Criminal Law – Murder – Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 and 506 IPC – Brutal daylight incident – Accused persons, armed with gun, knife and sharp-edged weapon (Daav), attacked deceased Chameli Devi due to land dispute – Deceased was knocked down, assaulted, beheaded and her head hung on a tree – Child witness also sustained firearm injury – Eyewitness account of PW-1 (informant), PW-2 and injured PW-8 found consistent on material particulars – Medical evidence establishing decapitation and abdominal injuries – Forensic evidence confirming presence of human blood on seized articles – Conduct of accused Lakhmi at spot (dancing near corpse with weapon) further corroborates prosecution version – Held: Chain of evidence complete and prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 77–80]

Evidence – Child Witness – Competency and Reliability – Section 118 Evidence Act – PW-8 Krishna Kumar, injured eyewitness aged about 7 years at time of incident – Trial Court conducted preliminary examination to test understanding and capacity – Witness gave coherent, consistent account of assault, firing and beheading – Withstood lengthy cross-examination without material contradictions – No evidence of tutoring or embellishment – Presence at spot proved by injury and medical evidence showing firearm wound with blackening – Held: Testimony of injured child witness highly reliable, carries great evidentiary value and can independently sustain conviction without necessity of corroboration [Paras 61–72]

Evidence – Minor contradictions and inconsistencies – Appreciation – Alleged inconsistencies in testimony of PW-8 regarding presence of villagers and sequence after firearm injury – Explained in light of natural human conduct and surrounding circumstances – Witness fleeing after injury does not negate his presence or ability to witness occurrence – Distinction reiterated between normal discrepancies due to shock, trauma and lapse of time and material contradictions affecting core prosecution case – Held: Discrepancies trivial and do not dent credibility of prosecution [Paras 43–52]

Evidence – Injured witness – Evidentiary value – PW-8 being injured witness lends assurance to prosecution case – His presence at scene cannot be doubted – Medical evidence corroborates ocular testimony – Held: Testimony of injured witness entitled to great weight and reliability [Paras 51, 72]

Doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus – Applicability – Argument that entire testimony must be discarded if part found unreliable – Rejected – Held: Doctrine not applicable in Indian criminal law – It is only a rule of caution – Court entitled to separate grain from chaff and rely upon trustworthy portion of evidence [Paras 53–56]

Defence Evidence – Alibi – Evaluation of defence witness – DW-5 projected as chance witness claiming no one present at spot at 4:00 PM – Statement inconsistent with prompt FIR (lodged at 04:30 PM mentioning incident at 03:15 PM) and with testimony of PW-7 who reached spot at 03:45 PM and apprehended accused – Failure to explain timeline discrepancy – Held: Defence version unreliable and rightly discarded; plea of alibi not established [Paras 57–60]

Criminal Trial – Non-examination of witness – Non-examination of Komal – Occurrence near his house – Held: Not fatal to prosecution – Evidence of eyewitnesses cogent and reliable – Moreover, witness was inimical to informant; defence could have examined him – No adverse inference warranted [Para 74]

Evidence – Recovery of weapons and forensic corroboration – Recovery of Daav and trident from appellant Lakhmi at spot – Knife and gun recovered on pointing out of co-accused – FSL report confirms bloodstains and presence of human blood – Medical evidence corroborates firearm injury – Non-recovery of empty cartridge not fatal in light of other clinching evidence – Held: Scientific and physical evidence fully supports prosecution case [Paras 75–76]

Criminal Law – Common intention – Section 34 IPC – Accused jointly lying in wait, armed with different weapons, surrounding and attacking deceased, and acting in coordinated manner – Role of each accused clearly established – Held: Common intention proved beyond doubt [Paras 1, 72, 77]

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 509/34 IPC upheld – Conviction of Languri and Yogesh under Section 506 IPC also upheld – Appellants to remain in jail to serve out sentence awarded by Trial Court.

Education Law – Year Down Categorisation – Attendance Shortfall – Unit Test Absence – Validity of YD Classification – Petitioner's attendance during Third Semester fell below 30% against the prescribed minimum of 75% under Clause 3.6.1 (Criteria 1) of the Student Handbook – Petitioner also remained absent in both Unit Tests in violation of Clause 3.6.2 (Criteria 2) – University issued communication dated 30.01.2026 placing petitioner in "YD" category without declaring end-semester examination result – Held: YD classification is a lawful and necessary consequence of failure to satisfy Criteria 1 and Criteria 2; petition dismissed [Paras 12-16].

