolved through election petitions as per constitutional mandate - Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable - Held that the Court cannot intervene in ongoing election processes which must be challenged via appropriate election petitions after conclusion of elections - Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 7-9, 12, 18]

Conduct of Elections - Scrutiny of Electoral Documents - Petitioner claimed denial of opportunity to address grievances during scrutiny of Form 17A - High Court found no evidence of violation of Election Commission guidelines by election officers - Held that instructions from Election Commission, though binding, do not constitute enforceable law for invalidation of elections - Petitioner's remedy lies in filing an election petition. [Paras 4-6, 14-15]

Decision - Election Dispute Resolution - High Court emphasized adherence to constitutional framework for resolving election disputes - Reinforced the principle that election processes should not be interrupted by judicial intervention during their course - Writ petition dismissed without costs, with liberty to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy through election petition. [Paras 16-19]

Election Law – Writ Petition challenging election process – Dismissal on grounds of non-maintainability – Petitioner contested in the 2024 General Elections as an MLA candidate from the YSR Congress Party – Allegations of electoral offences and collusion between election staff and Telugu Desam Party personnel – Petitioner sought fresh polls in specific polling stations – Court found that the proper recourse for election disputes is through an election petition as per Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and not through a writ petition under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Jurisdiction and Maintainability – Article 329(b) – Interpretation – Election disputes to be adjudicated via election petition – High Courts barred from interfering in election processes while they are ongoing – Only after the conclusion of the election process can disputes be raised. [Paras 7-12]

Election Commission Directives – Legal standing – Directions issued by the Election Commission to Chief Electoral Officers – Binding but not equivalent to law – Violation of such directions does not invalidate election results – Remedies available through election petitions, not writ petitions. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court held the petition as not maintainable under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election disputes through appropriate proceedings after the election process – No adjudication on the truthfulness of allegations – Petition dismissed without costs. [Paras 18-19]

Elections – Writ Petition for Re-scrutiny and Re-polling – Article 329(b) of the Constitution – Election Petition as Proper Remedy – Petitioner contested as MLA from 166-Chandragiri Assembly Constituency – Alleged voter suppression, ballot tampering, and violence on polling day – Complaints to election authorities ignored – Petitioner kept in separate room during scrutiny due to law and order issues – Supreme Court held that disputes related to elections should be addressed via election petitions and not writ petitions – Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. [Paras 2-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 329(b) – Bar on Court Interference – Election matters to be resolved through election petitions – Interference by courts during election process is barred – Courts to avoid interrupting the electoral process – Held that grievances related to electoral offenses should be pursued through appropriate election petitions post-election. [Paras 7-10, 12-16]

Electoral Malpractice Allegations – Scrutiny of Form 17A – Election Petition – Petitioner’s absence during scrutiny due to separate room arrangement for safety – Authorities conducted random scrutiny and found no irregularities – Memo No.18/CEO-Peshi/2024-2 issued – Petitioner’s remedy lies in filing an election petition, not a writ petition. [Paras 2, 4, 17]

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – High Court dismisses the writ petition citing the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) – Petitioner advised to pursue election petition for redressal of grievances – Court does not examine the veracity of electoral offense allegations. [Paras 18-19]

Family Law – Paternity Dispute – DNA Test – Petition challenging Family Court’s order rejecting application for DNA test to determine paternity – Petitioner had earlier been acquitted in a rape case involving the mother of the minor child – Petitioner had entered into an agreement admitting paternity and agreeing to pay maintenance and compensation – Held: Petitioner estopped from challenging paternity due to previous acknowledgment and agreement – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-11]

Equitable Estoppel in Paternity Cases – Analysis – Held: Applying the doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel, based on equitable estoppel, once a man has held out a child as his own, he cannot later deny paternity – Precedent from Pennsylvania Supreme Court and reliance on Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child support the preservation of familial identity – Ensuring stability and security for the child considered paramount. [Para 9-10]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, finding no merit in the petitioner’s challenge – The petitioner had acted in a manner accepting paternity, and his later denial was deemed impermissible – Public policy considerations regarding the child’s right to identity emphasized. [Para 11]

Civil Law - Specific Performance - Application for Handwriting Expert Referral - Writ Petition challenging the Trial Court's order dismissing an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A read with Section 151 CPC for referring documents to a handwriting expert – Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale – Disputed signatures on sale agreement – Defendant contested signatures, claiming repayment of loan – Trial Court rejected referral application, citing admission of execution of document by defendant – Held, Trial Court erred in rejecting application without clear admission of signatures by defendant – Comparison of disputed signatures with admitted ones necessary for fair trial – Petition allowed, Trial Court's order set aside, referral to handwriting expert ordered. [Paras 1-13]

Role of Handwriting Expert in Document Verification - Analysis - Held – Comparison of disputed signatures necessary to resolve controversy – Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act empowers court to compare signatures but should be exercised sparingly – Referral to handwriting expert more appropriate where defendant disputes signatures – Ensures thorough and fair consideration of evidence. [Para 10-13]

Decision - Referral to Handwriting Expert Ordered - Writ Petition allowed – Trial Court directed to refer disputed signatures to handwriting expert – Ensures fair trial and proper adjudication of issues in dispute – Trial Court’s order dismissing application set aside. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet – Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR for molestation and threats – FIR No.0048 dated 25.06.2022 registered under Sections 452, 354 IPC, Sections 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, later including Sections 354-A and 195-A IPC – Petitioner alleged to have threatened the victim’s uncle to force compromise – High Court evaluates nature and scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: Substantial prosecution evidence recorded, including inconsistent testimony of victim – High Court refrains from quashing FIR, emphasizing trial court’s role in evaluating evidence – Petition dismissed with costs for misleading information about previous petition – Directions for cost recovery provided. [Paras 1-13]

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Ambit – Powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Exercise of inherent jurisdiction not limited to cases where no trial has commenced – High Court retains power to quash FIR even when substantial prosecution evidence is recorded, but with caution – Each case to be evaluated on facts – Reliance on precedents establishing principles for exercise of inherent powers. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – Court finds no exceptional circumstances warranting interference – Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to be deposited with trial court and remitted to Punjab State Legal Services Authority – Detailed procedure for cost recovery outlined. [Paras 11-13]

Service Law – Correction of Date of Birth – Limitation – Central Administrative Tribunal Act – Respondent sought correction of date of birth from 01.06.1964 to 02.07.1964 after 23.5 years of service – Application rejected as per DoP&T Office Memorandum due to delay beyond five-year limit – Tribunal allowed application, altering retirement date by 32 days – High Court held Tribunal erred in entertaining belated application without sufficient cause under Section 21(3) of the CAT Act – Original Petition allowed, Tribunal’s order set aside [Paras 1-14].

Procedure under Section 21 of CAT Act – Belated Claims – Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 21 constrained by time limits for applications – Non-compliance with prescribed timelines without justifiable cause renders application inadmissible – High Court emphasizes strict adherence to statutory time limits for altering service records [Paras 11-13].

Precedents on Correction of Date of Birth – Judicial Principles – Cites Supreme Court rulings on correction of date of birth in service records, underscoring restriction on belated claims and potential adverse impact on administration and public service – Correction requests must be timely and substantiated with unimpeachable evidence [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Original Petition allowed – Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 24.07.2023 in OA No. 469/2022 set aside – Original Application dismissed [Paras 20].

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.