Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Conviction Upheld – Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping a 14-year-old girl in her bathroom during early hours of the morning – Testimony of prosecutrix consistent and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Birth records and witness statements proved she was below 16 years – Held: Conviction sustainable as consent is immaterial in case of minor – No ground to interfere with findings of trial court [Paras 2, 7–10].

Testimony of Prosecutrix – Evidentiary Value – Court held that conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if found credible – Minor contradictions do not weaken the prosecution’s case – Her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in FIR were consistent – Supreme Court precedents followed on sufficiency of sole testimony [Paras 9–10].

Age Determination – Minor Victim – Birth certificate from MCD and testimony of mother confirmed victim was 14 years old – Defence claim of majority rejected – Court reiterated that consent of minor under 16 is legally irrelevant – Legal bar on consent fully attracted [Para 8].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – MLC showed torn hymen, FSL confirmed presence of semen on vaginal swabs – No external injuries found but held not essential to prove rape – Conviction justified based on reliable ocular and medical evidence – Absence of injury not fatal [Para 11].

Sentencing – Modification on Grounds of Reform – Appellant had undergone more than 5 years of sentence with good jail conduct – No misuse of liberty during appeal – Considering 16-year gap since incident and his family responsibilities, sentence modified to period already undergone – Court emphasised rehabilitative justice – Conviction maintained [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Directions issued for communication to trial court and jail authorities [Paras 14–16].

Scheduled Tribe Certificate – Tokre Koli – Pre-Constitutional Documentary Evidence – Interpolation Allegation – Committee’s Order Quashed – Petitioner’s tribe certificate was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground of interpolation in birth registers and school records – Court scrutinized the original records and found no substantial evidence of tampering – Held: Different handwriting and ink do not by themselves prove interpolation – Documents authored by various officers over decades carry probative value – Committee failed to obtain expert opinion or examine custodians of records [Paras 10-14, 17-20]

Scheduled Tribe Claim – Burden of Proof – Section 8 of the 2000 Act – Petitioner submitted consistent caste entries dating back to 1912 describing ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ – Both terms appear at same serial number in ST list – Held: Burden under Section 8 was discharged – Scrutiny Committee failed to produce any adverse evidence to rebut petitioner’s documents [Paras 18-19]

Tribal Classification – Koli Dhor vs Tokre Koli – Committee rejected claim on grounds of inconsistency – Court followed precedent in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale – Held: Where multiple consistent pre-constitutional entries refer to ‘Dhor Koli’ and post-constitutional to ‘Tokre Koli’, they are to be read as referring to the same ST classification under Entry 28 – Benefit of doubt goes to petitioner [Para 22]

Affinity Test – Evidentiary Value – Committee rejected claim citing failed affinity test – Court reaffirmed that affinity test is not conclusive and must be considered with other probative evidence – Held: Failure of affinity test not fatal where documentary evidence is otherwise strong [Para 23]

Quasi-Judicial Duty – Committee’s Failure to Consider Petitioner’s Reply – No Comparison of Handwriting – No Examination of Custodian Officers – Held: Committee failed to apply mind independently and acted solely on Vigilance Report without verifying facts or following proper procedure [Paras 16-18]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order quashed – Committee directed to issue Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to petitioner within 4 weeks [Para 24]

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appreciation of Evidence – Prosecution alleged accused abused complainant by caste and assaulted him – Held: There were material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and eye-witnesses regarding the presence of accused and the weapon used. The FIR did not name the first accused. Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal upheld. [Paras 8.1-8.3, 10]

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Section 3(1)(10) – Insult/Intimidation – Held: Every insult or intimidation does not amount to an offence under the Atrocities Act unless it is directed at the victim because they are a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. Mere utterance of indecent words without the specific intent related to caste does not constitute the offence. [Para 8.4-8.5]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Acquittal confirmed. [Para 18]

