Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Section 396 IPC – Appellants convicted for committing dacoity at house of Pohap Singh during intervening night – One Summera died due to firearm injuries and nine persons sustained injuries – FIR promptly lodged naming five appellants and one Kunji along with six unknown persons – Trial Court convicted appellants – High Court on reappraisal found prosecution story improbable and identification doubtful – Conviction set aside [Paras 22, 30-32, 44-45].

Identification – Visibility in Electric Light – Prosecution case that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces – Accused known to witnesses and one appellant resident of same village – Court held it unnatural and against human conduct that known dacoits would commit crime openly without concealing identity – No evidence produced from electricity department to prove availability of power supply at 2:00 a.m. – Identification unsafe to rely upon [Paras 31-33, 35, 43].

Enmity – Double-Edged Weapon – Motive alleged that appellant Hardayal bore grudge as Pohap Singh had helped Deepa after Hardayal eloped with his wife – Will executed and cancelled by Hardayal in favour of informant’s son – Held: Enmity can be motive for crime as well as false implication – In present case, prior animosity raised serious doubt regarding false implication [Paras 38-40].

Recovery – Non-Recovery of Looted Property – Despite prompt FIR and raids conducted, no looted ornaments, cash or valuables recovered from appellants – No incriminating material seized – Failure to connect accused with stolen property weakens prosecution case in dacoity [Paras 22, 30, 33].

Withholding of Material Witness – Non-Examination of Pohap Singh – Dacoity allegedly committed at his house – Prosecution failed to examine him without explanation – Adverse inference drawn – Prosecution version rendered doubtful [Para 41].

Appreciation of Evidence – Inherent Improbabilities – Courts must assess probabilities and intrinsic circumstances – Story that accused committed dacoity in electric light without covering faces and without recovery of stolen property held improbable – Prosecution version found artificial and fabricated – Benefit of doubt extended [Paras 32, 36-38, 42, 44].

Abatement – Appeal against one appellant Hardayal already abated due to death – Remaining appellants entitled to acquittal – Directed to furnish bonds under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 481 BNSS) [Paras 46-47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellants Amar Singh, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Bahori and Biri Singh acquitted – Hardayal’s appeal abated – Bail bonds cancelled subject to compliance under Section 481 BNSS.

Civil Law – Decree Against Dead Person – Nullity – Plaintiff obtained ex parte decree dated 31.5.2022 declaring ownership by adverse possession against Sushila Mehra who had died on 02.04.1996 – Suit instituted and decreed against a dead person – Applying ratio of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade and Ashok Transport Agency – Held: Decree passed against a dead person is a nullity and confers no right, title or interest – Such nullity can be set up whenever and wherever decree is sought to be enforced – Trial court erred in treating earlier decree as binding and executable [Paras 38, 43].

Mutation and Payment of House Tax – No Conferment of Title – Plaintiff relied upon house tax receipts and acceptance of tax by Nagar Nigam – Disputed property recorded as “Muraga Khana” in municipal records – Held: Mutation entries and payment of municipal taxes are only for fiscal purposes and do not create or extinguish title – Ownership must be independently proved – Mere acceptance of tax does not validate claim of ownership [Paras 39-41, 29-31].

Adverse Possession – Tenant Claiming Ownership – Impermissibility – Plaintiff admitted that his father entered property as tenant/licensee under Sushila Mehra in 1969 and rent was paid till 1996 – Held: Possession of tenant is permissive and cannot be converted into adverse possession against landlord unless clear hostile assertion and surrender of tenancy proved – Tenant cannot deny title of landlord – Trial court erred in declaring ownership on basis of adverse possession in earlier suit [Paras 32, 42, 28].

Evidence – Death Certificate – Rejection on Hyper-Technical Ground – Defendants produced copy of death certificate and documents from Delhi High Court proceedings showing death of Sushila Mehra in 1996 – Trial court rejected death certificate as photocopy – Held: Death and birth certificates are ordinarily produced in certified copies – No conceivable benefit to Nagar Nigam in fabricating such certificate – Rejection of document was perverse and unjustified – Trial court ignored material evidence [Paras 35-37, 44].

Mandatory Injunction – Reliance on Void Decree – Plaintiff sought direction to enter his name in property register on strength of void ex parte decree – Held: Since foundational decree was a nullity, no consequential relief could be granted – Trial court acted in total disregard of settled legal principles – Impugned decree unsustainable [Paras 34, 43].

Judicial Conduct – Observations – High Court found reasoning of trial court shocking and perverse – Directed placement of matter before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned trial Judge [Paras 44, 47].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 13.05.2025 passed in O.S. No. 960 of 2024 set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed with costs throughout – Matter directed to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate administrative action against the concerned Trial Judge.

