Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Evidence of Child Witness – The child victim (aged 10 years) consistently deposed about inappropriate touch by her uncle – Her version remained intact despite cross-examination – Court held child’s testimony trustworthy for offence under Section 10 POCSO though not sufficient to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 [Paras 7–10, 16–18].

POCSO Act – Sections 5(l), 5(m), and 6 – Penetrative Sexual Assault – Inconsistencies between victim’s statement under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and deposition at trial – Medical evidence (MLC) recorded hymen intact, no injury to private parts, and FSL report negative – Held: Prosecution failed to prove penetration beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 6 set aside [Paras 16–17].

POCSO Act – Section 10 read with Section 9(m) – Sexual Assault (Non-penetrative) – Victim’s version corroborated by tuition teacher’s statement about accused touching her inappropriately – Conduct consistent with sexual intent – Conviction under Section 10 sustained [Paras 10, 17–18].

Evidence – Corroboration – Absence of injuries or biological evidence not fatal when non-penetrative assault proved through credible testimony – Victim’s statement sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 10 POCSO [Paras 17–18].

Defence – Motive of False Implication – Alleged financial dispute between accused and victim’s father found unsubstantiated – Father (examined as DW-2) denied existence of such dispute – Plea rejected [Paras 14–15].

Sentence – Modification – Appellant sentenced to RI 12 years (Section 6), 5 years (Section 10), and 1 year (Section 506 IPC) by trial court – Having undergone more than six and a half years, sentence under Section 10 deemed served – Appellant directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Conviction under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) & (m) POCSO set aside – Conviction under Section 10 read with Section 9(m) POCSO upheld – Appellant released as sentence already undergone – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 18–20].

Arbitration – Section 9 – Interim Protection – Attachment of Cargo – Demurrage Claim – Maintainability – Petitioner (shipowner) sought attachment of 1600 MT rice cargo and security of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage under a charter party with 1st respondent – Cargo carried from Kakinada to Ho Chi Minh City under fixture note dated 12.03.2021 – Delay at discharge port allegedly caused by respondent – Invoice for demurrage raised on 23.06.2021, followed by demand notice and updated invoice in April 2024 – Held: Claim for demurrage, being in nature of liquidated damages, does not create a “debt” until liability is adjudicated – Unless damages determined by arbitral award, no actionable claim arises – Interim attachment cannot be granted merely to secure unadjudicated liquidated damages [Paras 22–24].

Section 9, Arbitration Act – Interim Measures – Application of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Preconditions – Power under Section 9(1)(ii)(b) read with Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is extraordinary and to be exercised sparingly – Applicant must establish (i) strong prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; (iii) reasonable expedition; and (iv) attempt by respondent to remove or dispose assets to defeat award – Mere bald assertions of risk of dissipation insufficient – No material produced to show respondents’ intention to defeat possible award – Interim attachment cannot be used to convert unsecured claim into secured debt [Paras 14–19, 30–31].

Liquidated Damages – Distinction from Debt – Section 74, Contract Act – Demurrage under charter party is a form of liquidated damages; under Indian law, no pecuniary liability arises until determination of breach and assessment of reasonable compensation – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 – Hence, claim for demurrage remains contingent until adjudicated by arbitral tribunal [Para 22].

Delay and Laches – Reasonable Expedition – Section 9 Proceedings – Petitioner remained silent for nearly three years (July 2021–April 2024) before filing Section 9 petition – No immediate legal steps taken despite contractual arbitration clause – Delay fatal to claim for urgent interim protection – Balance of convenience lies against petitioner [Paras 25–26].

Attachment Before Judgment – Vague Pleadings – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Mere apprehension of sale or encumbrance of goods insufficient – No concrete allegation or evidence that respondent disposed assets to defeat claim – Allegations in petition general and speculative – Attachment of respondent’s stock-in-trade (rice cargo) unjustified [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Petitioner failed to satisfy the preconditions for interim protection under Section 9 and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC—No material to show intent by respondents to defeat award—Claim for demurrage yet to be adjudicated by arbitrator—Delay of nearly three years unexplained— Held: Interim attachment dated 23.04.2024 vacated—Application dismissed—Registry directed to return security amount of USD 296,326.74 deposited by 1st respondent—No costs [Para 31].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court dismissed application for rejection of plaint filed by defendants – Plaintiff’s husband had entered into a registered AGPA and was put in possession after paying full sale consideration – Suit filed for declaration, injunction and cancellation of gift deed allegedly executed fraudulently by defendant in favour of his wife – Held: Pleadings disclose valid cause of action based on part performance and agency coupled with interest – Issues require trial and cannot be rejected at threshold [Paras 4.1, 11, 13, 15].

