Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appellant sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine by Trial Court – Alleged inconsistencies and material improvements in the victim's testimony – Appellant's conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act not proved beyond reasonable doubt, modified to Section 10 of the POCSO Act. [Paras 1-6, 16-34]

Evidence Analysis – Victim's Testimony – Various statements of child victim examined – Discrepancies noted in the description of the alleged assault – MLC and Section 161 CrPC statement mentioned touch through clothes, later statements and Trial Court deposition included finger insertion and threats – Trial Court's inference of insertion not concurred due to lack of medical corroboration and inconsistencies. [Paras 9-21]

Investigation Lapses – Unexamined Witnesses – Presence of other children during the incident not probed – Serious lapse in investigation highlighted, affecting the credibility of the prosecution's case. [Para 22]

Medical Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Medical evidence did not corroborate the victim's later statements of being cut by the appellant's fingernails – No forensic examination conducted on accused's nails. [Paras 21, 23]

Hearsay Evidence – Testimonies of victim's parents – Both based on what the child victim reported, hence considered hearsay and not given substantial weight. [Para 24]

Legal Interpretation – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Analysis of POCSO Act provisions – Manipulation required for penetration not established – Simple touch does not amount to manipulation, separate offence under the Act. [Paras 26-29]

Delay in Filing FIR – Explained by victim's mother – Delay not considered a sole factor for discrediting prosecution's case. [Para 30]

Final Decision – Conviction Modified – Based on evidence and legal interpretation, appellant's conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act set aside, found guilty under Section 10 of the POCSO Act – Sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with retained fine. [Paras 31-34]

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Credentials and Public Interest Requirement – Dismissal 

The petitioner’s PIL, seeking demolition of an allegedly illegal structure due to land encroachment, was dismissed. The court found the PIL inadmissible as the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish his credentials as a social worker and failed to demonstrate substantial public interest, as required by the guidelines in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and others. [Para 5-7, 10]

Land Encroachment and Building Permissions – Evidence and Dispute Resolution 

The court stressed that disputes over land encroachment and revocation of building permissions necessitate a detailed evaluation of evidence. As the property title was disputed and evidence was necessary to establish encroachment, the court deemed it inappropriate to decide these matters in a PIL. [Para 11, 12]

Organ Transplantation – Assessment of Altruism in Organ Donation – Challenge to the order of the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) denying authorization for organ transplantation – Allegations of non-altruistic motives in organ donation between the petitioners – DLAC found inconsistencies in statements regarding the relationship and altruism between the donor and recipient – Court finds no inconsistency in statements and directs DLAC to reconsider the decision with emphasis on the “Certificate of Altruism.” [Para 1, 2, 5-10]

Legal Scrutiny of Organ Donation Process – Importance of assessing the voluntariness and altruism in organ donations, especially involving economically disadvantaged donors – DLAC’s role in preventing exploitation in organ transplantation – Court’s intervention in ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural safeguards in the organ donation process. [Para 3, 9, 10]

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions – High Court’s power to review and set aside administrative decisions – Court’s directive for a fresh consideration by DLAC, highlighting the necessity of considering all relevant documents and statements, including the “Certificate of Altruism” – Emphasis on expeditious handling of the case due to the life-threatening situation of the recipient. [Para 10]

Decision – High Court sets aside the order of DLAC (Ext.P12) – Orders DLAC to issue a fresh decision after considering all relevant documents and statements, particularly the “Certificate of Altruism” – Stipulates the decision to be made within one week from the receipt of the judgment copy. [Para 10]

Writ Petition – Invalidating Answer Paper – Petitioner's essay answer invalidated in Combined Civil Services Examination-II Group-II Services by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Invalidation challenged as illegal, seeking re-evaluation and consideration for appointment. [Para 1]

Eligibility and Examination Performance – Petitioner, successful in preliminary test and main examination, attended interview and counselling – Not selected due to invalidated essay answer paper in Part-B, leading to total score below cut-off. [Para 3-5]

Invalidation Grounds – Respondent's invalidation of answer paper based on impertinent remarks – Petitioner's conclusion in essay with "Jai Hind, Let us live united with nature" deemed irrelevant by respondent. [Para 8, 16]

Legal Contention – Petitioner argues relevance of concluding remarks to essay topic, challenging invalidation as illegal – Respondent justifies invalidation based on examination instructions prohibiting irrelevant remarks. [Para 5, 11, 17-18]

Judicial Analysis and Decision – Court finds petitioner’s conclusion in essay relevant and appropriate, not impertinent – Invalidation by respondent deemed illegal, unjust, and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 19-25]

Directions Issued – Respondent directed to validate and award marks to petitioner's answer paper – If qualifying marks achieved, petitioner to be appointed within four weeks from order receipt. [Para 26]

