Criminal Law – Rape/POCSO – Appreciation of Evidence – Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Grandfather accused of raping minor granddaughter – FIR lodged after 21 days delay – Victim claimed she was threatened but did not disclose this in Section 164 statement – Incident allegedly occurred in daylight in a populated area, yet no alarm raised – Held: While conviction can be based on sole testimony, it must be of sterling quality – Here, the conduct of the victim (silence for 19 days, delay in FIR) was unnatural and improbable – Testimony failed to inspire confidence – Acquitted.[Paras 22, 28, 29, 35].

Criminal Law – Delay in FIR – Sexual Offences – 21 days delay in lodging FIR – Explanation of threat not consistent across statements – Held: While delay is not always fatal in rape cases, unexplained delay coupled with lack of immediate complaint to parents or friends creates serious doubt on the prosecution case – [Paras 32, 34].

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Victim alleged multiple incidents of rape – Medical examination showed no external or internal injuries – Held: Medical evidence did not corroborate the prosecution story, further weakening the case – [Para 30].

Juvenile Justice – Age Determination – Section 94 JJ Act – Discrepancies in birth date between oral testimony (11.11.2006) and school records (28.02.2006/29.02.2006) – School record entries found manipulated after case registration – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim conclusively as less than 18 years due to manipulated and contradictory documents – [Paras 20, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.

Service Law – Wrongful Dismissal – Grant of Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Petitioner, a PwD employee, dismissed from service solely on basis of criminal conviction despite stay of conviction by appellate court – Dismissal order later set aside and matter remanded for fresh decision – Competent authority granted all service benefits including salary up to extended age of retirement (60 years) – Successor authority later reviewed and denied salary for intervening period on principle of “no work no pay” – Held: Principle of “no work no pay” not applicable where employee was willing to work but was illegally prevented by employer – Department being at fault, petitioner entitled to full pay and allowances [Paras 18–21, 25].

Administrative Law – Review by Successor-in-Office – Illegality – Earlier order granting service benefits reviewed by successor authority without notice or hearing – Held: Successor in office has no jurisdiction to review or recall an order passed by predecessor unless statute so permits – Such review violates principles of natural justice and is impermissible in law [Paras 18, 22].

Criminal Law Impact on Service – Stay of Conviction – Effect – Conviction and sentence stayed by appellate court prior to dismissal – Subsequent release on probation under Sections 468 and 471 IPC – Protection under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Held: Dismissal founded on conviction which stood stayed was illegal and unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 19].

Persons with Disabilities – Extension of Retirement Age – Service Benefits – Petitioner appointed against handicapped quota – Retirement age extended to 60 years pursuant to Supreme Court decision and Government instructions – Petitioner held entitled to continuation in service till 31.05.2015 with all consequential benefits [Paras 6, 16–18].

Interest on Delayed Retiral Benefits – Entitlement – Retiral dues including gratuity, pension and leave encashment released after inordinate delay of several years – Held: In absence of justification for delay, petitioner entitled to interest as compensation for wrongful retention of money by State – Interest awarded @ 7% per annum [Paras 23–25].

Principles of Natural Justice – Violation – Review order passed without issuing show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order vitiated on account of violation of audi alteram partem [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 21.11.2019 set aside – Petitioner held entitled to pay and allowances for period from 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015 with interest @ 7% per annum – Further entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on delayed payment of pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01.09.2015 till actual payment – Respondents directed to compute and release amounts within three months [Para 25].

Election Law – Writ of Quo Warranto - Reservation and Caste Certificate – Requirement for Reserved Posts – Appellant contested and won election for Zila Panchayat Member from a seat reserved for OBC category – Appellant submitted an affidavit claiming OBC status ("Pal Baghele") but admittedly did not possess a caste certificate – Held: A candidate contesting for a reserved post must possess a valid caste certificate as proof of belonging to that category – Self-declaration via affidavit is insufficient to contest an election for a reserved seat – The requirement is mandatory to ensure the benefit of reservation reaches the intended beneficiaries – [Paras 11, 14].