Property Law – GPA Sale – No Conveyance of Title – Registered AGPA does not confer ownership under Section 54 of TPA and Sections 17 & 49 of Registration Act – Supreme Court precedents reaffirm that GPA cannot be substitute for sale deed – However, AGPA coupled with payment and possession may invoke equitable protection under Section 53-A TPA and Section 202 ICA – Trial required to adjudicate such claims [Paras 12-13].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Objection that suit is time-barred as it was filed 19 years after AGPA – Held: Whether cause of action arose on execution of AGPA or subsequent gift deed is a triable issue – Limitation cannot be decided under Order VII Rule 11 when disputed facts are involved [Para 14].

Declaratory Relief – Suit not Barred – Plaintiff in possession for nearly two decades, municipal mutation in her name, AGPA describing parties as “vendor” and “purchaser” and reciting full payment – Held: Cause of action and triable issues exist – Rejection of plaint unwarranted [Paras 8-10, 13, 15-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial Court’s refusal to reject plaint upheld – All issues to be adjudicated in trial on merits [Para 17].

Motor Accident – Head-on Collision – Negligence – Apportionment of Liability – Accident on 28.11.2017 between WagonR (DL-03CR-6768) and Truck (AS-14C-0806) resulting in death of Om Prakash Sah – Tribunal held WagonR driver negligent based on MVI reports and directed United India Insurance Co. (insurer of WagonR) to pay compensation of ₹10,00,150/- – Held: Tribunal erred in relying solely on unproved MVI reports and hearsay evidence without examining MVI or investigator – Charge sheet filed against Truck driver and eye-witness (CW-2) supported negligence of Truck – Liability to be apportioned between both insurers [Paras 8–16, 28].

Evidence – Proof of Negligence – Standard of Proof – Tribunal misread evidence and ignored charge sheet and eye-witness testimony – Strict rules of evidence not applicable in motor accident cases – Negligence to be determined on preponderance of probabilities – Reference made to Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corp., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); Rajwati v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1699 [Paras 12–14].

Procedure – Remand – Power under Order XLI Rules 23 & 23A CPC – Appellant sought remand to Tribunal – Court held no condition for remand satisfied; relied on P. Purushottam Reddy v. Pratap Steels Ltd., (2002) SC – Decided matter on merits to avoid prolonging litigation [Paras 17–18].

Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – Deceased aged 48 years, income ₹7,950/- per month (minimum wage) – Tribunal failed to add future prospects – High Court recalculated applying Pranay Sethi (25% addition for self-employed aged 40–50) and Sarla Verma (multiplier 13, ¼ deduction) – Also applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130 to award ₹48,000/- each for five dependants as filial consortium, ₹18,000/- each for funeral expenses and loss of estate (10% enhancement twice) – Total compensation ₹14,56,216/- with 9% interest p.a. [Paras 20–26, 29].

Interest and Deposit Directions – Respondents directed to deposit respective shares of compensation before Tribunal within 30 days – ₹10,00,000/- to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years in claimant’s name; withdrawal only with leave of Tribunal – Interest @9% per annum from date of filing claim till realization, following Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association, (2011) 14 SCC 481 [Paras 29–31].

Decision – Appeal dismissed on merits but award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹10,00,150/- to ₹14,56,216/- with interest @9% p.a. – Liability apportioned between both insurers (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) equally – No costs [Paras 27–32].

