Civil Appeal – Property Dispute – Ownership and Possession – Appellants challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court upholding the Trial Court’s decree of possession and mandatory injunction – Suit property was claimed by the Respondent, who provided documents to establish his title – Appellants alleged forgery and lack of proof for the documents – Admissibility of photocopies of documents as evidence – Objection of mode of proof not raised at Trial Court – Plea of adverse possession not raised in written statement – Admissibility and proof of documents – Conclusiveness of concurrent fact findings – First Appellate Court’s conclusion upheld by this Court. [Para 1]

Evidence – Mode of Proof – Objection to admissibility of documents on ground of mode of proof – Objection not raised at Trial Court – Appellants not entitled to raise such objection at first appeal – Supreme Court precedent on objections to mode of proof – Objection should be raised when evidence is tendered – Failure to raise objection results in waiver of objection – Plea of mode of proof not maintainable in first appeal. [Paras 8-9]

Property Dispute – Adverse Possession – Appellants raised plea of adverse possession in first appeal – Adverse possession not pleaded in written statement – Inconsistent pleas of co-ownership and adverse possession – Supreme Court’s requirement to prove clear and continuous possession along with animus possidendi – Burden of proof on person claiming adverse possession – Appellants precluded from raising plea of adverse possession in these circumstances. [Paras 10-11]

Conclusion: No substantial question of law raised in the appeal – First Appellate Court’s judgment upheld – Appeal dismissed – Pending application(s) disposed of. [Para 12]

Criminal Appeal – Unauthorized Absence – Departmental inquiry against petitioner for unauthorized absence during COVID-19 pandemic – Challenge to penalty imposed for absence – Doctrine of proportionality applicable to quantum of punishment – Special circumstances of pandemic and quarantine need to be considered – Penalty set aside, remanded to Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation. [Para 20]

Doctrine of Proportionality – Imposition of penalty in departmental proceedings – Quantum of punishment to be reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct – Factors to consider include measure, magnitude, degree of misconduct, and all relevant circumstances – Penalty must not be grossly in excess of allegations – Doctrine applied in remanding matter for re-evaluation of penalty. [Para 17, 18]

Unauthorized Absence – Absence from duty without permission – Special circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic – Employee initially placed under quarantine after authorized rest – Penalty imposed for subsequent absence on medical grounds – Penalties in such cases to be assessed with consideration for compelling circumstances – Penalty set aside, matter remanded. [Para 15, 16]

Principles of Natural Justice – Application in departmental proceedings – Scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters – Limited intervention allowed in cases of violation of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity, or disproportionate punishment – Disciplinary proceedings to be conducted fairly and based on evidence – Intervention on grounds of proportionality. [Para 12]

Unauthorized absence during pandemic requires sympathetic consideration – Penalty imposed disproportionate to circumstances – Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority for re-evaluation of penalty – Doctrine of proportionality applied in setting aside penalty. [Para 19, 20]

Negotiable Instruments - Cheque Bounce - Acquittal - Appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Trial court held that complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt - Presumption under Section 139 rebuttable - Accused raised a probable defense - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 9-11]

Presumption and Burden of Proof - Analysis - Section 139 presumption is rebuttable - Accused can raise defense contesting existence of debt or liability - Standard of proof for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities - Accused's probable defense created doubt about debt existence - Prosecution failed. [Paras 9, 10]

Case Facts - Vehicle Purchase and Cheque Issuance - Respondent purchased vehicle, paid part by cheque which was dishonored - Loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited - No evidence connecting loan and appellant - Appellant failed to prove cheque was for legally enforceable debt - Trial court's findings upheld. [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Acquittal upheld - Trial court's decision confirmed - Appeal dismissed for lack of proof of legally enforceable debt. [Para 11]

Facts: The appellants were tried for offenses under Section 376-D of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for committing gang rape on 21-1-2018. During the trial, the appellants filed an application for a DNA test of themselves, the victim, and the victim’s newly born baby, which was rejected by the Special Judge. The appellants were convicted, and they filed criminal appeals seeking a DNA test [Para 2-3].

Issues: Whether a DNA test of the appellants, the victim, and the victim’s newly born baby is necessary for the disposal of the criminal appeals [Para 2-3].

Observations: DNA profiling is a valid and reliable method for identification, but it cannot be ordered as a matter of course. A direction to use DNA profiling to determine paternity is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect and must be conducted only when eminently needed. The baby child of the victim is neither a party in the criminal appeals nor is the paternity required to be examined, and directing a DNA test would violate the privacy right of the infant [Para 10-17].

Decision: The applications filed by the appellants for a DNA test were found to have no merit and were accordingly rejected [Para 18].

