Motor Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Insurer’s Right of Recovery – Fake Driving Licence – Owner’s Due Diligence – High Court’s Finding of Collusion Set Aside – Driver of appellant’s truck involved in fatal accident allegedly held fake licence – High Court allowed insurer to recover compensation from vehicle owner based on inference of collusion and breach of policy conditions – Supreme Court held: Mere production of licence by owner or absence of driver’s testimony insufficient to infer collusion or breach – Tribunal rightly found no willful breach or lack of due diligence – Evidence showed owner had produced licence and certificate of renewal – Insurer failed to prove owner knew licence was fake or failed to verify credentials – No pleading or proof of absence of due care by employer – Precedents (Lehru, Swaran Singh, PEPSU RTC, Geeta Devi) reiterated – Held: Insurer liable to pay compensation without right of recovery from vehicle owner [Paras 1–3, 7–10, 11–17].

Motor Accident Claims – Composite Negligence – Liability Apportionment – Truck and Matador Van Found Negligent – Tribunal’s finding of 75:25 composite negligence between truck and Matador upheld – Compensation apportioned accordingly – Findings not interfered with – Supreme Court confined its interference to “pay and recover” direction [Paras 1, 5–6].

Insurance Law – Burden of Proof – Policy Breach – Requirement of Pleading and Evidence – Insurer must establish breach of condition by insured with cogent evidence – No statutory or contractual obligation on vehicle owner to verify authenticity of driving licence with RTO – In absence of proof of lack of due diligence or deliberate entrustment to unlicensed driver, insurer cannot claim recovery from insured – High Court’s approach found flawed [Paras 10, 13–17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s direction granting right of recovery to insurer set aside – Compensation to be paid and borne by insurer – Other directions including quantum of compensation remain undisturbed [Paras 18–19].

Civil Law – Commercial Dispute – Rejection of Written Statement – COVID-19 Limitation Extension – Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses – Appellant (Defendant No. 1) denied right to file written statement in Commercial Suit due to expiry of 120-day period under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Trial Court rejected I.A. seeking condonation, disallowed cross-examination, and passed decree against Appellant – High Court affirmed decree – Held: Courts below erred in failing to consider COVID-19 limitation orders passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 – Right to cross-examination not extinguished solely for non-filing of written statement – Matter remanded to Trial Court for adjudication on merits [Paras 1, 4, 13, 23, 30, 31, 32].

Procedural Law – Filing of Written Statement – Mandatory Period of 120 Days – Commercial Courts Act – Appellant served with summons on 17.07.2021 – Statutory period ended on 14.11.2021 – Written Statement filed on 07.01.2022 – Trial Court rejected same citing bar under proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Held: Both dates fell within the COVID-19 limitation exclusion period (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) as declared by Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) 3 SCC 117 – Hence, rejection of Written Statement is unsustainable – Defendant entitled to file Written Statement on record [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30].

Procedural Law – Cross-Examination – Denial of Right Due to Absence of Written Statement – Trial Court disallowed cross-examination of PW1 on ground that Written Statement not filed – Held: Denial of right to cross-examination violated principles of natural justice – Even in absence of Written Statement, defendant retains limited right to cross-examine witnesses to contest plaintiff’s case – Reliance placed on Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, 2024 INSC 724 [Paras 17, 31].

Limitation – COVID-19 Pandemic – Exclusion of Time – Supreme Court had categorically excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for purposes of limitation under all general and special laws – Courts below failed to give effect to binding directions under Article 142 of Constitution – Error apparent in rejecting Written Statement as time-barred [Paras 15, 28, 29, 30].

Practice & Procedure – Purpose of Procedural Law – Courts must adopt liberal approach where rigid application of procedure results in denial of substantive justice – Technicalities must yield to justice – Defendant was denied fair opportunity to contest claim – Commercial Court’s order caused grave prejudice [Paras 2, 3, 19, 32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned High Court judgment dated 20.05.2025 and Trial Court decree dated 15.11.2022 quashed qua Defendant No. 1 – Suit remanded to Trial Court – Appellant permitted to file Written Statement on payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as costs – Appellant also permitted to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses – Trial Court directed to dispose of suit within 6 months [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder of Minor – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 7-year-old girl – Trial court’s conviction confirmed by the High Court – Supreme Court set aside conviction due to glaring lapses in investigation, procedural violations, and unreliability of circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal granted [Paras 1–85]

Fair Trial – Violation of Right to Counsel – Appellant was unrepresented when charges were framed – Legal aid counsel appointed only on 13.12.2017, four days before commencement of prosecution evidence – Trial completed within one and a half months – No real opportunity to prepare defence – Trial court ignored mandate under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 207 CrPC – Held: Trial conducted in gross violation of fair trial rights [Paras 34–38]