Motor Accident Claim – Driver Identity Dispute – Insurer contended that Aman Chauhan, a deceased without a valid driving license, was driving the Alto car at time of accident, rendering policy coverage void – Tribunal and High Court rejected insurer’s claim based on consistent eyewitness testimony and admission of Anil Kumar, who confessed to being the driver and fleeing the scene – FIR and police final report found unreliable as no investigating officer was examined and discrepancies existed in factual narration [Paras 5.4, 6, 9-13, 16]

Motor Vehicles Act – Liability of Insurer – Defence of breach of policy failed – Insurer failed to prove that Aman Chauhan was driver – Testimony of surviving occupant (Prince Chauhan) and six independent eyewitnesses supported that Anil Kumar was driving – Police's reliance on ASI’s second-hand report not sufficient – Tribunal rightly fastened liability on insurer [Paras 10.1 to 10.9, 14-17]

Compensation – Quantum Determination – Aman Chauhan’s income estimated at ₹15,000/month by Tribunal, though not supported by documentary proof – Court reduced monthly income to ₹10,000 based on skilled worker’s minimum wage – Total compensation modified to ₹20,53,932 from ₹30,06,000 [Paras 20-20.2]

Compensation – Quantum Re-assessment – In Jasvinder’s case, Tribunal assumed ₹12,000/month income; Court revised it to ₹10,000 based on minimum wage – After 50% deduction and 40% future prospects, compensation recalculated as ₹14,14,000 instead of ₹16,82,800 [Paras 21-21.1]

Personal Injury – Compensation – In Prince Chauhan’s claim (injury case), award of ₹50,000 upheld – Court found it reasonable and not excessive – No interference warranted [Para 22]

Evidence – FIR and Police Report – FIR based on ASI’s inference from hearsay and not supported by direct evidence – Final report filed months later without timely recording of survivor’s version – Held: FIR and police report untrustworthy, especially in absence of testimony of investigating officer [Paras 12-13, 15-16]

Appellate Interference – FAO No. 31 (Prince Chauhan) dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 and 33 (Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder) partially allowed to modify compensation quantum – Awards modified but insurer held liable [Paras 24-25]

Decision: FAO No. 31 of 2023 dismissed – FAO Nos. 32 & 33 of 2023 partially allowed – Compensation in MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 and MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 reduced – Tribunal’s finding on liability upheld – Interest to remain as awarded [Para 24]

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Co-sharer plea – Adverse inference – Concurrent findings – Suit land 32 marlas marked ABCD – Trial Court decreed injunction on possession; First Appellate Court affirmed – Defendant’s belated co-sharer argument inapplicable as he never pleaded joint status and instead set up exclusive claims (7 marlas with himself, 25 marlas with sister) – Non-appearance of defendant warranted adverse inference – No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7–13].

Pleadings and Burden – Co-sharer principle not attracted – Legal proposition that one co-sharer cannot injunct another is undisputed, but inapplicable where the defendant’s own pleadings deny jointness and assert exclusive titles in defined portions – Court declines to permit a case beyond pleadings [Paras 8–9].

Evidence – Family partition and possession – First Appellate Court recorded that partition stood admitted even by defence witnesses – Sister (alleged owner of 25 marlas) residing in another village since 1947; no possession proved – Defendant did not enter the witness box; son (DW2) lacked personal knowledge of partition or identification of the alleged 7 marlas – Defence testimony inconsistent and unreliable [Para 10].

Adverse Inference – Non-appearance of a party – Adverse inference against the defendant for not stepping into the witness box, consistent with Prem Sagar v. Darbari Lal and Sardari Lal v. Kartar Singh – Defendant failed to substantiate title or possession; plaintiff’s possession proved – Decrees sustained [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Concurrent injunction in favour of the plaintiff maintained [Para 13].

Property Law – Unauthorized Use – Mobile Tower on Private Land – BSNL erected a mobile tower on plaintiff’s land (Khasra No. 71) instead of the leased adjoining land (Khasra No. 70) – Demarcation by Local Commissioner confirmed tower was located 20 meters inside plaintiff’s property – Report of demarcation remained unchallenged – Trial Court’s finding on encroachment upheld – Defendant failed to rebut findings with contrary evidence [Paras 11-14]

Civil Procedure – Evidence – Special Power of Attorney – Plaintiff’s son appeared as SPA holder and competently testified – Adverse inference for non-examination of plaintiff personally held unsustainable – Trial Court had itself noted that original SPA was produced – No material question remained unanswered by PW-1 – Rejection of claim on such ground held perverse [Paras 18, 21]

