Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Wife Residing Separately – Sufficient Cause Established – Wife ousted from matrimonial home due to cruelty and dowry harassment – Trial Court erred in holding she left without cause – Allegations substantiated by her continued attempts at reconciliation and absence of effort by husband to resume cohabitation – Held: Findings of Family Court contrary to evidence – Wife had sufficient cause to live separately [Paras 5, 10].

Maintenance – Quantum – Financial Capacity of Parties – Petitioner a qualified homeopathic doctor pursuing postgraduate education, temporarily engaged during COVID-19 with stipend, but currently unemployed – Respondent working as Technician (Mechanical) at ONGC earning ₹74,000/month – Held: Wife entitled to ₹15,000/month maintenance excluding period she received stipend – Subject to modification under Section 127 CrPC in case of change in circumstances [Paras 9, 11].

Marital Obligations – Gender Equality – Marital relationship does not negate wife’s right to develop herself – Husband’s duty extends to supporting wife’s educational and professional growth – Allegations of wife's desire to live separately from in-laws not supported by evidence – Court stresses on equality and mutual support in marriage [Para 11].

Decision: Criminal revision partly allowed – Order of Family Court rejecting maintenance set aside – Maintenance of ₹15,000/month awarded to wife from date of application, excluding period of COVID-19 stipend – Subject to future modification under law [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Conviction under Section 149 IPC Unsustainable in Absence of Shared Intent – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted along with others for murder under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149 and 323/149 IPC – Trial court applied vicarious liability under Section 149 based on presence at scene – Appellate court held that fatal injuries were inflicted solely by two co-accused (now deceased) – No overt act, shared intent, or deadly weapon attributed to present appellants – Held: Mere presence without active participation or common object insufficient to attract liability under Section 149 IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 3.1–3.7, 5–8].

Constructive Liability – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Requires Proof of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object, and Knowledge of Likely Offence – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 cannot be stretched to convict passive bystanders or those with no criminal intent – Citing Zainul v. State of Bihar, Mizaji v. State of U.P., and Subal Ghorai cases – Held: Prosecution failed to prove appellants were members of unlawful assembly with intent to kill – Acquittal warranted [Paras 3.5–3.8, 4–6].

Evidence – Ocular and Medical Evidence – Fatal Blows Attributed to Co-accused Only – No Role Ascribed to Surviving Appellants – Post-mortem report revealed only two blows leading to death – Both ascribed to two now-deceased accused – No evidence linking appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand to the assault – No weapons recovered from them – Held: Trial court erred in applying collective liability mechanically [Paras 3.1, 5–6].

Principle – Rule of Prudence in Section 149 IPC Cases – Courts Must Guard Against Convicting Innocent Bystanders Based on Proximity Alone – Presence at the scene without participation or shared object does not establish guilt – Doctrine of caution to be applied in cases involving large number of accused – Held: Prosecution failed to produce credible material to show appellants shared the common object – Acquittal justified [Paras 3.8, 6–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 148, 304 Part I/149, and 323/149 IPC set aside – Appellants Ram Swaroop, Dalip Singh, and Tara Chand acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A CrPC to secure presence in case of further appeal [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Age Determination – Essential Requirement – Acquittal Upheld – Prosecutrix claimed to be 13 years old but no documentary proof (school record, birth certificate) or medical evidence (bone ossification test) produced by prosecution – Investigating Officer admitted failure to collect age proof – Held: In absence of reliable age determination, accused could not be convicted under charges involving a minor – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for non-compliance with mandatory protocols [Paras 17–27]

Criminal Trial – Sexual Assault – Refusal of Medical Examination – Investigating Agency’s Failure – Prosecutrix’s mother refused internal gynecological examination, despite serious nature of charges – No MLC report available – Held: Absence of medical corroboration substantially weakened prosecution’s case – Investigating Agency failed to discharge duty to collect essential evidence in sexual assault cases [Paras 29–31]

Criminal Law – Consent and Elopement – Public Travel and Cohabitation – Evidence of Voluntary Accompaniment – Prosecutrix travelled over 300 km in public transport with accused and stayed at his home for 2–3 days without raising any alarm – She admitted in cross-examination that she wanted to marry accused and had prior relationship with him – Child Welfare Committee also recorded voluntary elopement – Held: Circumstances indicated consensual relationship and belied theory of abduction or force – Consistency and credibility of deposition not established [Paras 32–38]

Appellate Review – Scope in Acquittal Appeals – Reversal of Acquittal – When Permissible – Acquittal not found perverse or based on misreading of evidence – Trial Court rightly found prosecution failed to prove essential elements of crime beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Appeal against acquittal must show perversity or manifest illegality – No compelling reason found to overturn acquittal [Paras 40–42]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court upheld – No interference warranted in absence of perversity or manifest illegality – Respondent stands acquitted of all charges