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Service Permanent Establishment (PE) – Calculation of Threshold Period – Article 5(6)(a) of India-Singapore DTAA – Assessee, a Singapore legal firm, had employees present in India for 120 days – Assessee claimed exclusion of vacation days (36), business development days (35), and common days (5) – Held: To constitute a Service PE, services must be "furnished within" the contracting state. Vacation days where no work is performed, and business development days where no billable services are rendered to clients, must be excluded from the threshold calculation. Excluding these, the period was 84 days, falling below the 90-day threshold. No Service PE constituted. [Paras 38-40]

International Taxation – Virtual Service PE – Interpretation of Treaty – Revenue argued for "Virtual Service PE" due to remote services provided from outside India – Held: The concept of "Virtual Service PE" is not expressly provided in the India-Singapore DTAA. Article 5(6) requires services to be furnished "within" India "through employees present". Courts cannot read new concepts into the treaty which are not explicitly included. Until the treaty is renegotiated to include virtual services, existing provisions must be strictly interpreted. [Paras 42-46, 49]

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Questions of law answered in favour of the Assessee. [Para 62]

Tenancy Law - Rent Control – Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Reconstruction of Building – Landlord sought eviction of tenant from commercial shop to reconstruct integrated block of 5 shops into hotel and restaurant for himself and his son – Son had undergone training and expressed intent to operate business – Courts below found requirement genuine – Held: Landlord is best judge of his need – Bona fide requirement not negated merely because son resides in Delhi – Longstanding possession by tenant does not defeat landlord’s right if intention is proved [Paras 3, 11–13, 29]

Rent Law – Dilapidated Premises – Condition of Building – Local Commissioner Report – Landlord pleaded building was over 50 years old and structurally unsafe – Local Commissioner, an SDO from PWD, supported claim – Tenants failed to rebut technical report with counter-evidence – Held: Absence of structural testing or formal notice not fatal – Visual and expert inspection sufficient when unrebutted – Finding of building being unfit upheld [Paras 14, 30]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of lower courts – Held: Scope of revision is limited to jurisdictional error or perversity – Where authorities considered all evidence and applied correct legal principles, no interference warranted [Paras 27, 33–34]

Evidence Law – Concealment of Other Properties – Relevance – Tenant alleged landlord owned other commercial properties – Held: Mere ownership insufficient – Tenant failed to prove landlord possessed any vacant, suitable alternative commercial property – Alleged transfers were family settlements made before eviction petition – No mala fides established [Paras 15, 28]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed in limine – Orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 33–34]

Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Plaintiff sought injunction to restrain defendants from raising construction on agricultural land allegedly belonging to his ancestors – Claimed defendants obtained revenue entries fraudulently during consolidation – Courts below rejected injunction holding no prima facie title established and possession with defendants – Held: In absence of conclusive documents and pending challenge before Consolidation Officer, no prima facie case made out – Interlocutory relief rightly denied [Paras 1–7, 13–14]

Land Law – Consolidation Proceedings – Revenue Entries – Plaintiff challenged validity of consolidation allotment and mutation in separate proceedings – Until such challenge is resolved, existing entries hold the field – Courts held that long-standing entries in Jamabandi and possession support respondents – Mere allegation of forgery insufficient to disturb settled possession at interim stage [Paras 5, 8, 14–15]

Civil Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Plaintiff failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in concurrent findings – High Court held that re-appreciation of facts not permissible in revision under Section 115 CPC – No ground for interference made out [Paras 16–17]

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – No merit in challenge to concurrent orders rejecting temporary injunction – All pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of [Paras 17–18]

Criminal Law – Rape – Age of Victim Not Proven – Acquittal – Prosecution failed to establish that the victim was a “child” as defined under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act – Birth certificate (Exhibit P8) obtained on court order shortly before complaint, with no production of the court order or supporting documents under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act – No school admission register or SSLC marks card produced – Medical officer failed to conduct ossification test or comply with Section 164A CrPC – Parents of victim admitted ignorance of her birth date – Held: Age determination failed statutory standards under Section 94 of Juvenile Justice Act and Supreme Court guidance in P. Yuvaprakash v. State – Adverse inference drawn under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 12–19].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent – Delay in Filing Complaint – Alleged repeated intercourse on promise of marriage – Complaint lodged after two-year delay – Medical report confirmed absence of signs of recent assault – Victim's own statement indicated consensual relationship – Held: No evidence of force or coercion – Ingredients of Section 375 IPC not satisfied – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC not sustainable [Paras 20–21].