Estoppel – Delay in Objection – Suit filed in 2011, two years after tower construction – Plaintiff had issued legal notice in 2010 – Tower not erected in his presence nor any waiver proved – Held: No estoppel or acquiescence as claim was within limitation and timely notice was issued [Paras 19, 20]

Civil Remedy – Use and Occupation Charges – Plaintiff claimed ₹2,90,000 and monthly damages – Trial Court rejected claim due to lack of evidence – High Court held that lease amount paid to adjoining landowner (₹1800/month) is valid benchmark – Plaintiff entitled to charges from date of notice till tower is removed [Paras 22, 24]

Necessary Party – Owner of Khasra No. 70 – Held not a necessary or even proper party since no relief was sought against them and no boundary dispute existed – Defendant never raised misjoinder objection – Objection in second appeal barred [Paras 14, 17]

Appellate Interference – Concurrent findings overturned – Trial Court and Appellate Court erred in law and ignored proved facts – Failure to appreciate demarcation report and legal evidence rendered decisions perverse – Interference justified [Paras 20, 23]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Decree passed in favour of plaintiff – BSNL directed to pay use and occupation charges @ ₹1800/month w.e.f. 01.12.2010 with 6% interest p.a. till tower remains on land – Liberty to BSNL to remove the tower [Paras 24-25]

Criminal Law – Cognizance on Protest Petition – Procedure – Petitioner summoned under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC after police filed a cancellation report and departmental inquiry found no wrongdoing – Magistrate took cognizance solely on protest petition without directing preliminary evidence – Case was incorrectly treated as instituted on a police report – Held: Cognizance could have been taken, but only after following warrant case procedure applicable to private complaints – Framing of charge without pre-charge evidence improper [Paras 1, 3–5, 14–16, 21–26, 28].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – Petitioner, a public servant, was prosecuted for acts alleged to have been committed while sanctioning bills in discharge of official duty – Held: There was a direct nexus between the act and the official duties – Without prior sanction from the competent authority, prosecution was barred – Trial Court and Revisional Court failed to appreciate this requirement – Cognizance and charge-sheet held unsustainable in law [Paras 13, 20, 27–30].

Warrant Case Procedure – Non-Compliance – Trial Court proceeded without list of witnesses or pre-charge evidence – Since the case was not instituted on police report, CrPC mandates procedure for cases based on complaints – Non-compliance led to procedural vacuum – Held: Charges framed without following proper process vitiated the trial [Paras 25–26, 28].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charge dated 09.02.2023 and Revisional Court order dated 26.02.2024 set aside – Trial Court directed to reconsider the matter in light of the requirement for sanction under Section 197 CrPC and by following correct procedure for warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report.

Criminal Law – Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act - Acquittal – Illegal Possession of Liquor – Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Accused was acquitted by Trial Court in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act for alleged illegal possession and sale of country liquor – Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Sections 100 and 165 of CrPC – Independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-4) turned hostile and denied witnessing the recovery – Prosecution could not explain production of half-filled and unsealed bottles in Court [Paras 6, 15-22]

Search and Seizure – Section 165 CrPC – Validity of Search – IO did not reduce secret information into writing nor sent it to Magistrate as required under Section 165 CrPC – Supreme Court precedents mandate strict compliance in cases of warrantless search – Held: Search and seizure vitiated due to procedural lapses [Paras 15-18]

Evidence – Non-Production of Case Property – No explanation provided for half-filled and empty bottles – Seizure not proved through credible testimony – No supporting entry in daily diary about leakage of liquor – Held: Non-production of intact case property creates serious doubt about prosecution’s case [Paras 22-23]

Witness Testimony – Hostile Independent Witnesses – Panchayat members turned hostile during trial and denied witnessing search or seizure – Admission of signatures on seizure memo held insufficient to prove recovery – Held: Trial Court rightly did not rely on uncorroborated official testimonies [Paras 19-21]

Appellate Interference in Acquittal – Scope – High Court reaffirmed that acquittal can only be reversed if findings are perverse or no other reasonable view is possible – Since Trial Court’s view was plausible based on record, appeal dismissed – Presumption of innocence reaffirmed [Paras 12-14, 26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent upheld – Bail bond to be furnished as per Section 437-A CrPC [Paras 27-28]