Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentencing - Rape and Murder of a Minor - Commutation of Death Penalty to Life Imprisonment - Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Applicability of Death Penalty - Principles Governing Imposition of Death Sentence - Reference to Previous Cases - Proportionality Principle. [Para 1-58]

Conviction - Multiple Offences - Sections 363, 302, 201 of IPC, Section 5(M)/6 of POCSO Act, Section 376(AB) of IPC, and Section 84 of JJ Act, 2015 - Accused convicted for the rape and murder of a minor - Accused's presence at the scene, recovery of evidence, confessions, and DNA evidence presented as incriminating circumstances - Conviction upheld. [Para 7-10]

Death Penalty - Commutation to Life Imprisonment - Balance between Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Accused's age, lack of criminal antecedents, lack of premeditation, and behavior in custody considered as mitigating factors - Age of the victim and brutality of the crime considered as aggravating factors - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. [Para 53-56]

Principles Governing Death Penalty - Constitutional Validity - Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Death penalty to be imposed only in "rarest of rare cases" - Life imprisonment as the rule, death sentence as the exception - Need for a just balance between crime and criminal - Previous judgments and guidelines cited. [Para 41-42]

References to Previous Cases - Analysis of Death Penalty Decisions - Comparison of Similar Cases - Age of Victim, Heinousness of Crime, and Mitigating Factors - Death penalty cases compared, where death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment based on similar factors - Guidelines and principles established in previous cases followed. [Para 53-56]

Commuted Sentence - Life Imprisonment - Commutation of Death Sentence - Subject to Remission or Commutation by Government - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment extending to the full natural life of the accused, subject to potential remission or commutation by the government for valid reasons. [Para 56]

Proportionality Principle - Commutation Based on Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances - Decision aligned with the principles of proportionality - Just balance struck between the aggravating circumstances of the crime and the mitigating factors relating to the accused. [Para 56]

Decision - Conviction Upheld, Death Penalty Commuted - Conviction for multiple offences upheld, including rape and murder - Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment considering the age of the accused, lack of criminal antecedents, and other mitigating factors, following established principles of law. [Para 57-58]

Probate – Grant of probate of registered Will – Validity and execution of Will – Petitioner filed a petition seeking probate of the registered Will executed by her deceased husband – Two sons of the deceased filed objections, one raised no objections – No objections from the public – Petitioner claimed that the deceased executed the Will with respect to all his assets – List of assets provided – Will registered on March 22, 2012 – Petitioner examined an attesting witness who confirmed the execution of the Will – Cross-examination did not challenge the genuineness or execution of the Will – Court referred to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which allows the proof of a Will by examining one attesting witness – Court cited Supreme Court precedent supporting this position – Respondents did not raise doubts about the genuineness or validity of the Will – Court found that the petitioner had proved the Will to be the last and final testament of the deceased – Grant of probate allowed subject to payment of necessary fees and completion of formalities. (Para 1-16)

Jurisdiction – Testamentary jurisdiction – Scope – Court exercising testamentary jurisdiction does not interpret the Will or decide the title of the deceased to the properties bequeathed – Court’s role is limited to determining the validity and execution of the Will – Objections outside the purview of testamentary jurisdiction are not to be adjudicated upon – Reference made to relevant legal precedents. (Para 8-9)

Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata – Applicability – The principle of res judicata applies not only to separate proceedings but also to subsequent stages of the same proceedings – Court is precluded from re-examining a question that has been decided or deemed to have been decided earlier in the proceedings – Reference made to relevant legal precedent. (Para 12)

Evidence Act, Section 68 – Proof of Will – Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called to prove its execution – A Will is a document that requires attestation by two witnesses, and it can be proved by examining only one of them – Reference made to Supreme Court precedent clarifying the nature of proof required for a Will. (Para 10-11)

Grant of Probate – Conditions for grant of probate – The grant of probate requires meeting the conditions prescribed by law, such as proving the execution and validity of the Will – In the absence of any allegations challenging the testator’s soundness of mind or other suspicious circumstances, the court examines whether the Will has been validly executed – Reference made to relevant legal provisions and Supreme Court precedent. (Para 12-13)

Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Applicant seeking regular bail in FIR No. 136/2012 registered at PS Economic Offences Wing (EOW) – Allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds against the accused – Accused not named in the FIR - Applicant arrested based on his association with the financial company M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Money Bhandar – Applicant released on interim bail and subsequently surrendered. [Para 1]