Sentencing – Death Penalty – Procedure Violated – Trial court sentenced appellant to death on same day as conviction without proper sentencing hearing – No psychological assessment, no jail conduct report, no analysis of aggravating or mitigating circumstances – High Court mechanically affirmed death penalty – Held: Sentencing process legally flawed and cannot be sustained [Paras 39–40]

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Sole witness Murugan (PW-3) claimed he saw appellant with victim before disappearance – Did not disclose this fact to victim’s parents or police – Only mentioned to second IO nearly three months later – Held: Witness’s conduct unnatural and testimony unreliable – Theory of last seen together appears concocted and planted [Paras 44–46, 73]

CCTV Evidence – Alleged Suspicious Movement – CCTV footage from nearby temple allegedly captured appellant carrying a bag on a bike – Footage never collected or exhibited – Contradictions between PW-1 and PW-6 regarding who saw it and when – IO (PW-29) silent on CCTV – Held: CCTV theory appears fictional – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution for withholding evidence [Paras 47–51, 66]

Confessional Statement – Disclosure and Recovery – Confession made allegedly in public park in presence of officials – Witness (PW-7) admitted police told her contents of confession before it was recorded – Complainant (PW-1) knew exact details of the crime even before confession – Held: Confession appears scripted and fabricated – Recovery of body and articles not in consequence of voluntary disclosure – Not admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act [Paras 52–60]

Evidence – Confession Illegally Recorded – IO allowed to narrate entire confession in court, including details of sexual assault and murder – Held: Grossly illegal – Only discovery-related portions are admissible – Complete reproduction of confession violates Section 25 of Evidence Act – Highly prejudicial to accused [Paras 61–63]

Recovery – Undergarments and Ornaments – Recovery of victim’s undergarments and jewellery allegedly at appellant’s instance – No mention of blue bag in initial mahazar – No sealing of recovered articles – No Test Identification Parade – Held: Recoveries appear planted – No evidentiary value [Paras 55–56, 65]

Forensic Evidence – Chain of Custody Broken – No record of sealing, safe custody or transmission of samples – Malkhana In-charge not examined – Forensic officer (PW-28) admitted semen survives only 48 hours, but samples collected much later – Held: DNA evidence unreliable due to compromised integrity of samples – Cannot be relied upon [Paras 69–71, 75–79]

Investigation – Serious Procedural Flaws – IO failed to search appellant’s flat promptly – No attempt to verify appellant’s office attendance records – No identification parade conducted – No call detail records procured – Contradictions in timing of arrest and confession – Held: Investigation not fair or impartial – Evidence tainted [Paras 54, 66, 72–74]

Presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act – Not Attracted – Jewellery allegedly belonging to victim recovered from appellant – No proper identification process – Recovery itself suspicious – Held: No presumption can arise under Section 114 due to doubtful recoveries [Paras 55, 56]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Conviction and death sentence of appellant quashed – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case [Paras 83–85]

Criminal Law – SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Anticipatory Bail – Bar under Section 18 – Applicability to Accused Added under Section 319 CrPC – Jurisdiction of High Court – Respondent added as accused under Section 319 CrPC in case involving offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act – High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC – Held: Once summoned under Section 319 CrPC, the respondent assumes status of an accused for all offences in the case, including those under the 1989 Act – Bar under Section 18 on consideration of anticipatory bail applies – High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain or grant anticipatory bail in absence of a finding that no prima facie case under the 1989 Act was made out – Order granting anticipatory bail unsustainable [Paras 4–10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Effect of Summoning Order – Scope – Where the order summoning the accused under Section 319 CrPC was not under challenge before the High Court, its validity could not be tested incidentally in anticipatory bail proceedings – High Court erred in overlooking the binding nature of the summoning order [Paras 5, 10].

Judicial Review – Scope under Section 438 CrPC – Limits in presence of Statutory Bar – In offences under the SC/ST Act, anticipatory bail is impermissible unless the Court first records a finding that no prima facie case under the Act exists – Mere allegations of false implication insufficient to dilute the statutory bar [Paras 7, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail set aside – Respondent at liberty to appear before Trial Court and seek regular bail, to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law [Paras 10–11].

Electricity Act – Theft of Energy – Presumption under Section 39 – Use of Artificial Means Not Established – Reversal of Acquittal Unwarranted – Accused, a company director, was convicted by High Court under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act on the basis of alleged tampering with the meter box and abnormal electricity consumption – Supreme Court held: Presumption under Section 39 arises only when existence of artificial means is proved – Evidence by prosecution witnesses including MSEB officials lacked certainty – Witnesses relied on approximations and inferences – No direct proof of tampering or dishonest abstraction of energy – Presumption under Section 39 not triggered – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 13–15].

