Circumstantial evidence - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Principles - The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established - The circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused - The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused - The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused - The chain of evidence should be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - [Paragraphs 30-34]

Extra-judicial confession - Admissibility - Extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself - It should be made voluntarily, truthfully, and inspire confidence - An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence - The extra-judicial confession should be proved like any other fact in accordance with law - [Paragraphs 24-25]

Benefit of doubt - When the prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Mere suspicion or circumstantial doubt cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction cannot be based on suspicion unless the prosecution proves circumstances conclusively and all circumstances prove the guilt of the accused - The possibility of any conclusion other than guilt of the accused would vitiate a conviction - [Paragraphs 35-36]

Reliability of witnesses - The credibility and reliability of witnesses must be carefully evaluated in a case based on circumstantial evidence - Material discrepancies in the statements of witnesses and lack of corroboration can cast doubt on their version - The prosecution must establish the veracity of witnesses and the accuracy of their testimony beyond reasonable doubt - [Paragraphs 28-29, 31-32]

Failure to produce material witnesses - The prosecution has a duty to produce material witnesses to support its case - Failure to produce such witnesses can raise a presumption against the veracity of the prosecution's version - [Paragraph 10]

Best evidence rule - The prosecution must adhere to the best evidence rule and ensure that relevant evidence, such as examination of cartridges and fingerprints, is properly presented and examined - Failure to do so may cast doubt on the prosecution's case - [Paragraph 26]

Evaluation of evidence - The Court must carefully evaluate the entire evidence in its entirety to ensure that the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence is the guilt of the accused - The Court should critically examine the evidence and ensure that the circumstances proved establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - [Paragraphs 31-32, 37]

Benefit of doubt - In case of doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt - When the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted - [Paragraph 39]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in charges under Sections 306/498-A RPC – Lack of substantive independent evidence – Failure to prove abetment – Analysis of prosecution evidence – Dying declaration as primary evidence – No direct nexus between respondent’s actions and victim’s suicide – Testimony of star witnesses inconsistent – Cordial relationship between couple established – Hyper sensitivity of victim – Mere harassment not constituting abetment – No reasonable nexus between cruelty and suicide – Misunderstanding leading to unfortunate outcome – Appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld. (Para No. 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 22)

Writ Petition - Admission cancellation - Lack of application of mind - Petitioner admitted to M.A. Rural Development course based on prospectus - Prospectus did not disqualify individuals with professional degrees - Head of Department cancelled admission due to petitioner's MBA (I.B.) degree - Court found cancellation order extremely perverse - Directed withdrawal of cancellation order - Imposed exemplary costs on Head of Department for subjecting petitioner to litigation costs - Registrar ordered to pay costs to petitioner, deducting from Head of Department's salary - Affidavit of compliance to be filed within five weeks. (Para 2, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Offence of stalking under Section 354-D IPC – Ingredients required to establish the offence – Intent to foster personal interaction despite clear disinterest – Legislative intention and concerns of misuse (Paragraphs 6, 10, 12, and 19).

Offence under Section 509 IPC – Requirement of prima facie establishment of intention to insult the modesty of a woman – Distinction between insult and offence of insult to modesty (Paragraphs 21 and 23).

Exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent power under Section 482 CrPC – Categories of cases where such power can be exercised – Illustrative examples (Paragraph 25).

Allegations in the present case not constituting offences under Sections 354-D and 509 IPC – Quashing of criminal proceedings based on lack of essential elements (Paragraph 26).

Further Investigation - Quashing of supplementary charge-sheet and summoning order - Scope of further investigation by Investigating Officer - Liability of witness of an agreement to sell - Whether further investigation can be conducted without prior permission of Magistrate - Whether witness of an agreement to sell can be held criminally liable - Held, further investigation by the Investigating Officer is permissible after filing of a charge-sheet if further evidence is obtained - Prior permission of the Magistrate is not required - Witness of an agreement to sell cannot be held criminally liable unless there is an allegation of conspiracy - Agreement to sell does not create any right or title in favor of the witness - Applicant's name mentioned as an attesting witness in block letters without signature - No criminal liability established against the applicant - Supplementary charge-sheet and summoning order quashed.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Public Place and Section 42 – Appeal against Conviction – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374 – NDPS Act, 1985, Sections 15, 35, 42, 43, 54 – Appellant apprehended with 1550 kg poppy husk on the bridge of a water reservoir – Recovery from “Public Place” as per Section 43 – No need for compliance with Section 42 – Appellant unable to rebut presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Para 13, 14, 15, 16, 18]