Criminal Procedure – Fair Trial – Investigation Lapses – Investigating Officer failed to follow procedures for determining age or gathering admissible evidence – No application filed under Section 173(8) CrPC for additional documents post-charge sheet – Held: Prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Trial court’s conviction based on inadequate appreciation of evidence set aside [Paras 16–19, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Bail – Attempt to Murder – KCOCA – Bail rejected for Accused Nos.3 and 4 – Petitioners alleged to have assaulted CW.2 with deadly weapons causing grievous injuries – Seizure of blood-stained dagger and cricket bat from petitioners confirmed by FSL report – CCTV footage corroborates incident – Petitioners involved in multiple prior criminal cases and are registered rowdy sheeters – Held: Prima facie case established against petitioners – Threat to witnesses if enlarged on bail – Bail denied [Paras 12–16]

Confessional Statement – Section 19 KCOCA – Validity of Confession – Petitioners challenged admissibility of confession recorded by DCP under Section 19 of KCOCA – Court held that in Bengaluru, DCP holds rank equivalent to Superintendent of Police – Confession held admissible under Section 19 – Challenge rejected [Para 13]

Delay in Trial – Long Custody – Petitioners in custody for over 1½ years – Contended trial yet to commence – Cited Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 – Court distinguished case based on gravity of offences, evidence, and antecedents – Held: Nature of crime and threat to witnesses outweigh prolonged custody – Bail cannot be granted solely on basis of delay [Paras 3, 16]

Organised Crime – Applicability of KCOCA – Petitioners argued they were not members of organised crime syndicate – Court found sufficient material including overt acts, seizure of weapons, identification by witnesses, and involvement in previous cases – Held: Prima facie ingredients under KCOCA met – Bail rightly refused [Paras 3, 14–16]

Judicial Reasoning – Rejection of Bail – Courts must weigh nature of offence, evidence, and potential threat to witnesses – Prior criminal record relevant – Cited Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 – Held: Bail to be denied when antecedents and facts indicate possibility of interference with justice [Para 15]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Petitioners failed to make out any ground – Threat to witnesses and seriousness of offence considered.

Education Law – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Jurisdiction of Tribunal – Appellant challenged Director's order rejecting claim for promotion to 7th post of Lecturer in Physics – Learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition holding that statutory remedy under Section 24-B of Odisha Education Act was available before the Tribunal – Held: Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving eligibility and entitlement linked with grant-in-aid – Writ Court rightly declined to entertain the writ petition in light of specific statutory forum [Paras 1-6, 18-22]

Statutory Interpretation – Scope of Section 24-B of the O.E. Act – Dispute whether Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined only to “grant-in-aid” or extends to eligibility and entitlement for post approval and salary – Held: Legislative intent behind insertion of Section 24-B makes it clear that Tribunal’s power includes disputes concerning approval of posts, eligibility of appointment, and salary where such claims are related to grant-in-aid – Punctuation such as commas not decisive in interpreting statutory scope – Interpretation must serve purpose of amendment [Paras 7-18]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Availability of Statutory Remedy – Although High Court’s power under Article 226 is not ousted, writ jurisdiction may not be exercised where efficacious alternative remedy exists – Appellant previously approached Tribunal and cannot bypass it now – Forum shopping deprecated – Tribunal is competent forum to adjudicate disputes arising from administrative directions on post approval and salary [Paras 19-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error in learned Single Judge’s order relegating appellant to Odisha Education Tribunal – Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate challenge to rejection order dated 27.03.2025.