Patents – Revocation – Effect of Revocation – Whether Retrospective – Section 64 permits revocation either by standalone petition or by counter-claim in infringement suit – Consequence in both cases identical – Revocation invalidates grant itself – Operates in rem and dates back to date of grant – Patent treated as if never existed – Grounds under Section 64 relate to inherent invalidity of grant – Held, revocation acts retrospectively and effaces patent ab initio [Paras 54-58, 63-66].

Patents – Expiry of Patent – Maintainability of Revocation Petition – Whether revocation can be instituted or continued after patent has expired – Section 64 uses expression “a patent” and not “patent in force” – Definition of “patent” under Section 2(m) refers to patent granted – Expiry by efflux of time does not denude it of character as granted patent – Revocation, if allowed, nullifies grant from inception and impacts claim for damages in pending infringement suit – Person sued for infringement continues to be “person interested” under Section 2(1)(t) – Held, revocation petition maintainable and survives expiry of patent [Paras 67-72, 90(i)].

Patents – Revocation vis-à-vis Invalidity Defence – Section 64 and Section 107(1) – Distinction – Revocation under Section 64 (whether by petition or counter-claim) results in removal of patent from Register and operates in rem – Invalidity defence under Section 107(1) is inter partes and does not automatically efface patent from Register – Section 151 distinguishes transmission of revocation orders and findings in suits – Held, taking Section 107 defence does not bar institution or continuation of revocation petition – Remedies distinct though grounds may overlap [Paras 88-89, 90(ii)].

Patents – Revocation and Counter-Claim – Application of Aloys Wobben – Supreme Court in Aloys Wobben held revocation petition and counter-claim for same relief cannot be simultaneously pursued – Principle based on avoidance of parallel remedies and res judicata – However, mere raising of Section 107 invalidity defence is not equivalent to filing counter-claim – Held, Aloys Wobben does not bar revocation petition where only Section 107 defence taken [Paras 80-86].

Patents – Infringement Suit – Expiry of Patent – Claim for Damages – Expiry of patent during pendency of suit extinguishes right to injunction but not claim for damages for acts during subsistence of patent – Consequently, defendant retains live interest in seeking revocation ab initio to defeat damages claim – Revocation petition not rendered academic [Paras 72, 90(i)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge dated 15.01.2025 upheld – Revocation petition under Section 64 maintainable despite expiry of patent and despite invalidity defence under Section 107(1) having been raised in infringement suit – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner (Accused No.14) absconded during trial – Co-accused (Accused Nos.1-13, 15-21) tried and acquitted on 30.08.2025 – Trial Court held prosecution failed to prove conspiracy, motive, presence and recovery – Independent witnesses turned hostile – No cogent, coherent or convincing evidence to establish chain of circumstances – Held: When entire prosecution case collapsed and co-accused acquitted on merits, continuation of split-up proceedings against similarly placed accused would be futile – Proceedings quashed [Paras 7-9].

Circumstantial Evidence – Failure to Establish Complete Chain – Trial Court relied on principles in Hanumant v. State of M.P., Govindareddy v. State of Mysore and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Panch witnesses did not support recovery – No proof of conspiracy under Section 10 of Evidence Act – Independent witnesses hostile – Held: Prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis of innocence – Benefit extended to petitioner on parity [Para 7].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Prevention of Abuse of Process – Though absconding accused ordinarily required to face trial, Court may exercise inherent powers to save precious judicial time where inevitable result of trial would be acquittal in view of earlier judgment on identical evidence – Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process [Para 9].

Murder and Unlawful Assembly – Sections 302, 143-149 IPC – Entire case rested on circumstantial evidence – With acquittal of all other accused and total failure of prosecution evidence, split-up case cannot survive independently on same material [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Petition allowed – Proceedings in S.C. No.1529/2021 pending before I/c LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru quashed qua petitioner (Accused No.14) – Petitioner entitled to be set at liberty – Registry directed to communicate order to jail authorities for release in accordance with law [Para 10].

Penal Code, 1860 – S. 376 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Ss. 3, 4 – Rape of 8-year-old child – Medical opinion vs. Legal definition – The appellant was convicted for house trespass and rape of a minor – The defense contended that the medical officer (PW-9) opined only an "attempt" to have sexual intercourse was made, thus a conviction under Section 376 IPC/Section 3/4 POCSO was unsustainable – Held: To constitute the offence of rape, complete penetration of the penis with emission of semen or rupture of the hymen is not a legal prerequisite – Partial penetration within the labia majora or the vulva is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of law – The presence of a 1 cm x 1 cm lacerated wound on the genital region and blood-stained clothes of the victim clearly established the commission of the offence – Conviction upheld. [Paras 14, 21, 24]

