Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor – Conviction – Appeal against Death Sentence – The appellant, aged 61, was convicted by the Special Court for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 5-year-old girl – Death penalty imposed by the trial court under the POCSO Act, IPC Sections 302 and 376AB, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act challenged – High Court modified the sentence, converting the death penalty to life imprisonment for 30 years without parole for the first 15 years – Held: The evidence, including CCTV footage, eyewitness accounts, and forensic reports, established guilt – However, absence of deliberate intention to kill the victim and the appellant’s age were mitigating factors justifying commutation of the death penalty [Paras 1–41].

Last Seen Theory – Section 106, Evidence Act – Burden of Proof on Accused – Appellant Guilty – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of "last seen together." The appellant was last seen with the victim as corroborated by CCTV footage and witness testimonies (PWs 3 & 4). Appellant's failure to explain the whereabouts of the victim shifted the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court held the appellant guilty [Paras 17, 21–24].

Discovery of Evidence – Section 27, Evidence Act – Admissibility of Confession – Confession Admitted – The appellant, during police interrogation, revealed the location of the victim’s dead body and led the police to the crime scene. The court admitted the confession under Section 27 as it directly resulted in the discovery of incriminating evidence, reinforcing the chain of circumstances against the appellant [Paras 25–28].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – DNA Inconclusive – Conviction Sustained – The forensic report identified human semen on the victim’s clothing but failed to yield amplifiable DNA. Despite this, the postmortem findings of injuries and the victim’s cause of death—trauma due to rape—supported the prosecution’s case. The absence of usable DNA did not weaken the overall evidence [Paras 29–31].

Death Penalty – Rare and Extreme Cases Doctrine – Life Imprisonment Substituted – The court evaluated mitigating factors, including the appellant’s age (62 years), lack of criminal antecedents, and the absence of a deliberate intent to kill. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment with a stipulation of 30 years without parole or remission [Paras 39–40].

POCSO and SC/ST Act Charges – Application of Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act – Not Proven – The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the crime was motivated by the victim’s SC/ST status. Thus, the charge under the SC/ST Act was not sustained [Paras 13, 30].

Decision: Conviction upheld – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 30 years without remission – No parole permitted for the first 15 years.

Criminal Law – Bail under PMLA – Allegations of Money Laundering – Petitioners accused of raising funds for unlawful activities under the guise of donations for Popular Front of India (PFI) – Alleged proceeds of crime were used to incite violence, disturb communal harmony, and fund terrorism – Petitioners in custody for over 2 years – Held: No prima facie case under Section 3 of PMLA made out – Long incarceration and delay in trial violated Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners granted bail [Paras 1, 39-46, 53-54].

Money Laundering – "Proceeds of Crime" under PMLA – Definition and Scope – ED alleged that funds collected by petitioners for PFI were proceeds of crime used for criminal activities – Court observed that "proceeds of crime" must directly result from a scheduled offence – Collection of funds for future crimes does not constitute proceeds of crime under Section 3 of PMLA – Held: Allegations against petitioners do not fulfill the requirements of Section 3 of PMLA [Paras 35-41].

Delay in Trial – Long Incarceration – Violation of Article 21 – Petitioners in custody for over 2 years and charges yet to be framed – Trial involves 185 witnesses and extensive documentary evidence, making early conclusion unlikely – Court emphasized the principle that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" – Held: Continued detention would violate constitutional rights under Article 21 [Paras 46-53].

Judicial Precedent – Balancing Statutory Rigors and Constitutional Rights – Cited Supreme Court judgments including K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], Manish Sisodia (II) [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920], and V. Senthil Balaji [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626] – Rigors of Section 45 of PMLA must yield to the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 when prolonged detention is evident [Paras 48-52].

Bail Conditions – Petitioners granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing personal bonds, surrendering passports, providing contact details, avoiding unlawful acts, and cooperating with the investigation – Observations made for bail purposes will not affect the merits of the pending trial [Paras 54-55].

Decision: Bail applications allowed – Petitioners to be released on bail with conditions – Observations limited to the bail proceedings [Paras 54-56].

Charitable Trusts – Cancellation of Registration – Section 12AA(3) – Cancellation Retrospective Effect – Unjustified - The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) cancelled the registration of the assessee-society retrospectively for the assessment year 2004-2005 under Section 12AA(3), introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2010 – Held: Retrospective application of cancellation not permissible – The CIT lacked jurisdiction to cancel registration for periods predating the statutory amendment – Cancellation set aside for being illegal [Paras 23–27].

Charitable Purpose – Definition under Section 2(15) – Advancement of General Public Utility – Use of Funds for Construction Activities - Funds utilized for establishing a medical college and hospital cannot be deemed non-charitable – Construction of infrastructure forms an incidental but essential component of achieving charitable objectives – Registration and exemptions restored [Paras 24, 34, 35].

Income Tax Exemptions – Section 11 – Incidental Commercial Activities – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – Revenue argued commercial activities violated exemption clauses – Held: Activities incidental to the primary purpose of providing medical and educational relief permissible under law, provided they are incidental and within prescribed statutory limits – Exemptions under Section 11 granted [Paras 27, 35].

