Criminal Law - Murder - Last Seen Theory - Appeal against conviction - Appellants convicted of murder based on the last seen theory, corroborative evidence from fingerprints, foot track moulds, and DNA matches - Held, last seen theory gains immense vigor when corroborated by credible witness testimony and expert reports - Conviction upheld. [Paras 10-12, 27, 31]

Identification and Corroboration - Analysis - Held, in a circumstantial evidence case, credible witness testimony combined with expert evidence on fingerprints and DNA strongly supports the prosecution's case - No need for a test identification parade if the accused are identified in court and not effectively cross-examined on their identity. [Para 36(1)]

Disclosure Statements and Recoveries - Significance - Analysis - Held, recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, when not proven to be false or planted, add significant probative value to the prosecution's case - Expert reports on fingerprints and DNA further corroborate the disclosures. [Paras 16-19, 24-25]

Foot Track Moulds - Expert Matching - Analysis - Held, expert matching of foot track moulds with footwear of the accused establishes their presence at the crime site - Even if moulds do not match for one accused, other corroborative evidence maintains the prosecution's case integrity. [Para 36(2)]

Decision - Affirmation of Conviction and Sentence - High Court dismisses the appeal, upholding the trial court's conviction and sentencing - Orders immediate execution of sentence for convicts on bail. [Paras 37-39]

Criminal Law - Common Object - Group Armed with Weapons - Appeals against conviction under Sections 148, 307, 307/149, 323, 323/149, 324, and 324/149 IPC - Group armed with weapons causing injuries - Medical evidence supported multiple injuries - Common object inferred from prior assembly and armed presence - Conviction upheld, but some appellants given benefit of the doubt due to lack of specific injury attribution. [Paras 28, 41]

Common Object and Weapon Use - Analysis - Held, presence of accused with weapons and causing injuries suggests prior common object - No need for specific injury attribution to each accused if group acted with common intent - Injury caused by individual knife blows attributed to specific accused only. [Paras 24-25]

Compensation to Victims - Analysis - Held, compensation awarded considering injuries suffered by complainant and others - Appellants directed to deposit compensation amounts - Distribution to injured parties after issuance of notices. [Paras 41]

Decision - Conviction and Sentence Upheld with Modifications - Appeals partly allowed - Conviction of main appellants upheld, but sentences modified to time already served - Compensation ordered - Two appellants acquitted due to lack of evidence. [Paras 34-42]

Right to Travel Abroad - Issuance of LOC - Writ petition challenging the LOC issued against the petitioner by the Bureau of Immigration at the instance of UCO Bank - Held, right to travel abroad flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, and a high threshold is required to deny this right - LOC cannot be issued merely on the grounds of being a willful defaulter without any cognizable offence - Petition allowed. [Paras 36, 40-43]

Grounds for Issuing LOC - Analysis - Held, LOC can be issued for committing cognizable offences where the accused deliberately evades arrest or does not appear before the trial courts despite non-bailable warrants - Mere non-payment of loan dues does not meet the high threshold required to curtail the fundamental right to travel abroad - Petitioner not involved in any criminal case and no FIR registered against him. [Para 36, 41]

Decision - Quashing of LOC - High Court quashes the LOC issued against the petitioner and permits him to travel abroad for two months - Orders the expunging of any remarks/endorsement related to the LOC from the petitioner's passport - Petition allowed with conditions for the petitioner to deposit a FDR/TDR of Rs. 10 lakhs valid for one year. [Paras 45-46]

Criminal Procedure - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Amendment and Cognizance - Petition against the summoning order issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act - Held, the amendment to the Act effective from 26.01.2016 confers additional powers to the Special Court to take cognizance directly - Pre-amendment provisions applicable to the complaint since the occurrence pertained to a period before the amendment - Cognizance taken by the Magistrate after the amendment does not vitiate the proceedings - Petition dismissed. [Paras 13, 22, 23]

Application of Pre-Amendment and Post-Amendment Law - Analysis - Held, the amended Act does not have retrospective effect - For offences committed prior to the amendment, pre-amendment provisions apply - The Special Court rightly remitted the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance correctly as per applicable law. [Para 22]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses the petition, upholding the cognizance taken by the Magistrate post-amendment as valid - The proceedings are not vitiated by the amendment's provisions. [Paras 23-24]