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Maintainability after Election Petition Dismissal – Respondent No. 6 sought a writ of quo warranto challenging appellant's authority to hold office after his wife's election petition was dismissed on technical grounds – Appellant argued that the dismissal of the election petition barred the writ – Held: Dismissal of an election petition does not debar an independent voter/citizen from seeking a writ of quo warranto if the holder of the office lacks the fundamental eligibility (caste certificate) – No right can be conferred on an individual which they cannot possess under law – The writ is maintainable to prevent a usurper from holding public office – [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Interference in Election Matters – Held: While Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over if there is a violation of constitutional provisions or statutory eligibility criteria – Allowing a person ineligible for a reserved seat to continue in office would be a fraud on the Constitution – [Paras 13, 14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - The order declaring the appellant ineligible to hold the post of Member, Zila Panchayat is upheld - [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Life Imprisonment – Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC for causing death of deceased Kallu by lathi and danda – During pendency of appeal three appellants died and appeal abated against them – Appeal considered only in respect of surviving appellant Bakuni – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-3, 28].

Evidence Act – Sole Eye-Witness – Related / Interested Witness – Conduct of Witness – P.W.1 Batuni, brother of deceased, claimed to be eye-witness to assault but fled from spot and stayed entire night away without informing police or making any effort to ascertain fate of deceased – Presence at place of occurrence found doubtful – His conduct held unnatural – Testimony not trustworthy for sustaining conviction [Paras 21, 23-24].

Criminal Trial – Last Seen Theory – Failure of Proof – Prosecution case that witness saw only initial assault and not the actual murder – No reliable evidence to establish that appellants were last seen with deceased prior to his death – Held: Last seen circumstance not proved [Paras 21, 27].

Evidence Appreciation – Non-examination of Material Witness – Heera, alleged independent eye-witness present with informant and deceased, not examined by prosecution – No explanation offered – When sole eye-witness unreliable, non-examination of independent witness assumes significance – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 25].

Motive – Weak and Inconsistent Evidence – Prosecution alleged old enmity relating to murder of appellants’ father as motive – Informant himself stated that relations were cordial and matrimonial alliance existed between families – No immediate or proximate cause shown – Held: Motive not proved and extremely weak [Paras 26].

Medical and Ocular Evidence – Corroboration – Medical evidence proved homicidal death but did not conclusively link appellant with commission of crime – Ocular version unreliable – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 22, 27-28].

Precedent – Appreciation of Evidence – Supreme Court decision in Hem Raj v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614 applied – When presence of eye-witness doubtful, non-examination of independent witnesses becomes fatal to prosecution case [Para 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and order dated 21.03.1990 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1986 set aside – Surviving appellant Bakuni acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC – Directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Dishonour – Appeal against Acquittal – Admitted Signature – Defence Unproved – Accused issued cheque for Rs.2,00,000 allegedly towards friendly loan – Cheque dishonoured for 'insufficient funds' – Accused admitted signature but claimed cheque was misused – Claimed cheque given to third party (Subramaniam), but failed to examine him as witness – Trial Court acquitted accused holding loan not proved and transaction improbable – Appellate Court held such reasoning erroneous as cheque and signature were admitted and presumption under Section 139 NI Act not rebutted – However, respondent died during pendency of appeal – Appeal rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 1–3, 5].

Criminal Procedure – Death of Accused – Effect on Appeal – During pendency of appeal against acquittal, police confirmed death of accused – Death Certificate produced and verified through official report – Held: No further adjudication possible – Appeal dismissed as abated [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – In view of death of accused during pendency of appeal, no further adjudication warranted – Criminal Appeal abated.

Service Law – Termination/Cancellation of Absorption – Principles of Natural Justice – University cancelled absorption of petitioners citing illegality in initial appointment by former In-charge VC, relying on an Enquiry Committee report – No notice or hearing given; report not supplied – Held: Even if appointments are alleged to be illegal, if facts (like existence of posts, advertisement) are disputed, adherence to natural justice is mandatory – Unilateral cancellation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – [Paras 34, 35, 37].

Administrative Law – Non-Speaking Order – Requirement of Reasons – Impugned order merely referred to Enquiry Report and Governor's letters without discussing individual cases or reasons – Held: Reasons are the heartbeat of an order – A non-speaking order having civil consequences (loss of job) is void – [Paras 38, 41, 42].