Academic Progression – YD Rule – Independent Bar – End-Semester Result Irrelevant – Petitioner contended that YD status could not be invoked without first declaring end-semester examination result – Held: Failure to fulfill attendance (Criteria 1) and Unit Test requirements (Criteria 2) operates as a distinct and independent bar to academic progression, irrespective of the outcome of the end-semester examination – Plain reading of Clause 3.6 of Student Handbook leaves no ambiguity in this regard [Para 14].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Promissory Estoppel – Interim Judicial Direction – No Waiver of Academic Deficiency – Petitioner argued that the University's proposal permitting him to appear in the Third Semester examination, acted upon pursuant to order dated 14.12.2025 in W.P. No. 46548/2025, created an estoppel against imposition of YD – Held: An interim or ad-hoc arrangement permitting a student to merely appear in an examination cannot operate to waive substantive statutory academic deficiencies; mandate of the Rule remains undisturbed [Para 15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – YD categorisation upheld – No interference warranted under Article 226 – No order as to costs.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order – Creation of Third-Party Rights – An interim order dated 16.07.2021 in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in A.S. No. 1280 of 2017, while releasing original documents to the appellant/respondent No. 2, expressly restrained him from creating third-party rights over the suit schedule properties or pledging/mortgaging the original documents – Respondent No. 2 applied for modification of the interim order to permit pledge of property for a bank loan, which was rejected on 04.08.2022 – Despite this, respondent No. 2 executed a mortgage deed (Document No. 4299 of 2023 dated 07.08.2023) and thereafter a registered sale deed (Document No. 25358 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024) in favour of third parties – Execution of both deeds admitted by respondent No. 2 – Held: Charges of wilful disobedience proved – Contempt committed [Paras 3-26].

Defence – Nominal Transaction – Kararnama – Not Accepted – Respondent No. 2 sought to justify the sale deed as a nominal transaction and pleaded that on the same date the purchasers executed a kararnama agreeing to reconvey the property by 10.06.2026 – Held: The execution of the mortgage deed and the sale deed was a conscious and deliberate act – Application for modification of the interim order was rejected and despite that the alienations were made – Defence of nominal transaction is not acceptable – Financial compulsion cannot justify violation of a Court's order [Paras 19-24].

Wilful Disobedience – Meaning – "Wilful" means an act done voluntarily with specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law – Even negligence and carelessness may amount to contempt – The act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case [Para 25].

Apology – Not Bona Fide – Rejected – Apology is an act of contrition and must be offered at the earliest opportunity in good grace – An apology tendered only when punishment is imminent is shorn of penitence and is the act of a cringing coward – The apology in the present case is not bona fide as the disobedience was conscious and contumacious and the modification application was rejected before the alienations were made – Apology rejected [Paras 27-30].

Punishment – Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act – Respondent No. 2 punished with simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- – Additional cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed to be remitted to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee – Respondent entitled to subsistence allowance of Rs. 500/- per day during civil imprisonment to be deposited by the contempt petitioner – In default of fine, action to be taken under Section 421 CrPC/Section 456 BNSS [Paras 31-41].

Decision: Contempt Case allowed – Charges proved – Apology rejected – Respondent No. 2 sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

Properties Beyond Jurisdiction – Counter Claim Rightly Rejected – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title in respect of Premi House, Guna – Defendant No. 8 (petitioner), a legal heir of Babulal, filed counter claim seeking partition and declaration of title in respect of properties at village Ruthiyai, District Guna, which fell within jurisdiction of Court at Raghogarh and not Guna Court – Trial Court rejected counter claim; appellate court dismissed appeal – Held: Counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(4) is required to be treated as a plaint and governed by rules applicable to plaints including territorial jurisdiction; when counter claim properties are situated beyond territorial jurisdiction of Trial Court, the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate it; orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court are valid [Paras 10-14].

Section 17 CPC – Suits for Immovable Property in Different Jurisdictions – Counter Claim Cannot Be Read with Plaint – Petitioner invoked Section 17 CPC by reading plaint and counter claim together to argue that since one property was within Guna Court's jurisdiction, the entire counter claim was maintainable – Held: Counter claim is independent of the plaint and must satisfy requirements of Section 17 CPC independently – Section 17 requires that the cause of action for filing the suit regarding properties in different jurisdictions must be one and the same – No cause of action was pleaded in the counter claim nor was there any similarity of cause of action between plaint and counter claim; Section 17 CPC not attracted [Paras 12-16].