Penalty – Section 271(C) – Non-applicability – Dismissal of Penalty Appeals – Since the primary exemption and registration issues have been decided in favor of the assessee, penalty provisions under Section 271(C) do not apply – Appeals dismissed [Para 32].

Decision

ITA Nos. 271, 274 of 2014; 33 of 2022 filed by the Assessee: Allowed.

ITA Nos. 52, 164 of 2017; 48, 61 of 2020; 196, 197, 199, and 200 of 2023 filed by the Revenue: Dismissed.

Criminal Procedure – Second Application for Pardon – Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Maintainable with Changed Circumstances – The Court held that a second application for pardon under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable only when there are changed circumstances – Here, A1 alleged threats to his life as a fresh circumstance for seeking pardon – Held: Second application is maintainable in the present case [Paras 18, 21].

Criminal Procedure – Recording of Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Legality – Recording Statement After Trial Commences Illegal – The trial court directed the Magistrate to record A1's confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C., despite the trial already having commenced – Held: Section 164 Cr.P.C. applies only before the commencement of inquiry or trial – The trial court’s direction to record such a statement was held illegal and contrary to law [Paras 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Procedure for Grant of Pardon – Evidence Recording Only After Pardon Granted – Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Illegal to Use Section 164 Cr.P.C. Confession – The Court held that evidence, including examination and cross-examination of an approver, can only take place after pardon is granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. – Reliance on a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before granting pardon is contrary to the statute – Procedure adopted by the trial court was vitiated [Paras 21-23].

Criminal Procedure – Right of Co-accused to Challenge Pardon – Limited to Procedural Aberration – The Court held that co-accused have the right to challenge procedural illegality in the grant of pardon to an accused under Section 306 Cr.P.C., but not the merit of the order granting pardon – The petitioners' challenge based on procedural lapses was maintainable [Para 24].

Trial Delay – Responsibility of Prosecution – Directions for Expeditious Trial – The prosecution was found to have contributed significantly to delays in trial despite High Court orders to expedite proceedings – Trial court’s record indicated repeated failure by the prosecution to produce necessary witnesses and evidence on time – The High Court directed expeditious conclusion of trial within two months [Paras 25-26].

Decision: The impugned order dated 30/10/2024 of the trial court granting pardon to A1 was quashed. Directions were issued to the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.

Criminal Law – Separation of Trials – Common Verdict for Separated Sessions Cases – Impermissibility – Appellants convicted under Sections 148, 302, 324, 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Section 201 IPC, and Section 27 Arms Act – Separate Sessions trials titled State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others impermissibly joined – Evidence recorded in one trial was relied upon in the other without appropriate procedural compliance – Common verdict quashed due to procedural violation [Paras 24–33].

Fair Trial – Right to Separate Appraisal of Evidence – Mandate Violated – Evidence adduced in separate trials must remain confined to the accused in those trials – Common verdict rendered by the trial court was in gross violation of procedural and substantive law – Violated principles laid down by Supreme Court in A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department (Criminal Appeal No. 1306 of 2021) [Paras 26–32].

Section 311 CrPC – Misapplication – Improper Joinder of Separated Trials – Affirmative order allowing evidence from one trial to be used in another trial held void – Consent of defense counsel does not validate procedural illegality [Paras 29–32].

Decision: Criminal Appeals (CRA-290-DB-2006, CRA-392-DB-2006, CRA-421-DB-2006): Allowed – Common verdict and sentences quashed – Cases remanded with directions to the trial court to:
Ensure prosecution witnesses testify only in their respective trials.
Assign separate numbers to both Sessions cases (State v. Davender and State v. Kartar Singh and Others).
Hear arguments and pronounce separate judgments for both trials within six months [Paras 34].
Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-1591-2006): Dismissed as infructuous due to remand of main cases [Paras 35].
 

Public Interest Litigation – School Bus Safety – Fatal Accident Involving School Bus – Several PILs filed post-accident seeking measures for student safety in school transportation – Guidelines for safe operation of school buses issued by the Court in the absence of State-specific regulations – Directions given for compliance by authorities until amendments are made to the MP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 [Paras 1, 8-17].

Compensation Claims – Adequacy of Compensation – Petitioners sought compensation for victims of the accident – Held: Appropriate compensation paid by school management to affected families – Claims pending under the Motor Vehicles Act to be decided by the concerned Tribunal – Issue of compensation beyond the scope of PIL [Paras 4-5].

Prosecution of Responsible Parties – FIR Registered – Petitioners sought prosecution of school management and authorities – Held: FIR already registered under IPC provisions and charge sheet filed – No further direction necessary [Para 6].

Guidelines Issued – Safety Standards for School Buses – Inspired by Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, the Court issued detailed interim guidelines for school bus operation, including:

Mandatory Yellow Paint and Signage: All school buses to be painted yellow with clear markings for identification [Para 14(1)].