Service Law – Illegal vs. Irregular Appointments – Right to Hearing – University argued "illegal ab initio" appointments need no hearing – Held: Exceptions to natural justice are rare – Where petitioners worked for years and were absorbed by competent authority, they cannot be condemned unheard – "Useless formality" theory rejected as facts were not incontrovertible – [Paras 35, 36].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed. Impugned order quashed. Petitioners to be reinstated with consequential benefits. Liberty granted to University to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Civil Law – Partition – Settlement Deed Not Proved – Non-Impleadment of Legal Heirs – Suit Dismissed – Plaintiff claimed 2/3rd share based on 1994 partition and a 2005 registered settlement deed from his father – Defendants (legal heirs of deceased brother) denied the settlement and asserted oral partition – Trial court decreed partition, but First Appellate Court reversed the decree on grounds that the settlement deed was not proved and all legal heirs of the father (settlor) were not impleaded – High Court held: Without proving the settlement deed and without impleading all legal heirs of the deceased co-sharer, suit for partition is not maintainable [Paras 13–16, 19]

Evidence Act – Section 68 – Proof of Attestation – Attesting Witness Must Speak to Execution – Though the settlement deed was registered, its execution was specifically denied by defendants – Attesting witness (P.W.3) did not speak about attestation in chief-examination – Held: Mere registration is not proof of valid execution – Attestation not established as per law – Plaintiff failed to discharge burden under Section 68 [Paras 15, 17]

Civil Procedure – Necessary Parties in Partition Suit – All Legal Heirs Must Be Impleaded – After death of Kuppugounder (original co-sharer), his share devolved on all legal heirs – Plaintiff failed to implead siblings (including married daughter) – Held: In absence of valid settlement deed and non-joinder of legal heirs, partition suit fails for want of necessary parties – Plaintiff given liberty to file fresh suit with all legal heirs [Paras 16, 19]

Appeals – Second Appeal – Substantial Questions of Law – Findings of Fact Upheld – Appellate court rightly found no oral partition proved, but also found settlement deed invalid – High Court held: No perversity in lower appellate findings – All substantial questions of law answered in favour of defendants – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 8 of 2013 dated 08.12.2014 confirmed – Plaintiff given liberty to file fresh suit for partition by impleading all legal heirs and including all relevant properties – No costs.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment – Necessary Party – Order I Rule 10(2) CPC – Suit filed for injunction with twofold prayer: (1) restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession, and (2) restraining official defendants from altering Field Measurement Book (FMB) entries contrary to plaintiff’s sale deed – Revision Petitioner, who purchased property from 1st defendant before first hearing, sought to implead himself – Trial Court dismissed application, treating petitioner as pendente lite purchaser not necessary for injunction suit – Held: While plaintiff is dominus litis in an injunction suit, second prayer affects petitioner’s rights directly – Petitioner’s presence necessary to avoid prejudice and multiplicity of litigation [Paras 4, 9].

Injunction Suits – Dominus Litis Principle – Limitations – Though plaintiff controls who to sue in a bare injunction suit, when suit reliefs (e.g., FMB directions) affect third-party purchasers, such purchasers may be impleaded to protect their interests and ensure complete adjudication – Revision allowed [Paras 6, 9]

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Scope of Interference – High Court held that Trial Court failed to appreciate the implications of second relief sought and erred in dismissing impleadment plea – To ensure justice and avoid future litigation, High Court set aside Trial Court’s order and allowed impleadment [Paras 8–10].

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Trial Court’s order rejecting impleadment set aside – Interlocutory Application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allowed – Petitioner to be impleaded as 7th defendant – No costs.

Constitution of India – High Court Administration – Territorial Allocation of Business – Rule 3A Appellate Side Rules – Dispute arose in Kolhapur; Appeal decided in Pune; Writ filed in Mumbai – Rule 3A mandates matters "arising in" Kolhapur district "shall" be heard at Kolhapur Circuit Bench – Held: Rule 3A is mandatory – The Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster – Litigants cannot choose the Bench – Petition must be heard at Kolhapur – [Paras 14, 15, 24].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Situs of Dispute – Petitioner argued doctrine of merger (Appellate order at Pune) gave jurisdiction to Mumbai/Pune – Held: For internal allocation of work within the same High Court, the situs of the original authority/cause of action (Kolhapur) determines the Bench – Doctrine of merger does not override administrative rules of allocation – [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Judicial Discipline – Master of Roster – Held: Judges sitting at Principal Seat cannot assume jurisdiction over matters assigned to Circuit Benches by the Chief Justice via Rules/Roster – [Para 23].

Decision: Petition to be transmitted to the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur for disposal.