Applicant’s contentions – Applicant claims to be a non-executive director of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. For a short period with no involvement in M/s. Money Bhandar – Resigned before the registration of the FIR – No transactions with the complainants – Prosecution treating M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Money Bhandar as the same entity – Applicant’s liability disputed based on Section 149(12) of the Companies Act, 2013. [Para 4]

Prosecution’s opposition – Total alleged misappropriation amounting to approximately Rs. 8.5 crores – Applicant an authorized signatory of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Bank account – Accused registered as a director of M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd./M/s. Money Bhandar – No details of resignation in Registrar of Companies (ROC) records – Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) status not authorized by RBI – Another FIR registered against the applicant in Bareilly (U.P.) – Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the applicant. [Para 6]

Court’s findings and decision – Applicant not named in the FIR, role not clear from records – Alleged nexus between M/s. Money Bhandar and M/s. B.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Yet to be established – Chargesheet filed, but charges not framed – Trial likely to be lengthy – Applicant’s clean record during incarceration – Prolonged detention unnecessary as guilt not proven – Regular bail granted subject to conditions. [Para 7-9]

Examination of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Importance of putting material circumstances to the accused - Failure to put incriminating evidence to the accused constitutes a serious irregularity - Prejudice caused to the accused - Curability of the defect depends on various factors, including the passage of time since the incident - Unjust to remand the case after a significant period. (Para 20, Para 24) 

Violation of principles of natural justice - Incriminating evidence not properly put to the accused - Failure to comply with Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Prejudice caused to the appellant - Conviction based on improperly presented evidence cannot be sustained. (Para 20, Para 24) 

Examination of witnesses - Appellant not confronted with specific incriminating statements made by witnesses - Failure to give accused opportunity to explain adverse circumstances in the evidence - Fundamental part of a fair trial - Irregularity that may vitiate the trial if it prejudiced the accused. (Para 20, Para 23) 

Family members' testimony - Material statement of prosecutrix's sister regarding the open door - Raises doubt about how the appellant knew the children were sleeping in the room - Raises questions about the veracity of the prosecution's case. (Para 25) 

Remand of the case - Passage of time since the incident - Unjust to remand the matter for examination after a significant period - Consideration of fairness and practicality. (Para 24) 

Precedents - Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of putting all relevant questions and material circumstances to the accused during the examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Failure to do so may result in imperfect appreciation of evidence and violation of natural justice. (Para 21, Para 23) 

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 28(1), 28(3), and 27(2) – Passing off action – Infringement of registered trademark – Prohibitory injunction – Interplay between registered proprietors of identical or nearly resembling trademarks – Exclusive right to use a registered trademark – Right to bring an action for passing off goods or services not affected by registration – Requirements for initiating a passing off action – Goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage – Need for evidence establishing confusion among ordinary consumers – Stricter approach required for medicinal products to avoid dire effects on public health. (Para 5, Para 8, Para 10)

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 27(2) – Passing off action – Scope and applicability in India – Consideration of literacy levels, language barriers, and potential for confusion among purchasers – Stricter approach when dealing with medicinal products – Importance of protecting consumers from misrepresentation and confusion. (Para 12, Para 15)

Passing off action – Essential elements – Goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage – Protection of goodwill in business against misrepresentation – Prerequisite to prove confusion among consumers due to similarity of marks and surrounding factors – Damage to goodwill to be assessed based on economic loss in the market. (Para 18, Para 22)

Registered trademarks – Exclusive rights – Subject to other provisions of the Trade Marks Act – No infringement action between registered proprietors of identical or nearly resembling trademarks – Concurrent rights of registered proprietors against third parties – Option for rectification or cancellation of offending trademark. (Para 28, Para 30)

Comparison of products, labels, color schemes, and designs – Assessment of deceptive similarity – Likelihood of creating confusion in the minds of ordinary consumers – Determination of misrepresentation in passing off action. (Para 36, Para 40)

Market share and economic loss – Consideration of data for evaluating damage – Impact of new products on existing market share – Market share of the respondents unaffected by the appellants’ marketing of similar products. (Para 45, Para 50)

Interference with the impugned order – Passing off action not established – Order dated 20.03.2023 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2022 set aside – Appeal allowed. (Para 52, Para 55)

Insurance claim – Repudiation of claim – Grounds for repudiation – Lack of registration certificate, route permit, and fitness certificate – Temporary registration certificate issued for newly purchased vehicle – Fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate – Lack of route permit not applicable when vehicle being moved for safe custody after purchase – Lack of valid grounds for repudiation – Decision: Repudiation of claim on the grounds of lack of registration certificate and route permit deemed invalid, as temporary registration certificate and exemption under Section 66(3)(j) of the Motor Vehicles Act applied. Lack of fitness certificate also deemed invalid as fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate for a newly purchased vehicle. (Para 26, 28-29, 37-38, 40-41, 44)

Interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 66(3)(j) – Requirement of route permit – Exemption when vehicle not used for carrying passengers or goods and being moved without any commercial purpose – Temporary registration certificate sufficient for moving vehicle for safe custody after purchase – Decision: Route permit not required when vehicle being moved for safe custody after purchase, as exemption under Section 66(3)(j) applies. (Para 28-30)

Fitness certificate for newly purchased vehicle – Deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate – No requirement for separate fitness certificate for brand-new vehicle – Repudiation on grounds of lack of fitness certificate deemed invalid – Decision: Lack of separate fitness certificate for a newly purchased vehicle deemed invalid, as fitness certificate deemed to be included in temporary registration certificate. (Para 37-38, 42-43)

Burden of proof – Insurance Company’s failure to provide evidence of vehicle carrying more passengers than allowed – Failure to make specific claims in repudiation letter and objection filed before Commission – Inference cannot be drawn without specific averments – Beneficial interpretation of Motor Vehicle Act in favor of insured – Decision: Insurance Company’s failure to provide evidence of vehicle carrying more passengers than allowed and failure to make specific claims deemed detrimental to their case. Beneficial interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Act in favor of the insured. (Para 46-47)

When two views are possible, the one favoring the insured must be preferred – Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 – Beneficial statute – Decision: In case of ambiguity or conflicting interpretations, the Court must adopt the view that favors the insured, in line with the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicle Act. (Para 48)

Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. provides that an under-trial cannot be detained for a period longer than the maximum punishment provided for the offence. The applicant had already exceeded the maximum prescribed sentence for the non-bailable offence, entitling him to release on bail. [Para 17, 34-35]

The offence under Section 389 of the IPC is a bailable offence. Considering the facts and the law, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail for both Section 384 and Section 389 of the IPC. [Para 36, 52]

The dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) does not preclude the filing of a fresh bail application if the trial extends beyond the specified period. The trial was still pending with numerous witnesses remaining to be examined, thus granting the applicant the liberty to file a fresh bail application. [Para 39, 41-42]

The applicant's failure to surrender on the specified date due to hospitalization cannot be considered a violation of bail bond conditions, as the court found the non-bailable warrant issued without verification improper. [Para 48, 50]

Alleged threats to witnesses while on interim bail did not lead to any action being taken by the State for several years. Insufficient grounds existed to deny bail for a bailable offence. [Para 51]

Bail application - Grant of regular bail - Offences under Sections 384, 389, 411, 120-B, and 34 of the IPC - Applicant charged with extortion and blackmailing complainant - FIR registered - Applicant already undergone more than three years of incarceration - Previous bail applications dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed SLP but granted liberty to file fresh bail application if trial exceeds six months - Trial pending with 42 witnesses yet to be examined - Applicant entitled to benefit of Section 436A Cr.P.C. - Bail granted. [Para 52 and 53]

Sections 436, 436A, and 389 of the Cr.P.C. - Accused entitled to release on bail for bailable offence - Undertrial cannot be detained beyond maximum punishment for the offence - Liberty granted by Supreme Court to file fresh bail application - Dismissal of SLP in limine does not constitute binding precedent - Applicant entitled to file fresh bail application - Bail granted. [Para 34, 35, and 52]

Violation of bail bond conditions - Failure to surrender due to hospitalization - Non-bailable warrant issued without proper verification - No violation of bail bond conditions - Section 436(2) Cr.P.C. not attracted - Applicant not disentitled to bail for bailable offence. [Para 47 and 48]

Alleged threats to witness while on interim bail - No action taken by State for more than four years - Witness already examined - Allegation alone does not disentitle applicant from bail for bailable offence. [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure - Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Charges under the NDPS Act - Recovery of "Commercial Quantity" of poppy pods - Consideration of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail - Prima facie satisfaction required - Likelihood of influencing witnesses or absconding (Para 9).

Falsification of Involvement - Allegation of false implication due to land dispute and previous case against police officials - Claim of innocence - Factual issues to be determined during trial - Insufficient to establish prima facie innocence for bail under the NDPS Act (Para 10 and 12).

Judicial Observation - Court's decision on bail application - Not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case - Trial to proceed independently - Bail application dismissed (Para 13).