Criminal Law – House Trespass – Assault with Firearm – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC for unlawfully entering complainant’s residence at night and threatening with a country-made pistol – Prosecution established recovery of firearm, live and fired cartridges – Eyewitness accounts by daughter (PW-2) and complainant (PW-10) corroborated by police witnesses – FSL report confirmed the firearm and ammunition fell under Arms Act – Held: Trial Court rightly convicted appellant based on reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 2–11]

Witness Testimony – Identification of Accused – PW-2 positively identified the appellant and detailed sequence of events – PW-10 (complainant) unable to identify appellant in court due to passage of time, but had identified him at the time of incident – Police witnesses confirmed arrest and recovery – Held: Prosecution not discredited merely because one witness could not identify the accused after long delay – Conviction sustainable on basis of other credible witnesses [Para 9]

Sentencing – Probation – Reformative Justice – Long Pendency – Appellant was 18–19 years old at the time of incident and has no prior record – Trial concluded after 22 years and appeal pending for 20+ years – Appellant married with six children and sole breadwinner – Supreme Court jurisprudence (Mohammad Giasuddin, Pramod Kumar Mishra, K. Pounammal) emphasizes reformative approach in long-pending matters – Held: While conviction upheld, sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year under bond of ₹10,000 with one surety [Paras 12–15]

Decision:  Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Sections 452, 324 and 506(ii) IPC upheld – Sentence modified – Appellant released on probation of good conduct for one year – All pending applications disposed of

Civil Law – Injunction – Alleged Encroachment – Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and alternate relief of possession based on alleged encroachment on Khasra No. 721 by adjoining landowners in Khasra No. 722 – Plaintiff claimed existence of 3-meter-wide vacant land between the two constructions – Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected claim based on consistent demarcation reports and Local Commissioner’s findings [Paras 2–6, 10–11].

Evidence – Demarcation Reports – Local Commissioner – Plaintiff conducted three demarcations before suit and challenged findings each time – Local Commissioner’s report filed during trial also negated encroachment – Plaintiff failed to summon or cross-examine Local Commissioner – Admission of satisfaction with demarcation recorded – Objections dismissed – Held: Findings based on evidence; no interference warranted [Paras 10–12].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope of Interference – Concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or misreading of evidence shown – Appeal admitted on substantial question of law regarding misreading of pleadings and evidence – Held: No error found, and substantial question of law answered against appellant [Paras 7, 12–14].

Decision:

Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Appellate Court dated 21.02.2015 affirmed – No interference warranted under Section 100 CPC [Paras 13–16].

Service Law – Provident Fund – Exclusion from EPF Pension Scheme – Petitioners, retired employees of Idukki and Kottayam District Co-operative Banks, challenged discontinuation of EPF pension citing exclusion under GO(MS) No.81/2009/LBR dated 30.06.2009 and introduction of Self-Financing Pension Scheme, 2005 – Held: By virtue of G.O. dated 24.09.2005 and subsequent exclusion notification, employees of State and District Co-operative Banks stood excluded from EPF and MP Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.04.2005 – They were thereafter governed by the State’s Self-Financing Pension Scheme – Contributions under EPF were already transferred to respective District Co-operative Banks [Paras 3, 10].

Pension Scheme – Effect of Judicial Pronouncements – Earlier decisions in Diwakaran v. State of Kerala, 2012 (1) KLT 633 and Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board v. Udayakumar, 2012 (3) KLT 820 held that transfer of contributions from EPF to Pension Board could be made only with employees’ consent – However, Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Udayakumar, Civil Appeal No.6575 of 2014 (order dated 24.08.2022) restricted EPF pension benefit only to 333 identified employees and those additionally recognised – Hence, claim of other employees stands concluded [Paras 4–7, 11].

EPF Scheme – Continuance of Pension – Scope of Judicial Relief – Petitioners retired prior to the exclusion notification; argued that they remain governed by the EPF Pension Scheme, 1995 – Court held that following the Supreme Court’s restriction, benefits cannot be extended to others beyond the 333 employees – Any eligible petitioners within that group may approach competent authority for restoration of benefits and transfer of their contributions; others governed only by the Self-Financing Pension Scheme [Paras 8, 11].

Final Direction – Re-transfer of Funds – Since EPF contributions have already been transferred to District Co-operative Banks pursuant to exclusion orders, it is neither feasible nor lawful to direct their re-transfer to EPFO – Writ petitions accordingly closed with observations permitting eligible employees (falling under Apex Court’s identified group) to seek relief from competent authorities [Paras 11, 16].