Criminal Procedure – Permission to Travel Abroad – Petitioner, facing trial and granted anticipatory bail, sought permission to travel to the USA for personal reasons – Trial Court's denial on grounds of potential abscondment reversed – High Court allows travel, imposing strict conditions to ensure return and compliance with legal obligations. [Paras 1, 2, 10, 11]

Fundamental Rights – Right to Travel – Citing precedent, the Court acknowledges the fundamental right to travel, emphasizing its importance in the context of personal life and liberty – Conditions imposed to balance this right with the need to ensure legal proceedings are not evaded. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Permission to Travel – High Court exercises discretion favoring the petitioner’s request to travel, referencing substantial ties to the community, political career, and family events – Contrasts with the trial court's caution against potential evasion of the law. [Paras 8, 9, 10]

Bail Conditions – Compliance and Assurance – Petitioner's compliance with previous bail conditions and his substantial societal ties considered – Assurance provided by return tickets and sureties, including petitioner's wife, deemed sufficient to grant permission to travel. [Paras 2, 11]

Anticipatory Bail – Pending Application – Acknowledgment of pending anticipatory bail application – Petitioner’s commitment to return before the next hearing date noted as a factor in granting permission to travel. [Paras 2, 10]

Equality Before Law – Co-accused Granted Permission – Reference to co-accused granted permission to travel abroad used as a supporting argument for non-discriminatory treatment and equality before the law. [Paras 3, 10]

Parole – Rejection of temporary release on parole – Challenge against the Superintendent Jail’s order denying parole – Petitioner’s criminal antecedents and commission of offenses during parole considered – Petition for release on parole dismissed. [Paras 1, 14-15, 19]

Conviction – Serving life sentence – Conviction for multiple offenses including murder and Arms Act violations – Subsequent offenses committed during parole periods – Appeal dismissed by the High Court. [Para 2]

Legislation Interpretation – Interpretation of ‘hardcore convicted prisoner’ under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 2022 – Offenses committed during parole leading to categorization as hardcore prisoner – No need for conviction in the committed offenses to fall under this category. [Paras 3, 16-18]

Criminal Justice – Conditions for temporary release on parole, furlough, emergency parole, and custody parole – Special provisions for hardcore convicted prisoners – Petitioner not entitled to regular parole under the statutory framework. [Paras 10-12]

Decision – No merit found in the petition – Petitioner’s criminal history justifies denial of parole – No writ issued for release on parole, petition dismissed. [Para 19]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Petitioners declared as proclaimed persons under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Settlement between the parties and withdrawal of the complaint – Quashing of proclamation order due to settlement and procedural contravention. [Paras 1-2]

Compromise – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Full and final payment received by the complainant resulting in the withdrawal of the complaint – Impact of an amicable settlement on the proclamation order issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. [Para 3]

Decision – Quashing of Proclamation Order – Present petition allowed – Impugned order dated 13.01.2021 under Section 82 Cr.P.C. quashed along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, following a settlement between the parties. [Para 6]

Live-in Relationship and Protection of Life and Liberty – Petition under Article 226 for protection against threats from family members – Petitioners in a live-in relationship seeking mandamus against false implication in criminal cases by private respondents – Family members of petitioner No.1 threatening their lives. [Para 1-2]

Marital Status and Legal Implications – Petitioner No.2 in a subsisting marriage with a pending divorce case – Relationship with petitioner No.1 potentially constituting adultery under Sections 494/495 IPC – Court's observation on the adulterous nature of their live-in relationship. [Para 4-5]

Allegations of Threat and Lack of Evidence – Petitioners' failure to substantiate allegations of threats with convincing material – Court's reluctance to accept vague allegations without supportive evidence. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion and Dismissal of Petition – Petition perceived as a means to circumvent criminal prosecution for adultery – Court finds no substantial grounds to grant relief, leading to dismissal of the petition. [Para 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of petition for protection of life and liberty in a live-in relationship involving an adulterous connection, citing lack of evidence and potential legal violations. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Modification of Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fine – Appeal for converting conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC based on facts and circumstances. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Dispute and Incident Description – Dispute over right of way leading to altercation and shooting – Appellant's involvement in firing during the spur-of-the-moment dispute resulting in death – Initial conviction under Section 302 IPC, request for reduction to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 2, 7-9]

Evidence Review – Witnesses confirming the spontaneous nature of dispute and occurrence of firing – Admission of dispute over right of way and exchange of abuses prior to the incident – Investigating officers corroborating the nature of the dispute and sequence of events. [Para 7-9]

Legal Interpretation – Determination of applicable IPC section based on nature of incident – Spontaneous dispute and absence of premeditation leading to consideration for conversion from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 8-10]

Judgment – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine – Direction for release of appellant after completion of over 12 years in custody. [Para 11-12]