Evidence Act, 1872 – Minor Victim’s Testimony – Reliability – The victim, a student of Class-III, gave a consistent account of the assault – Her testimony was corroborated by her mother (PW-2), brother (PW-3), and neighbors (PW-4, PW-5, PW-6) who witnessed her in a state of distress with bleeding injuries immediately after the incident – No evidence of prior enmity was found to suggest false implication – Held: The oral testimony of a child victim, if found credible and corroborated by medical evidence of injury and immediate conduct of witnesses, is sufficient for conviction. [Paras 6, 11, 21-23]

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Determination of Age – The victim’s date of birth was recorded as 08.08.2005 in the Scholar Register of the Government High School – The incident occurred on 17.02.2014 – Held: The prosecution successfully proved through documentary evidence (Ex. P-6) and oral testimony that the victim was below 10 years of age at the time of the incident – The age of the victim was not effectively challenged by the defense. [Paras 5, 6]

Decision: The High Court found no merit in the appeal. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court (R.I. for Life and R.I. for 5 years under Sections 376 and 450 IPC respectively) were affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Civil Procedure – Restoration of Appeal – Dismissal for Default – Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance of plaintiff and counsel – Application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC filed by advocate along with affidavit – Delay of 90 days sought to be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Lower appellate Court dismissed applications holding advocate cannot file sworn affidavit on behalf of party – Held: Advocate holding vakalatnama is competent to file affidavit in matters within his knowledge and to present restoration petition – Impugned orders set aside – Appeal directed to be restored and disposed of on merits [Paras 9-12].

Advocate’s Authority – Scope of Vakalatnama – Order III Rule 1 CPC – Advocate duly authorized by vakalatnama can make appearance, application or act on behalf of client – No absolute prohibition on advocate filing affidavit in support of application when facts are within his knowledge – Advocate assumes role of witness and may be subjected to cross-examination if necessary – Practice of rejecting petitions solely on ground that affidavit filed by counsel is unsustainable [Paras 10-12].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 Limitation Act – Petition for restoration filed with delay of 90 days – Dismissal of delay petition solely on ground of affidavit filed by counsel held erroneous – Courts should adopt liberal approach where dismissal occurred due to counsel’s default and party should not suffer for fault of agent – Delay condonation and restoration petitions held maintainable [Paras 6, 10-12].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Reliance on earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Courts – Ratio in T. Krishnaswamy v. Maniyamma and other decisions clarifies competence of advocate to file affidavit – Contrary reliance on Premier Chemical Industries case distinguished – Lower Court failed to properly appreciate settled legal position [Paras 10-11].

Decision: C.M.A. No.466 of 2019 and C.R.P. No.1932 of 2019 allowed – Orders dated 02.04.2019 in I.A. Nos.736 and 737 of 2017 in A.S. No.35 of 2017 set aside – Lower appellate Court directed to restore appeal and dispose of same on merits expeditiously – Petitioner directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

Civil Law - Partition – Settlement Deed Creating Life Estate and Vested Remainder – Settlement deed conferred life interest on mother without power of alienation and vested remainder on her sons and their male progeny – Both sons predeceased life estate holder – Held, vested rights accrued on date of settlement and not contingent – Death of vested remaindermen before possession does not defeat their interest – Their widows and legal heirs entitled to succeed to such vested shares – Life estate holder had no right to execute relinquishment deed – Relinquishment ineffective – Trial Court decree upheld [Paras 41-46, 55-56].

Family Status – Validity of Marriage – Presumption from Cohabitation – Appellant claimed to be legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu – Oral evidence of herself, relatives and tenant coupled with documentary evidence (criminal proceedings describing her as wife) proved marriage – Long cohabitation raises strong presumption of valid marriage – No cross-appeal against trial court finding – Held, appellant is legally wedded wife – Finding affirmed [Paras 25-27].

Legitimacy and Heirship – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be son born to Madhavarao and Anjamma – Evidence of mother, independent witness and admissions of defendants established marriage and paternity – Presumption in favour of marriage where parties lived together as husband and wife – No rebuttal by cogent evidence – Held, plaintiff proved to be son and legal heir of Madhavarao [Paras 28-33].

Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will must satisfy Section 68 Evidence Act read with Section 63 Succession Act – Scribe and two attesting witnesses examined – Evidence established that testatrix gave instructions, Will was read over, thumb impression affixed in presence of attestors and attested accordingly – No suspicious circumstances – Held, Will duly proved – Beneficiary entitled to share of testatrix [Paras 34-39].