Decision: Writ petitions closed – Only employees covered under Supreme Court’s order dated 24.08.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6575 of 2014 entitled to continue under EPF Pension Scheme, 1995 – All others governed by Kerala State Co-operative Bank Employees Self-Financing Pension Scheme, 2005 [Paras 11, 16].

Criminal Law – Cheating – Criminal Breach of Trust – Prevention of Corruption – Recruitment fraud in TRC-ICMR – A1 (Administrative Officer) manipulated recruitment process to secure appointment of his son (A2) – Suppressed A2’s ineligibility, leaked question paper, and altered recruitment procedure – Trial Court convicted A1 and A2 under IPC and PC Act; State sought conviction under conspiracy – Held: A1 misused official position for personal gain; A2 knowingly participated in deception – Offence of cheating (S.420 IPC) proved against both; Criminal breach of trust (S.409 IPC) and offences under S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act established against A1 – Criminal conspiracy (S.120-B) proved only to the extent of S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – Sentences modified to simple imprisonment; institutional corrective directions issued to ICMR [Paras 5, 5.2–5.16, 7].

Recruitment Fraud – Misrepresentation and Suppression – A2 possessed M.A. (Public Administration) obtained through open university system, without basic degree or prescribed subjects – Falsely declared “M.A.” and claimed proficiency in Telugu – A1, being Administrative Officer, deliberately suppressed A2’s specialization during scrutiny and presentation before the Selection Committee – Held: Concealment and false representation were deliberate and material – Offence of cheating made out beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 5.3, 5.4, 5.9].

Evidence – Question Paper Leakage – Circumstantial and Technical Proof – Question papers and answer keys stored in floppy entrusted to A1 with strict confidentiality; metadata revealed unauthorized modifications on 17 & 19 July 2005; corroborated by approver (PW-15); only A2 and approver’s son scored full marks (25/25) – Defence plea of “easy paper” rejected – Held: Leakage established; breach of trust and cheating proved against A1; active participation of A2 inferred from exclusive benefit gained [Paras 5.6–5.8].

Service Law – Manipulated Circular – A1 issued internal circular for Technician post in deviation from amended recruitment rules – Omitted public advertisement and reversed “essential” and “desirable” qualifications to fit A2’s eligibility – Held: Fraud on recruitment process; vitiated selection of A2; acts amounted to misuse of official authority for personal benefit [Paras 5.10–5.15].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Standard of Proof – Court reiterates that every irregular appointment does not amount to criminal misconduct unless dishonest intention and unlawful gain are proved – In present case, cumulative circumstances and technical evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Mere suspicion insufficient, but prosecution evidence met legal standard [Para 5].

Conspiracy – Scope and Limitation – Evidence showed A1 and A2 acted in concert to cheat organisation by dishonest concealment and manipulation – However, no wider conspiracy involving other officials proved – Held: Guilt under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC sustained; conspiracy for other substantive offences not established [Para 5.18].

Sentence – Modification – A1: Convictions under S.420 IPC, S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed; sentence modified to one year’s Simple Imprisonment on each count, with fine maintained; three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC added – A2: Conviction under S.420 IPC confirmed; sentence reduced to three months’ SI; additional three months’ SI under S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC – All sentences to run concurrently; eight weeks to surrender; medical direction issued for A1 – “Being mentioned” order dated 15-10-2025 corrected A1’s age to 76 and imposed additional fine of Rs 1,000 [Para 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Institutional Accountability – Systemic Failures – Court expressed concern over ethical decline in recruitment integrity – Directed ICMR to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against A1 (including post-retirement, if permissible) and to conduct discreet audit of employee-kin appointments – Directed forwarding of judgment to DG, ICMR and Secretary, MoHFW for systemic corrective action [Para 6].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Convictions of A1 under S.420 & S.409 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) PC Act confirmed with modified sentence of Simple Imprisonment – Conviction of A2 under S.420 IPC maintained with reduced term – State appeal partly allowed by including S.120-B r/w S.420 IPC against both – Sentences to run concurrently – Medical and procedural directions affirmed [Paras 7; Corrigendum 15-10-2025].