Criminal Law - Conviction and Sentencing - Identification Parade - Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Appellants argued lack of identification parade vitiated the trial - Held, identification in court by eyewitnesses, supported by corroborative evidence (weapon recovery, post-mortem report, FSL report) sufficient - No need for separate identification parade - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 15-17, 27]

Eyewitness Testimony and Corroborative Evidence - Analysis - Held, testimonies of PW-4 and PW-6 consistent and credible - Recovery of weapon and medical evidence aligned with witness accounts - Prosecution's case established beyond reasonable doubt despite absence of test identification parade - Convictions upheld. [Paras 15-17]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - High Court finds no merit in the appeal - Convictions and sentences upheld - Appellants to serve remaining sentences - No grounds for interference with trial court's judgment. [Para 28]

Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Case - Convenience of Wife – Held, it is well settled that the convenience of the wife is paramount in considering the transfer of cases. The petitioner, having no independent source of income and a minor school-going daughter, faces difficulty in attending court proceedings at Ropar, 80 km from Ludhiana. The petition is allowed, and the criminal complaint is transferred to Ludhiana. [Paras 1-9]

Consideration of Wife's Convenience – Analysis – Held, the convenience of the wife must be prioritized, especially when she has a minor child and no independent income. The respondent, a serving constable in Punjab Police, filed a criminal complaint in Ropar to harass the petitioner. Transfer of the case to Ludhiana, where the petitioner resides, is justified to ensure she can attend court proceedings without undue hardship. [Para 7]

Decision - Transfer of Criminal Complaint – The court directs the transfer of Criminal Complaint No. 288/5.9.2012 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar to a court of competent jurisdiction in Ludhiana. The trial court at Ropar is instructed to send the complete record to the District Judge, Ludhiana, within two weeks. [Para 9]

Civil Law - Presumption of Truthfulness in Revenue Records – Appeal against the First Appellate Court's judgment – Plaintiff-respondent's suit for permanent injunction was initially dismissed by the Trial Court, but decreed by the First Appellate Court on the basis of presumption attached to jamabandi entries – High Court found that presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries was rebutted by orders from revenue authorities (Ex.D1 and Ex.D3) – Held, the First Appellate Court erred in law by disbelieving the orders of the revenue authorities – Second appeal allowed, and the suit dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Correction of Revenue Records – Analysis – Held – Defendants successfully rebutted the presumption attached to revenue records by obtaining orders from revenue authorities correcting the girdawari entries – Revenue authorities' orders indicated that defendants were in possession of the disputed land – First Appellate Court's reliance on the presumption in favor of plaintiff was misplaced as it failed to acknowledge the binding nature of the revenue authorities' orders. [Para 11]

Decision – Restoration of Trial Court’s Judgment – The High Court restored the Trial Court’s judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit and set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment – Plaintiff’s claim of possession based on revenue records was effectively rebutted by subsequent administrative orders favoring the defendants – Appeal allowed with costs. [Para 12]

Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Fraudulent Compromise - Petition challenging cancellation of bail granted on compromise terms - Held, bail granted based on false assurances and non-fulfillment of compromise terms amounts to fraud - Cancellation of bail justified - Petition dismissed. [Paras 12-14]

Bail Conditions and Fraudulent Conduct - Analysis - Held, failure to comply with compromise terms, including dishonored cheque, shows petitioners' dishonest intention - Fraudulent conduct justifies bail cancellation - No relief granted. [Para 13]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - High Court dismisses petition challenging bail cancellation - Bail granted based on fraudulent compromise - Petitioners played fraud with complainant and court - Bail rightly canceled - Petition dismissed. [Paras 14]

Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 100 - Right of private defence of the body extending to causing death - Appellant’s claim of using his double barrel gun in self-defence rejected due to lack of injury on appellant and evidence that deceased were on complainant’s land - Court held appellant to be the aggressor - Appellant’s theory considered an afterthought and concocted - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-28]

Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 105 - Nature of burden of proof when claiming benefit of general exception - Appellant required to prove his case on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant failed to discharge this burden - Plea of self-defence not accepted. [Para 12-25]

Assessment of Evidence - Analysis of injuries and site plan - Medical evidence and site plan supported prosecution’s case - Injuries on complainant and deceased consistent with prosecution’s version - Appellant’s plea of self-defence contradicted by physical evidence and lack of corroboration. [Paras 18-24]

Decision - Conviction Upheld - High Court upheld the trial court’s verdict convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 323 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act - Appeal dismissed and sentences affirmed. [Paras 26-28]