Counter Claim – Must Be Against Plaintiff – Not Against Co-Defendants – Counter claim is further liable to be rejected on the ground that it was vague and did not mention addresses of properties at serial nos. 2 to 5 – Relief of partition claimed was against co-defendants only and not against plaintiffs – Cause of action for filing counter claim not specifically pleaded – Counter claim can be filed by defendant against plaintiff and may incidentally claim relief against co-defendant, but cannot be solely directed against co-defendants [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Miscellaneous petition dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Appellate Court rejecting counter claim upheld – No interference warranted.

Hindu Marriage – Validity of Second Marriage – Pending Appeal against Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Ayyappan's first marriage with the first petitioner was solemnised on 20.03.1977 – Decree of divorce granted by trial court on 13.06.1990 – First petitioner filed MFA 667/1990 before this Court on 10.07.1990 challenging the decree – Ayyappan contracted second marriage with the appellant on 30.01.1991 during pendency of the appeal – Appeal was ultimately allowed and decree of divorce reversed – Held: Second marriage contracted during pendency of appeal against divorce decree is void as contravening Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Family Court decree affirmed [Paras 6-11].

Section 15, Hindu Marriage Act – Right of Appeal – Effect on Subsequent Marriage – Section 15 permits remarriage only when no right of appeal exists, or the time for appeal has expired without an appeal being filed, or an appeal has been dismissed – An appeal is the continuation of original proceedings and acts done pending appeal are subject to its outcome – A party cannot defeat the appeal by contracting a second marriage during its pendency – Dissolution of marriage is complete once decree is made, subject to appeal [Paras 7-10].

Lila Gupta v. Laxmi Narain Distinguished – Appellant's reliance on Lila Gupta (1978) misplaced – That case concerned marriage during the one-year prohibitory period under the proviso to Section 15 and held such marriage not void – However, the Apex Court in that case itself underscored that such marriage is subject to the result of the appeal – In the present case, an appeal was filed within limitation and was ultimately allowed, reversing the divorce decree – The ratio of Lila Gupta does not assist the appellant [Paras 8-9].

Service of Notice in Appeal – Irrelevance – Contention that notice in the appeal was served only after the second marriage and hence marriage is saved, rejected – Relying on Chandra Mohini Srivastava v. Avinash Prasad Srivastava (AIR 1967 SC 581), a party who has obtained a decree of dissolution cannot by contracting an immediate second marriage deprive the other party of the chance to prefer an appeal or special leave petition – Such a party acts at their own risk [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Second marriage of Ayyappan with appellant held void under Section 11 read with Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Decree of Family Court affirmed.

Civil Writ - Medical Education – Super Speciality Course – Pending Criminal Case – Bail – Right to Continue Studies – Petitioner enrolled in M.Ch. (Urology) course at Sapthagiri Institute of Medical Sciences could not appear for the November-2025 examination due to registration of Crime No.179/2025 by Madanapally Police, Andhra Pradesh for offences under the BNS and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act – Petitioner was enlarged on bail by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapally on 05.01.2026 – Respondents opposed continuation of course citing pendency of the criminal case – Held: Pendency of a criminal case, where trial is yet to conclude, does not render the accused guilty – No impediment exists for the petitioner to continue his course and appear for examination – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit petitioner to continue course till May/June-2026 – Respondent 4-University directed to permit petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility [Paras 4-8].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Respondents 2 and 3 directed to permit the petitioner to continue M.Ch. (Urology) course till completion in May/June-2026 – Respondent No. 4-University directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the ensuing examination subject to eligibility.

Habeas Corpus – Missing Wife and Minor Children – Welfare of Children – Scope of Writ – Petitioner's wife went missing along with two minor children from 06.03.2026 – FIR registered by police – Petitioner alleged wife was in danger at the hands of the third respondent – APP submitted that wife had developed a relationship with the third respondent and left voluntarily along with him, taking the children – Held: Insofar as the wife is concerned, she appears to have left of her own accord and the petitioner must work out his remedy before the concerned court – However, this Court is primarily concerned with the welfare of the two minor children who have been taken away [Paras 7-8].

Minor Children – Production Before Magistrate – Welfare Jurisdiction – Direction issued to second respondent to trace the whereabouts of the detenue and two children and produce them before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam – Judicial Magistrate directed to record statement of the detenue and to interact with the children to ascertain their welfare and take appropriate decision in accordance with law – Report to be sent to this Court [Para 8].

Decision: Habeas Corpus Petition disposed of – Second respondent directed to trace and produce the detenue and two children before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam as expeditiously as possible – Petitioner to be put on notice on date of production – Judicial Magistrate to record statement of wife and interact with children and proceed in accordance with law – Report to be submitted to this Court.