Civil Procedure – Advocate Commissioner – Identification of Land – Appointment Set Aside – Trial court permitted appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify suit land in Sy.No.125/E3 at the instance of the plaintiff relying on a sada bainama lacking boundary descriptions – High Court held that such appointment at preliminary stage amounted to collection of evidence – Also held that the trial court ignored findings in earlier CRP No.2136/2022 which declined injunction due to lack of prima facie title and possession – Held: Appointment of Advocate Commissioner was premature and perverse – Order set aside [Paras 3, 23-27]

Injunction Suit – Possession Dispute – Prima Facie Title and Possession Absent – Plaintiff failed to establish physical possession or valid title to the land – Sada bainama executed when plaintiff was allegedly a minor and lacking boundary details – Revenue records inconsistent regarding whether title was derived by inheritance or purchase – Plaintiff’s claim contradictory – Held: Injunction rightly denied earlier – Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to cure evidentiary defects [Paras 9-13, 22-24]

Land Identification vs. Demarcation – Legal Distinction – High Court clarified that identification (locating land generally) and demarcation (physically marking boundaries) are distinct – Appointment for mere identification without clear prima facie title or possession is impermissible – Advocate Commissioner cannot be used to fish for evidence or validate defective title [Paras 26.3-26.5]

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Trial court misdirected itself by misreading earlier High Court order and failing to appreciate the lack of credible evidence – High Court held that Article 227 powers warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice – Held: Order allowing appointment of Commissioner quashed [Paras 7, 27]

Criminal Law – Quashing - Defamation – Accused were members of Apartment Owners' Adhoc Committee – Petitioners issued a private letter to complainant’s husband expressing concerns over suspicious activities in the flat, based on reports from security staff – Incident of a man jumping from balcony half-naked cited – Husband allegedly used this letter to publicly malign complainant through Church representatives – Held: Letter addressed privately, not published publicly by petitioners – No evidence of mala fide intent or conspiracy with husband – Protection of Ninth and Tenth Exceptions to Section 499 IPC attracted – Petitioners’ actions done in good faith for safety and interest of residents and children [Paras 6–9]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – No prima facie case made out against petitioners for offence of defamation – Letter issued in private, not with intention to defame – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law – Held: Criminal proceedings against petitioners quashed [Paras 7–9]

Apartment Governance – Communication with Resident Owners – Responsibility of Association Members – Information about security violations conveyed to one of the owners – Court held that internal communication on issues affecting community safety, even if referring to another resident, is protected if issued in good faith and without malice – Not actionable as defamation when private and non-malicious [Paras 6–8]

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings against petitioners (Accused Nos. 5 to 7) in C.C. No. 12 of 2021 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam quashed – Held to be an abuse of process of law [Para 9]

Criminal Law – Murder – Rape – House Trespass – Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Accused No.1 sentenced to death and Accused No.2 to life imprisonment by trial court for brutal murder of husband and vegetative-state causing injuries to wife following home invasion – Both accused allegedly fled with valuables – Death sentence reference made for confirmation – Held: Circumstantial evidence including recovery of stolen items, forensic evidence linking both accused, eyewitness testimony (PW11) and CCTV footage established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction confirmed [Paras 1–25].

Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Forensic and medical evidence supported theory of joint commission of offence – Recovery of stolen jewellery from accused and CCTV footage of gold exchange soon after crime supported robbery and presence at scene – DNA evidence linked accused No.1 to rape – Statements under Section 313 CrPC corroborated prosecution’s case – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent only with guilt of accused [Paras 10–18, 25].

Eyewitness Testimony – No Test Identification Parade – PW11 (milkman) saw both accused near scene at relevant time under streetlight – Identified them in court – Prior acquaintance with A1 established – Court held that failure to hold TIP not fatal in light of credible, consistent in-court identification – No motive for false implication – Testimony accepted [Paras 13–16].

Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – Accused-led recoveries of bloodstained clothes, weapons, and stolen items proved by Investigating Officer – Objections to recording language and translation process not raised in cross-examination – Even assuming irregularity, conduct of accused in leading to recovery admissible under Section 8 Evidence Act – Recovery held valid [Paras 20–24].

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Principles – Although trial court awarded death to A1, High Court considered mitigating factors including background of poverty, abuse, mental illness, and potential for reformation – Reports from jail authorities, probation officer, and NALSAR mitigation study considered – Applied principles from Manoj v. State of M.P. and Swamy Shraddananda (2) – Held: Case not “rarest of rare” – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years [Paras 26–31].

Decision:

Crl.A. No. 79 of 2020 (A1): Conviction confirmed – Death sentence modified to life imprisonment for 30 years without remission for offences under Sections 302 and 376A IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Appeal partly allowed

Crl.A. No. 401 of 2021 (A2): Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld

D.S.R. No. 3 of 2019: Reference answered in negative – Death sentence not confirmed

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption – Telecom Stores Scam – Conspiracy – Diversion of Materials – Misappropriation – The prosecution proved that A1 to A5 and A7 to A12 conspired with contractor A6 (deceased) to raise false indents, obtain telecom materials from Chennai Stores and divert them to private scrap dealers – Evidence of PW-46, PW-47 and lorry booking registers established diversion – Held: Convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12 confirmed; convictions of A5 and A7 upheld but sentences reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – Acquittal of A10 and A11 affirmed [Paras 2, 3.1–3.3, 4.23–4.24, 30–31].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Competent Authority – A1 contended that sanction was invalid as it was issued by PW-2, Assistant Director General – Court held that PW-2 was duly authorised; sanction valid; no prejudice caused; Trial Court findings affirmed [Paras 4.1–4.3].

