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.

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].

Family Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Suppression of medical condition – Divorce Decree Upheld – Respondent/husband alleged that appellant/wife suppressed her infertility prior to marriage and behaved cruelly with his family – Medical reports suggested difficulty in conception, not permanent infertility – Wife allegedly mocked husband’s responsibilities and refused domestic cooperation – Trial court found conduct amounted to mental cruelty – High Court upheld decree of divorce – Held: Continued cruelty and concealment of significant facts justified grant of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) HMA [Paras 2–4, 10–12].

Family Law – Medical Condition – Infertility Allegation – No Certificate by Appellant – Appellant/wife claimed she became capable of conception post-medication but failed to produce any supporting medical certificate – Admission in cross-examination that she had not substantiated her claim of fertility recovery – Held: Appellant failed to rebut allegations effectively or produce documentary evidence to refute claim of reproductive issues [Paras 10–11].

Family Law – Separation – Long-Term Estrangement – No cohabitation since 2016 – Both parties admitted to living separately for over 9 years – Attempts at reconciliation not established – Court took long separation into account while affirming irretrievable breakdown of marriage [Paras 11–12].

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – One-Time Settlement – High Court exercised equitable discretion to grant lump-sum alimony – Considering socio-economic background of parties and guided by Supreme Court decision in Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 213, awarded ₹5,00,000/- as one-time permanent alimony to wife – To be paid within four months – Held: Covers all pending and future claims by appellant [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(a) HMA upheld – ₹5,00,000 awarded to appellant-wife as one-time permanent alimony to be paid within 4 months – Decree to be drawn accordingly [Paras 12–14].

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.

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.

Service Law – Dismissal of Civil Defence Volunteers – Nature of Dismissal – Stigmatic vs. Simpliciter – Dismissals under Section 6(2) held to be stigmatic in substance – Petitioners dismissed from Civil Defence Corps without reasons or inquiry – Court finds dismissals cloaked as simpliciter but actually punitive due to non-joining of COVID-19 duty and alleged misconduct connected to NGO involvement – Held: Real foundation of dismissal was misconduct and stigma – Authority acted in violation of Section 6(1) by bypassing inquiry and hearing requirements [Paras 55–58].

Natural Justice – Right to Hearing – Opportunity must be afforded if dismissal is stigmatic – Petitioners not given opportunity to respond to allegations or material forming basis of termination – Appellate authority also failed to cure procedural defects – Held: Orders vitiated by failure to follow audi alteram partem – Dismissal orders quashed and matter remanded for reconsideration under Section 6(1) with hearing [Paras 58.4, 78–79].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 – No violation found in case of genuine dismissal simpliciter of CDVs – Court upholds validity of Section 6(2) when exercised in true spirit for voluntary and honorary service roles – Dismissal simpliciter does not create stigma or civil consequences if not founded on misconduct – Held: Section 6(2) is not unconstitutional per se – However, misusing it to evade inquiry amounts to abuse of power [Paras 60–64, 77].

Judicial Review – Validity of Section 14(1) of the Civil Defence Act – Provision read down – Court holds Section 14(1) cannot oust judicial review of legality – Section 14(1) protects administrative discretion but cannot shield illegal or unconstitutional orders – Held: High Court retains jurisdiction under Article 226 to review dismissal orders violating statutory safeguards or fundamental rights – Bar on proprietary review upheld, but not on legality or constitutionality [Paras 71–76].

Volunteer Services – Nature of Civil Defence Corps – Not regular employment – Reinstatement not available – CDVs held to be honorary volunteers, not entitled to regularisation or reinstatement as of right – Services not constituting public employment or profession under Article 19(1)(g) – Held: No vested right in service, but dismissal must still conform to fairness and legality [Paras 50–53, 67–68, 80].

Decision: Writ Petitions partly allowed – Dismissal orders under Section 6(2) quashed as being stigmatic and passed without hearing – Authorities directed to reconsider dismissal under Section 6(1) after affording opportunity to petitioners – Reinstatement not granted due to discontinuation of CDVs as per Circular dated 31.10.2023 – Respondents to give petitioners preference in future appointments when services resume – No costs [Paras 79–81].