Public Place and Conscious Possession – Analysis – Recovery from public place as defined under Section 43 – Provisions of Section 42 not applicable – Appellant found in possession of 50 bags of poppy husk – Unable to offer explanation for possession – Presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 apply – Prosecution case valid despite CFSL form being filled subsequently. [Para 13-15]

Credibility of Official Witnesses – Testimonies of official witnesses credible despite non-examination of independent witness – Minor discrepancies in statements considered normal – Conviction based on thorough cross-examination of official witnesses valid. [Para 16]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence upheld – Appellant directed to surrender within 15 days – Non-bailable warrants to be issued if appellant fails to surrender – All pending applications disposed of. [Para 18-21]

SC/ST Act – Appeal against Conviction – Intention and Public View – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374 – SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 3 – Appellant accused of using caste-based slurs – Incident reported after two days – No independent witnesses – To attract Section 3(1)(x), insults must be intentional and in public view – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside. [Para 10-12, 14]

Mens Rea and Public View – Analysis – Essential ingredient of mens rea required for offence under Section 3(1)(x) – Insults must be with intent to humiliate in a public setting – Lack of independent, impartial witnesses – Delay in lodging complaint raises doubts – Dispute over land between parties acknowledged – Conviction unsustainable. [Para 10-12]

Delay in Reporting and Dispute Context – Consideration – Complaint lodged after an unexplained delay of two days – Ongoing land dispute between complainant’s community and agriculturists – Complainant’s evasive responses in cross-examination – Investigation officer acknowledged long-standing dispute – Defence witness corroborated land dispute – Appeal allowed. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released if not required in any other case – Appeal allowed. [Para 14]

SC/ST Act – Appeal against Conviction – Intention and Public View – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374 – SC/ST Act, 1989, Section 3 – Appellant accused of using caste-based slurs – Incident reported after two days – No independent witnesses – To attract Section 3(1)(x), insults must be intentional and in public view – Appeal allowed – Conviction set aside. [Para 10-12, 14]

Mens Rea and Public View – Analysis – Essential ingredient of mens rea required for offence under Section 3(1)(x) – Insults must be with intent to humiliate in a public setting – Lack of independent, impartial witnesses – Delay in lodging complaint raises doubts – Dispute over land between parties acknowledged – Conviction unsustainable. [Para 10-12]

Delay in Reporting and Dispute Context – Consideration – Complaint lodged after an unexplained delay of two days – Ongoing land dispute between complainant’s community and agriculturists – Complainant’s evasive responses in cross-examination – Investigation officer acknowledged long-standing dispute – Defence witness corroborated land dispute – Appeal allowed. [Para 11-12]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellant to be released if not required in any other case – Appeal allowed. [Para 14]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Non-compliance with Section 57 – Appeal against Conviction – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374 – NDPS Act, 1985, Sections 15, 57 – Appellant convicted for possession of 800 kg of poppy straw – Non-compliance with Section 57 claimed – Held, non-compliance with Section 57 does not vitiate the prosecution case – Testimonies of official witnesses credible – Appeal dismissed. [Para 9, 11, 12-13]

Credibility of Official Witnesses – Analysis – Testimonies of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to their status – Efforts made to join independent witnesses but none were willing – Statements of ASI Ajmer Singh and DSP Narinderpal Singh consistent and credible – Minor contradictions in testimonies considered normal – Conviction upheld. [Para 11]

Conscious Possession – Proof – Prosecution proved conscious possession of contraband by appellant – Recovery of 800 kg of poppy straw from the truck driven by appellant – Appellant’s defence of being falsely implicated not substantiated – Conviction and sentence upheld. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court upheld – Appeal dismissed – All pending applications disposed of. [Para 14-16]