Limited Estate – Power of Alienation – Life estate holder cannot convey better title than possessed – Settlement deed conferred only right of enjoyment without power of alienation – Relinquishment deed executed by life estate holder held ineffective – Vested remainder could not be defeated by such relinquishment – Rights of widows and son of predeceased vested remaindermen protected [Paras 42-45, 55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – Respondent cannot seek larger relief in appeal without filing cross-appeal or cross-objections – Trial Court findings regarding shares accepted for over two decades – Held, in absence of challenge, respondents cannot seek modification of decree to claim entire property – Appeals confined to grounds raised by appellant [Paras 49-53].

Decision: A.S. Nos. 804 and 820 of 2002 dismissed – Common judgment and decree dated 09.09.1998 in O.S. Nos.13 and 18 of 1986 confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Confirmed – Accused Nos.1 and 2 convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for inflicting multiple sword blows on vital parts of deceased – Ocular evidence of wife (PW-2) corroborated by independent witness (PW-5) regarding chase with blood-stained swords – Medical evidence established homicidal death due to penetrating chest injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Recovery of swords under Section 27 Evidence Act and FSL report confirming deceased’s blood on weapons and clothes of accused – Held: Complete and unbroken chain of circumstances proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Paras 23, 26, 29, 36].

Ocular Evidence – Related Witness – Minor Contradictions – Testimony of complainant-wife found substantially reliable despite minor discrepancies regarding sequence and attribution of blows – Such variations held natural in traumatic incident – Core prosecution case remained intact and corroborated by independent evidence – Principle of “sifting grain from chaff” applied [Paras 14, 26-27].

Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon – Swords recovered at instance of accused from bushes – Even though some panch witnesses partly hostile, recovery sustained through panchnama, Investigating Officer’s testimony and FSL corroboration – Discovery distinctly connected with information given by accused – Recovery held reliable incriminating circumstance [Paras 20, 30-31].

FSL Evidence – Blood Stains – Serological report established deceased’s blood group on clothes of accused Nos.1 and 2 and on recovered swords – Accused failed to explain incriminating circumstance in Section 313 CrPC statements – Adverse inference drawn – Scientific evidence formed clinching link in chain [Paras 22, 32].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Prior quarrel and threats established motive – Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly chased and assaulted deceased with deadly weapons on vital parts – Acts done with knowledge and intention likely to cause death – Offence squarely falls under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – No Exception to Section 300 attracted [Paras 13, 23, 29].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Interference – Accused No.3 acquitted of charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC – Evidence insufficient to establish shared common intention to commit murder – Her role limited to quarrel and assault on complainant – Applying principles in Chandrappa and Rajesh Prasad, no perversity found in acquittal – State appeal dismissed [Paras 33-35, 36.1].

Decision:

Criminal Appeal No.1515 of 2013 (by accused Nos.1 and 2) dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment with fine confirmed – Accused to surrender within six weeks.

Criminal Appeal No.1315 of 2013 (by State against acquittal of accused No.3) dismissed – Acquittal confirmed.

Civil Law - Eviction – Reasonable Requirement – Anticipated Retirement – Landlord sought eviction for own use for business upon husband’s impending retirement – Contention that future requirement is no requirement – Held: Requirement certain to arise in reasonably foreseeable future satisfies test of reasonable requirement – Claim neither fanciful nor exaggerated – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras relating to Q. XIV, discussion on Mono Ranjan Dasgupta].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found reasonable requirement and valid service of notice – No perversity or error of law demonstrated – Held: Concurrent findings demand no interference in second appeal [Final paragraphs before dismissal].

Notice to Quit – Service by Registered Post – Postal endorsement “Not Claimed” – No plea of absence or shifting from premises – Held: Endorsement “not claimed” amounts to valid service when notice properly addressed and tendered – Presumption of service sustainable – Tenancy validly determined [Discussion referring to Madan & Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand; Subhas C. Mitra].

Death of One of Legal Heirs of Tenant – Joint Tenancy – Decree against Dead Person – All legal heirs of original tenant were impleaded – On death of widow, other joint tenants remained on record – Held: Tenancy devolves as joint tenancy – Decree against one joint tenant binds all – Suit does not abate – Decree not a nullity [Discussion under Additional Substantial Questions XVII & XVIII; reliance on Suresh Kumar Kohli].

Order XXII CPC – Abatement – Where other legal heirs of deceased tenant already on record, non-substitution of one heir does not vitiate decree – Joint decree permissible – No error by First Appellate Court in rejecting plea [Relevant discussion on applicability of Order XXII Rule 7 CPC].

Relief – Delivery of Possession – Appellants directed to vacate within 60 days from drawing up of appellate decree – In default execution permissible – Liberty granted to Respondent to claim mesne profits in separate suit.

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court as affirmed by First Appellate Court upheld – Appellants directed to deliver possession within sixty days – Liberty to Respondent to initiate execution and to institute separate suit for mesne profits – All connected applications disposed of.