Divorce Appeal – Cruelty – Financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations – Appellant seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Judgment and Decree granting divorce under challenge – Financial exploitation established through evidence – Appellant’s claim of extramarital relationship unsubstantiated – Allegations of illicit relationship considered as cruelty – Appellant’s withdrawal of such allegations points to their falsity – No infirmity in the findings of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court – Appeal dismissed. [Para 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50]

Financial Exploitation – Appellant’s brother received financial assistance from respondent on various occasions – Evidence of payments for setting up clinic, purchasing plots of land, and other expenses – Appellant unable to explain the source of funds for her brother – Financial dealings established – Financial exploitation proved. [Para 38, 39, 44, 45]

Allegations of Extramarital Relationship – Appellant’s allegations of extramarital relationship by respondent – Onus on appellant to prove such allegations – Failure to provide credible evidence – Allegations considered as an act of cruelty – Coordinated Bench and Apex Court decisions support this view – Allegations withdrawn in amended written statement further cast doubt on their veracity. [Para 45, 46, 47]

Assault and False Allegations – Incident of assault on respondent established through corroborating evidence – Appellant’s undertaking to police not to assault respondent contradicted by her continued behavior – False allegations and counter-blast complaints made by appellant – Evidence supports the incident of assault – False allegations and assaults considered as acts of cruelty. [Para 32, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47]

Conclusion – The respondent subjected to cruelty as proven through financial exploitation, assault, and false allegations – Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.2019 granting divorce upheld – Appeal dismissed along with pending applications. [Para 49, 50]

Criminal Appeal – Bail Application under NDPS Act – Contraband possession and trafficking – Recovery of fake stickers – Disclosure statement – CDR call records – Material evidence – Analysis of various contentions and arguments – Consideration of legality and applicability of evidence – Examination of case law regarding admissibility of confessions made to NDPS officers – Analysis of recent judgments emphasizing personal liberty and Article 21 – Consideration of applicant’s incarceration period and similarity to other relevant judgments – Primacy of personal liberty and need for timely trial conclusions – Conclusion that Section 37 NDPS Act embargo not applicable – Applicant’s entitlement to be released on regular bail – Stringent bail conditions outlined – Warning against breach of conditions. [Para 20, 31-70]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction and Release on Probation – Offences under Sections 148, 323, 316, 452, 506 read with Section 149 IPC – Convicts released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Appellant challenges the acquittal of certain charges and the grant of probation – Court assesses evidence and reasoning provided by the Trial Court – Adequate evaluation of evidence and legal principles found – Principles underlying release on probation considered – No interference with findings of guilt or acquittal – Convicts granted probation to deter future criminal conduct and promote reformation. [Para 1-13]

Probation and Reformation – Release on probation as an alternative form of punishment – Focus on reformation and addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior – Principles to consider when granting probation, including nature of offense, individual circumstances, rehabilitation potential, compliance with terms, risk to public safety, and more – Court’s discretion to determine eligibility for probation – Dual purpose of probation to deter and reform – Role of probation officer assessment and judicial discretion. [Para 11-13]

Constitutional Rights – Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Protection sought by two adult females in a live-in relationship – Invocation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Examination of the claim in light of established legal principles. [Para 1]

Protection of Rights – Duty of the State to protect fundamental rights – Assertion that living together in a same-sex relationship does not violate any provision of law – Recognition of the right to live as desired within the boundaries of law – Emphasis on the importance of Article 21 as a fundamental right. [Para 3]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022:INSC:1154 [Para 17] (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Delving into the origin and significance of Article 21 – Recognition of its status as a precious fundamental right – Comparison to the Magna Carta and its historical evolution. [Para 4]

Protection Order – Appropriate protection ordered for the petitioners – Direction to concerned authorities to provide two female police officials for protection for two weeks – Provision for extension of protection based on ongoing threat analysis or request from the petitioners – No adjudication on merits or blanket bail granted. [Para 5-6]

Duration of Order – Clarification that the protection order will eclipse after thirty days – Temporary nature of the order and provision for fresh approach in case of new threat perception – No certified copy required. [Para 7-8]

Conclusion – Petition allowed to the extent mentioned – Pending applications disposed – Detailed examination of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and the corresponding duty of the State to protect these rights within the boundaries of the law. [Para 8]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal - Section 307 read with 34 of IPC – Conviction challenged based on discrepancies in the evidence – Appellants convicted for assaulting victim’s mother – Informant’s presence doubted as he arrived after hearing noise – Inconsistencies in the story of prosecution witnesses – Victim not examined – Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt given to the accused – Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. [Para 31]

Witness Reliability – Importance of reliable witnesses in criminal trials – Testimony of single reliable witness can lead to conviction – Witness statements should have a ring of truth, be cogent, credible, and trustworthy – Presence of discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements raises doubt. [Para 27]

Evidential Standard – Criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Quality, weight, and value of evidence more important than quantity of witnesses – Trustworthy evidence crucial for conviction. [Para 28, 29]

Presence of Witness – Witness’s presence at the scene crucial for credibility – Witness testimony supported by being present at the scene of the crime – Injured witnesses generally considered reliable as they have no reason to falsely implicate others. [Para 22]

Benefit of Doubt – In criminal cases, doubt benefits the accused – Onus on prosecution to prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction cannot be based on mere preponderance of probabilities. [Para 29, 30]

Acquittal – Inconsistent evidence, doubts about witness presence, and lack of corroboration weaken prosecution’s case – Convictions set aside based on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt goes to the accused. [Para 31]