Evidence – False Indents – Violation of Departmental Procedure – Indents not countersigned by Divisional Engineers; not routed through Chief General Manager; A7 issued unauthorized issue orders; compliance with material issuance norms violated – Held: Procedural deviations established intentional misconduct under the PC Act [Paras 4.24–4.35].

Acquittal – A10 and A11 – Trial Court found that goods pertaining to indents raised by A10 and A11 were actually delivered to the concerned stores – Held: Acquittal justified and confirmed [Para 3.3].

Sentence – Modification – Proportionality – For A5 and A7, while conviction was upheld, sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment for each charge – concurrent – fine unchanged – set-off allowed – 8 weeks time granted for surrender [Final Order: Sections III and IV].

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of Trial Court based on extensive documentary and oral evidence – No perversity or illegality demonstrated – Held: No ground for interference in convictions of A1, A8, A9 and A12; partial relief only in sentencing of A5 and A7 [Paras 10–14].

Decision: Appeals of A1, A8, A9 and A12 dismissed – conviction and sentence confirmed. Appeals of A5 (Crl.A.No.43/2014) and A7 (Crl.A.No.61/2014) allowed in part – sentence reduced to 1 year simple imprisonment – fine maintained – sentences to run concurrently.

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction – Validity – Detention order passed under Section 3(2) of MPDA Act against petitioner for causing public disorder and terror – Petitioner challenged order on grounds that prior offences were stale and relied upon improperly – Held: Detention based solely on two recent FIRs and two in-camera statements demonstrating habitual conduct prejudicial to public order – Past offences only referred, not relied – Subjective satisfaction properly arrived at – Detention Order valid [Paras 17–19, 24].

Public Order vs. Law and Order – Distinction – Petitioner contended incidents at most involved law and order issues between individuals – Court held that the petitioner’s repeated public assaults with deadly weapons, extortion, and terrorizing of shopkeepers and vendors created widespread fear – Such conduct disturbs public order and affects even tempo of society – Justifies preventive detention [Paras 16, 22–23].

Eyewitness and In-Camera Statements – Reliance and Admissibility – In-camera statements of two witnesses narrated specific extortion incidents involving threats with weapons and violence in public places – Witnesses feared reprisal and public disorder was evident – Held: Statements credible and material validly relied upon for subjective satisfaction [Paras 13–15, 22–23].

Past Offences – Reference vs. Reliance – Detaining Authority merely referred to past offences to illustrate criminal background – Clearly stated in detention grounds that subjective satisfaction was based solely on recent FIRs and witness accounts – Held: Reference without reliance does not vitiate order – No legal infirmity [Paras 17–21].

Binding Precedents – Coordinate Bench Decision Held Per Incuriam – Judgment relied upon by petitioner in Raju @ Shendi Bhishan Tak (WP No. 311/2025) not considered binding – Held: Decision failed to apply binding precedents including Khaja Bilal Ahmed (2020) 13 SCC 632 – Hence not applicable [Para 21].

Severability – Section 5A MPDA – Even if one ground fails, others sufficient to sustain detention – Court noted each ground independently valid – Detention justified even under severability clause [Para 24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Detention Order upheld – Rule discharged – No interference warranted [Para 25].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Arrest Bail – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Requirement to Approach Sessions Court First – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS directly before the High Court without approaching Sessions Court — Held: Though High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, party must ordinarily approach Sessions Court first — Direct invocation of High Court’s jurisdiction permissible only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances — No such circumstances made out in the present case — Reliance placed on Mohammed Rasal C. v. State of Kerala and Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar [Paras 3–5].

Wildlife Offence – Arms Possession – Applicability of Section 35(3) BNSS – Petitioner alleged to have participated in illegal hunting of Schedule-I species “Chowsingha (Tetracerus Quadricornis)” and possession of prohibited arms under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act — Contention that offences were punishable below seven years and thus entitled to Section 35(3) BNSS protection rejected — Offence under Section 25(1A) Arms Act punishable up to fourteen years; hence statutory protection inapplicable [Paras 6–7].

Jurisdiction – Discretion under Section 482 BNSS – Limits – High Court reiterated that its inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly — Pre-arrest bail to be granted only on showing special or extraordinary circumstances — Since petitioner neither demonstrated such circumstances nor approached Sessions Court, discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 8].

Relief – Liberty to Approach Lower Court – Criminal Petition disposed of with liberty to surrender before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within two weeks and move for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge — Direction issued to dispose of the application on merits within two days of filing [Para 9].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed — No interference under Section 482 BNSS — Liberty granted to petitioner to surrender and seek appropriate relief before Sessions Court — Interim orders vacated [Paras 8–9].