Domestic Violence Law – Right of Residence vs. Senior Citizens’ Rights – Section 17 PWDV Act – Held: The right of residence under Section 17 is a protective right, not an indefeasible right of ownership or a license to indefinitely occupy premises owned by in-laws when such occupation causes demonstrable harm to senior citizens. Where cohabitation becomes unworkable and detrimental to the health of the parents-in-law (one suffering from Parkinson’s), the daughter-in-law can be directed to vacate subject to provision of alternate accommodation. [Paras 18.2-18.6, 21.1].

Civil Procedure – Interim Mandatory Injunction – Eviction at Interlocutory Stage – Held: An interim mandatory injunction for eviction can be granted in exceptional circumstances to prevent irreparable harm. The "toxic" atmosphere in the household, confirmed by counsellor reports, and the deteriorating health of the senior citizen owner constituted irreparable injury justifying the restoration of the parents' peaceful possession pending trial. [Paras 20.1-20.3].

Domestic Violence Law – Alternate Accommodation – Section 19(1)(f) PWDV Act – Held: The Appellant’s rights were sufficiently safeguarded by the direction to the Respondents to provide alternate accommodation at a rental cap of Rs. 2.50 Lakhs/month, plus ancillary charges and school fees. This arrangement strikes a balance between the daughter-in-law’s statutory protection and the senior citizens’ right to dignity. [Paras 19.1-19.4].

Family Law – Welfare of Minor Children – Held: The eviction order does not prejudice the minor children where the alternate accommodation is in the same vicinity (Gurugram), ensuring continuity of schooling at Pathways School, and where the environment in the suit property had become hostile and adverse to their well-being. [Paras 23.1-23.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim arrangement for alternate accommodation and eviction upheld. Compliance period to count from 01.01.2026. [Paras 27-29].

Succession Law – Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will dated 08.05.2003 relied upon by defendants to deny partition to sisters – Trial court held Will not proved – Held: Evidence of attesting witnesses (DW-2 and DW-3) and scribe (DW-4) consistent with execution requirements under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act – Witnesses stated Will was executed by father in sound mind and attested in presence of testator – Minor inconsistencies in recollection not fatal – Passage of eight years since execution considered – Will held duly proved [Paras 20–28, 34]

Succession Law – Presumption from Registration – Will was a registered document – Held: Though registration alone is not proof of Will, it creates presumption of genuineness – Respondents failed to raise any suspicious circumstances or prove forgery – Trial court erred in discarding Ex.B-1 solely based on witness inconsistencies [Paras 29–31]

Civil Procedure – Plaint filed alleging intestate death – Contradictory plea – Plaintiffs claimed father died intestate but produced earlier Will dated 03.06.1997 only during cross-examination – Held: Conduct of plaintiffs in concealing previous Will amounts to approaching court with unclean hands – Adds credibility to appellants’ case [Para 32]

Appeal – Reappreciation of Evidence – Trial court failed to appreciate testimony of attesting witnesses and wrongly concluded that Will was not proved – High Court found compliance with legal requirements and reversed preliminary decree [Paras 33–35]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of trial court in O.S. No. 149 of 2008 set aside – Will dated 08.05.2003 held to be proved in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Held: In cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and point irresistibly to the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution failed to prove the accused and deceased were last seen together, and witnesses had only hearsay knowledge of their cohabitation, the chain is broken. [Paras 13, 56, 60-62].

Criminal Law – Motive – Significance in Circumstantial Evidence – Held: While absence of motive may not be fatal in cases of direct evidence, it is fatal in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to allege or prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased, with whom he was allegedly in a live-in relationship. [Paras 45-47, 63].

Criminal Law – Recovery of Evidence – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Held: The recovery of the iron lever (MO-7) and wooden logs (MO-8) was not legally proved where the independent witness (PW18) did not support the recovery mahazar and stated he was standing on the road during the alleged seizure. [Paras 57-58].

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Two Views Theory – Held: Following the principle in Kali Ram v. State of H.P., if two views are possible on the evidence adduced—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The trial court erred in overlooking missing links regarding the accused's presence and the lack of flight after the incident. [Paras 59, 62].

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 63].