Criminal Law – Forgery and Cheating – Loan Fraud – Proof of Partnership and Entrustment – Petitioners (A1 and A2) convicted for conspiring with absconding co-accused Sethuraman to obtain Rs.25.95 lakh loan from Central Bank of India by submitting forged mortgage deeds and fake valuation certificates – A1 claimed false implication and absence of proof of partnership – A2 contended no link to forgery or conspiracy – Held: Documentary and oral evidence of Bank Manager (PW1), Sub-Registrar (PW5), VAO (PW6), and Advocate (PW4) established that forged documents were produced and mortgage executed to secure loan – Signatures, stamp denominations, and vendor details differed from originals – Prosecution proved conspiracy and fabrication beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 11–16].

Criminal Conspiracy – Ingredients and Proof – Court reiterated that criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC requires evidence of agreement between parties to commit unlawful act – Direct proof rarely available; can be inferred from conduct, documentary links, and chain of circumstances – In present case, joint execution of loan documents, mortgage deeds, and submission of false valuation certificates proved common intention [Paras 7–10, 15–16].

Forgery – Use of Forged Documents – Responsibility of Makers – Petitioners argued that forgery not attributed to them as makers – Held: A1 and A2 actively used forged documents to avail loan and stood as partners/guarantors – Liability attaches to those who use forged instruments knowing them to be forged – Supported by Sub-Registrar’s testimony confirming discrepancies in stamp papers and seals [Paras 5–6, 15–16].

Sentencing – Modification Considering Gender and Age – While affirming conviction under all charges, Court modified sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year in view of A1’s gender and both petitioners’ age and health condition – Fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence maintained – Sentences to run concurrently [Para 17].

Decision: Criminal Revisions partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence reduced from three years to one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence – Sentences to run concurrently.

Specific Performance – Non-title Holder – Agreement Executed by Agreement-holder – Plaintiff sought enforcement against a defendant who was himself only an agreement-holder and not the actual owner – Defendant had no title or authority to convey property – Held: Such an agreement is not enforceable – Specific performance cannot be granted under Section 54 TPA and Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act [Paras 18–22, 41(a)]

Contract Law – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff did not plead or prove consistent readiness and willingness to perform his part – No evidence of financial ability or legal notice – Held: Failure to prove readiness disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief [Paras 23–27, 41(b)]

Limitation – Though suit was filed within limitation, the absence of enforceable title and readiness made limitation irrelevant to the relief – Trial court’s finding on limitation not disturbed [Paras 7, 27]

Alternative Relief – Refund of Advance – Plaintiff proved payment of ₹4,20,000 under Ex.A1 – Though specific performance was denied, refund granted under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act – Interest awarded at 9% per annum up to suit and 6% thereafter till realization [Paras 34–38, 41(c), 42(ii)]

Necessary Parties – Non-joinder – Trial court’s view that suit was bad for non-joinder of original owner rejected – Original owners were not parties to the agreement with the plaintiff – Defendant acted independently – Held: Original owners and earlier agreement-holders were not necessary parties [Paras 28–33]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Specific performance refused – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹4,20,000 with interest – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 42(i)–(v)]

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Acquittal under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appeal by the State against acquittal of accused No.1 (Jaison) under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Biju and Mohanan) under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC – Trial Court convicted accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment – Held: Trial court rightly appreciated the absence of premeditation and lack of sufficient evidence regarding intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC – Evidence showed single stab during a scuffle following a verbal altercation – No second attempt by accused to inflict fatal injury – Hence, acquittal under Section 307 IPC justified [Paras 4, 23-25].

Witness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – PW1 and PW2, both injured, consistently deposed regarding the incident and attributed the stabbing to accused No.1 – Their testimony corroborated by medical evidence (PW7, PW8) and injury certificates (Exhibits P3 & P5) – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies regarding accused Nos. 2 and 3 but consistent and credible as against accused No.1 – Held: Injured witnesses’ evidence carries greater weight and no reason found to disbelieve them with respect to accused No.1 – Conviction under Section 324 IPC upheld [Paras 9-11, 13, 15, 31, 33-34].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Acquittal of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Delay in implicating A2 and A3 – No mention of A2 and A3 in initial FIR (Exhibit P10) or doctor’s report (Exhibit P4) – Names added only later via Exhibit P15 – PW3 (independent witness) turned hostile and made no mention of A2 and A3’s presence – Delay and contradictions in the statements of PWs 1 and 2 regarding involvement of A2 and A3 create reasonable doubt – Held: Acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 justified – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 12, 26-29].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon – Knife (MO1) allegedly recovered based on disclosure by accused No.1 – Recovery not reliable – Investigating Officer failed to depose exact words of the accused or prove the disclosure statement – No independent witnesses to recovery – Held: Recovery procedure did not satisfy requirements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act – Recovery evidence discarded [Paras 17-22].