Service Law – Examination Cancellation – Paper Leak – Assistant Professor Recruitment – Validity of Cancellation of Written Examination Result – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of result of written examination held on 16th/17th April 2025 for 910 posts of Assistant Professors in aided non-Government Post Graduate Colleges – Two FIRs were lodged immediately after examination alleging that question papers were sold to candidates for money – STF investigation identified 21 suspicious mobile numbers linked to accused; 19 candidates found to have passed the examination were connected to these numbers – Result declared on 04.09.2025 was cancelled vide notice dated 20.01.2026 – Held: Cancellation of result is valid and justified; petitions disposed of [Paras 3-4, 6, 27-28].

Systematic Irregularities – Standard of Proof – Probability Test – State not required to prove paper leak beyond reasonable doubt to cancel examination result – Two charge sheets filed on 08.06.2025 against four accused under Sections 112, 308(5) and 318(4) BNS for petty organised crime, extortion and cheating – STF report established prima facie that at least 19 candidates were benefited and papers of at least five subjects were leaked – Possibility of wider leakage not ruled out – Held: Decision passes the probability test; systemic irregularity established on available material [Paras 19-23].

Segregation of Tainted Candidates – When Entire Result Can Be Cancelled – Question of whether individual candidates could be segregated from tainted ones considered – Examination was limited in scope: 910 posts, 33 subjects, 52 centres, six districts, 224 petitioners before Court – Unlike Pan-India examinations, even limited irregularities in a narrow-campus examination justify cancellation of entire result when segregation of beneficiaries is not fully possible – Petitioners have no indefeasible right to be selected or compel continuation of a tainted process – Fresh examination schedule already published; petitioners may participate [Paras 14, 18, 24-27].

Candidate's Right – No Vested Right in Tainted Process – Selection process was not concluded; interview stage had not commenced – Petitioners cannot claim to be finally selected as they had yet to face interview – A candidate has no indefeasible right to force the State to conclude an examination process whose integrity has been compromised – Fairness of examination is paramount and cannot be permitted to be compromised under any circumstance [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of – Impugned decision to cancel the result of written examination upheld – Petitioners at liberty to participate in fresh written examination for which schedule has been published.

Civil Law – Joint and Unpartitioned Property – Co-sharer – Passage – Declaration of Specific Portion Not Sustainable – Land measuring 4 Bigha in Khasra No. 141 jointly owned by Ram Singh, Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and their mother Smt. Basant Kaur – Mukhtiar Singh, Nirmal Singh and Basant Kaur sold portions of land to plaintiffs through sale deeds executed in 1984 leaving 4 Biswa 11 Biswansi as access passage – Subsequently, Mukhtiar Singh and Nirmal Singh executed sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of co-sharer Ram Singh regarding the said passage – Courts below declared the passage and held the sale deed void – Held: So long as the property remains joint and unpartitioned, declaration of a specific portion as an exclusive passage binding on a non-consenting co-sharer is not legally sustainable; sale deed executed by one co-sharer transferring undivided share to another co-sharer cannot be declared void [Paras 14-19].

Co-sharer's Rights – Transfer of Undivided Share – A co-sharer in joint property is entitled to transfer his undivided share and the transferee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-sharer – However, no co-sharer can claim exclusive ownership of or earmark a specific portion of joint land unless and until partition is effected by metes and bounds – Disputes regarding specific portions of joint property are ordinarily required to be resolved through partition proceedings [Paras 16-17, 22].

Possession and Access – Protection Pending Partition – Although exclusive declaration of passage over joint land is set aside, plaintiffs' possession over land purchased through registered sale deeds deserves protection – Each co-sharer is deemed to be in possession of every inch of joint holding and is entitled to make reasonable use without excluding other co-sharers – Existing user of the disputed strip as means of access to the purchased plots shall continue pending partition – Rights including access to be finally determined in partition proceedings [Paras 20-21, 25-29].

Substantial Question of Law: Whether the courts below were justified in declaring a specific portion of joint and unpartitioned land as a passage and in holding the sale deed dated 29.09.1988 executed in favour of defendant Ram Singh to be null and void, despite the admitted position that the land comprised in Khasra No. 141 remained joint and unpartitioned and that Ram Singh was a co-sharer therein.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of courts below modified – Declaration of suit property as an exclusive passage set aside – Sale deed dated 29.09.1988 in favour of Ram Singh not treated as void – Possession of plaintiffs over purchased land protected – Parties at liberty to seek partition; rights including access to be determined at partition.