Safety Features: Installation of horizontal grills on windows, first aid kits, fire extinguishers, emergency doors, and reliable locking systems [Para 14(2)-(11)].

Driver Requirements: Minimum five years' experience, no record of serious traffic violations, and regular medical and criminal checks [Para 14(6), 15(6)].

Supervision: Appointment of trained attendants, GPS tracking, CCTV cameras, and a designated school staff monitor [Para 14(5), 15(4)-(5)].

Vehicle Maintenance: Regular cleaning and maintenance, fitness certification, and restriction on vehicle age to 12 years [Para 14(13)-(16)].

Implementation and Monitoring – Responsibilities Assigned – Regional Transport Officers and police officers to enforce compliance with Motor Vehicle laws and guidelines [Para 15(2)].

School principals or management to appoint staff to oversee bus safety and compliance [Para 15(3)].

Directions to the State Government – Amendment of MP Motor Vehicles Rules – Court emphasized the need for the State to amend existing rules to address safety in school transportation [Para 17].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of with guidelines and directions for compliance by all concerned authorities – Guidelines to remain in effect until government amends relevant rules [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Challenge Arrest Procedure and Remand – Adherence to BNSS and Constitutional Norms – Judicial Review Upheld – The petitioner challenged the remand order alleging procedural lapses and constitutional violations in the arrest and custody proceedings – Court examined compliance with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2024, and Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution – Held: Procedural safeguards were followed, and the remand was justified based on prima facie evidence against the petitioner [Paras 12-15, 37-46].

Prima Facie Evidence – Role of Magistrate in Remand Orders – Judicial Custody Justified – The Magistrate's duty to assess the material evidence for granting judicial custody was fulfilled – The remand was based on evidence that pointed to the petitioner’s role as a key conspirator in obstructing public officials – Held: The Magistrate’s decision was aligned with precedents such as Manubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [Paras 37, 45-46].

Public Order and Right to Liberty – Balancing Constitutional Rights with Public Safety – Procedural Compliance Affirmed – While asserting the right to liberty, the petitioner alleged procedural irregularities in arrest and detention – Court emphasized adherence to BNSS and constitutional safeguards, rejecting claims of unlawful arrest – Proper communication of arrest reasons and intimation to the petitioner’s associate were established [Paras 40-43, 46].

Decision of the Court – The petition challenging the remand order was dismissed – Court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, concluding that prima facie evidence justified judicial custody and procedural safeguards were adhered to [Paras 45-46].
 

Delay and Laches – Petition Filed After 17 Years – Dismissal Justified - The Court observed that the petitioner failed to explain the delay of 17 years in filing the writ petition. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the long lapse between the impugned order and the filing of the PIL, making the petition liable for dismissal due to laches [Paras 21, 23].

Material Suppression – Intentional Non-disclosure – Costs Imposed - The petitioner suppressed the fact of de-notification of reserved forest land in 1962 under G.O.Ms.No.3676. The Court held that such suppression was deliberate, given the extensive nature of the affidavit filed, and imposed exemplary costs for misleading the Court [Paras 23-25, 29-30].

Bonafide of PIL – Lack of Credibility – Restricted Filing - The Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner’s age, income, and occupation, along with his inability to justify filing the petition. It concluded that the petition was mala fide, filed with oblique motives, and restricted the petitioner from filing PILs for one year without prior permission [Paras 29-30].

Decision: W.P.No.18846 of 2024 was dismissed. The petitioner was restrained from filing PILs in this Court for a year without prior permission. Costs of ₹10,00,000/- each were imposed on the petitioner, payable to the 12th respondent and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, with compliance to be filed.

Excise Law – Policy Differentiation – Validity of Restricted Timings – Petitioners challenged Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25, which limited the operational hours of bars and pubs in Panchkula to 12:00 midnight, while allowing extended hours in Gurugram and Faridabad on payment of additional fees – Held: Excise policy can distinguish between districts based on reasonable classification – Classification found not arbitrary or discriminatory as districts have varying economic and social considerations [Paras 17–23].

Liquor Trade – No Fundamental Right to Trade in Liquor – Trade in liquor is not a fundamental right but a privilege controlled by the State – Petitioners, having accepted the terms of the policy, cannot challenge specific clauses – Doctrine of 'take it or leave it' applies in contractual matters related to excise policies [Paras 19–25].

Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Policy differentiation upheld – Licensing and fee structures across districts differ due to local factors – Panchkula and Gurugram/Faridabad are not similarly situated for excise policy purposes – Classification serves valid policy objectives [Paras 18–22].

Policy Framing – Judicial Restraint – Courts reluctant to interfere in State’s policy decisions, especially in areas concerning excise and liquor trade – Observed that unrestricted sale of liquor through the night could have adverse social implications – Recommended policy makers strike a balance between revenue generation and cultural considerations [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Clause 9.8.8 of the Haryana Excise Policy 2024–25 upheld as valid and non-discriminatory.
Observations made regarding societal impact of unrestricted liquor sale at night, recommending review in future policies.