Criminal Procedure – FIR and Investigation – Initial FIR (Exhibit P10) registered under Section 324 IPC based on hospital intimation (Exhibit P4) – No mention of accused Nos. 2 and 3 – Involvement of A2 and A3 added only six days later via Exhibit P15 – Delay in recording witness statements and no explanation for non-inclusion in initial documents – Held: Such delay and omissions fatal to prosecution case against A2 and A3 [Paras 16, 27-29].

Legal Principle – Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Not Applicable in Indian Law – Argument that PWs 1 and 2’s testimony should be discarded entirely because disbelieved in part (as to A2 and A3) rejected – Held: Indian courts do not apply this doctrine – Duty of court is to separate truth from falsehood and assess credibility on a case-by-case basis [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal filed by State against acquittal of accused No.1 under Section 307 IPC and of accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 341, 324, 307 r/w 34 IPC dismissed – Appeal filed by accused No.1 against conviction under Section 324 IPC also dismissed – Conviction and sentence of two years’ imprisonment under Section 324 IPC against accused No.1 confirmed – Appeals dismissed in entirety [Paras 34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Acquittals of accused Nos. 2 and 3 confirmed – Conviction of accused No.1 under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment upheld.

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x) of Divorce Act – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Ill-treatment of husband’s children and attempt to commit suicide by wife constitute mental cruelty – Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹15,000/- per month considering husband’s income abroad [Paras 10–14].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Section 10(1)(x), Divorce Act, 1869 – Standard of cruelty uniform under all personal laws – Cruelty contemplated under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act must be understood in the same sense as under other personal laws – The law cannot recognise different degrees or types of cruelty based on religion – Right to live free from matrimonial cruelty is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution – Courts must interpret matrimonial cruelty under all personal laws in an identical manner to uphold constitutional equality [Para 11].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Ill-treatment of husband’s children – Conduct of wife towards husband’s children causing humiliation, agony and psychological trauma to the husband constitutes mental cruelty – Continuous harassment, neglect and abusive behaviour towards children justifies dissolution of marriage – Held, evidence of husband, children (PW2 & PW6) and corroborating witnesses (PW3–PW5) conclusively establish mental cruelty [Paras 10–12].

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Effect – Attempt by wife to commit suicide without reasonable cause, or threatening self-harm, amounts to cruelty – Such conduct causes emotional distress and apprehension of harm in the husband’s mind – Justifies decree of divorce [Para 13].

Cruelty – Interpretation – Constitutional Scheme – Courts must construe statutory provisions in harmony with Articles 14 and 21 – All citizens have equal right to live without matrimonial cruelty irrespective of religious denomination – Personal law cannot dilute this constitutional protection [Para 11].

Maintenance – Quantum – Criteria – While fixing maintenance, income, status and living standard of husband must be considered – Husband working at U.S. military base in Afghanistan earning more than ₹2,00,000 per month – Maintenance of ₹6,000 per month inadequate – Enhanced to ₹15,000 per month from date of petition [Para 14; Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, AIR 2025 SC 3268].

Family Law – Evidence – Appellate Interference – Where Family Court’s findings on cruelty are based on credible and corroborated oral and documentary evidence, appellate interference is unwarranted [Paras 12–14].

Decision: Divorce decree confirmed – Maintenance enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month – Mat. Appeal No.596/2019 and RP(FC) No.149/2023 dismissed – RP(FC) No.384/2019 partly allowed [Para 14].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Petitioners arrested with 112.270 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, and in custody for 182 days – No application filed by the Public Prosecutor seeking extension of detention under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act – Held: In absence of a report from the Public Prosecutor seeking extension beyond 180 days with reasons and progress of investigation, petitioners acquire an indefeasible right to bail – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 8–12]

Statutory Bail – Right under Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Petitioners remained in judicial custody beyond the statutory 180-day period without the prosecution filing for extension – Held: Right to bail becomes enforceable in the absence of valid prosecutorial request – Custody beyond 180 days without extension is illegal – Bail cannot be denied on apprehensions alone if investigation is substantially complete and witnesses examined are official [Paras 9–11]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed strict bail conditions including execution of bonds, weekly appearance at the police station, restriction on travel outside the state, and prohibition from influencing witnesses or committing any further offence – Held: Conditions necessary to balance liberty of accused with the interest of investigation and justice [Para 11]

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 granted bail subject to strict conditions including personal bonds, weekly reporting, restriction on travel, and cooperation with investigation.