Electricity Act – Meter Tampering – Section 44 – Insufficient Proof – Conviction Reversed – High Court invoked Section 44(c) against accused based on existence of holes in meter box – Supreme Court held: No evidence that holes were made or used by accused or his company – No witness saw accused or staff interfering with meter – No conclusive evidence of fraudulent alteration or use of energy – Charge under Section 44 not established beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt must go to accused [Paras 16–17].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Standards for Interference – High Court Must Show Perverse Findings or Miscarriage of Justice – Supreme Court reiterated that reversal of acquittal requires strong reasons such as perversity or grave miscarriage of justice – Trial Court had correctly evaluated lack of concrete evidence – High Court erred in reversing acquittal without compelling grounds – Appeal allowed, acquittal restored [Paras 11–12, 17].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment dated 15/10/2010 convicting appellant under Sections 39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – All pending applications disposed of [Para 17].

Railway Accident Compensation – Bonafide Passenger – Burden of Proof – Prima Facie Ticket Verification Sufficient – Concurrent Rejection of Claim Set Aside – Deceased allegedly fell from a running train due to overcrowding and sustained fatal injuries – Railway Claims Tribunal and High Court rejected claim for compensation citing failure to prove bonafide passenger status – No ticket recovered from body; photocopy of ticket doubted due to lack of seizure memo or witness proof – Supreme Court held: Affidavit of widow and DRM report verifying ticket issuance discharged claimants’ initial burden – Once foundational facts shown, burden shifts to Railways to disprove – Mere absence of ticket or procedural lapses insufficient to deny compensation – Proceedings under Section 124-A governed by preponderance of probabilities, not strict criminal standards [Paras 9–14].

Strict Liability – Section 124-A of Railways Act – Untoward Incident – Compensation Not Defeated by Technical Lapses – Once official railway report or police records verify travel ticket linked to date and location of incident, it amounts to prima facie proof of bonafide travel – Railways failed to rebut such evidence – Presumption under Section 124-A applies – Welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally to ensure access to compensation – Technicalities like missing seizure memo cannot override substantive justice under beneficial statute [Paras 10–15].

Judicial Precedents – Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha – Affirmed – Claimant Need Only Establish Initial Burden – Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi and Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India to reaffirm legal position – Claimants can discharge burden through affidavits and documentary evidence; Railways then must rebut – Deceased’s ticket verified in DRM report, and post-mortem confirmed accidental death – High Court and Tribunal erred in disregarding such material [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 16/01/2023 and High Court order dated 15/05/2024 set aside – Appellants held entitled to compensation – Union of India directed to pay ₹8,00,000 within 8 weeks, failing which interest at 6% p.a. from date of order will apply – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16].

Oral Gift (Hiba) – Validity under Mohammedan Law – Plaintiff claimed title over 10 acres via oral gift by her mother and inheritance to rest of the land – High Court reversed Trial Court’s finding on gift without cross-appeal – Held: Oral gift invalid as essential condition of delivery of possession not proved – No contemporaneous action like mutation or exclusive control demonstrated – Plaintiff’s claim under Hiba rejected [Paras 34–39]

Evidentiary Law – Section 50 Evidence Act – Status of Plaintiff as daughter – Plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence to establish relationship with donor – Trial Court and High Court erroneously relied on oral testimony of interested witnesses without applying triple test of relevancy, admissibility, and credibility – Held: Finding on Plaintiff’s lineage perverse and unsupported by credible evidence – Relationship not proved [Paras 22–33]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – High Court modified Trial Court decree and upheld validity of oral gift, enhancing Plaintiff’s ownership – Held: In absence of cross-appeal, High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant enhanced relief – Trial Court’s finding on oral gift stood untouched – Decree modification without cross-appeal is impermissible [Paras 16–21]

Limitation – Suit Barred – Challenge to 1995 registered sale deeds and claim of ownership filed in 2013 – No steps taken for mutation or assertion of possession for nearly two decades – Held: Plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 of Limitation Act – Constructive notice and long delay fatal to Plaintiff’s case [Paras 40–48]

Possession and Mutation – Mutation records continuously in Defendants’ names since 1995 – Plaintiff never recorded as owner or cultivator – Absence of mutation or possession inconsistent with valid oral gift – Held: Consistent revenue records favoring Defendants demonstrate absence of possession or ownership by Plaintiff [Paras 38–39]

Article 136 – Scope of Interference – Though appellate interference with concurrent findings is limited, where appreciation of evidence is perverse or based on assumptions without legal foundation, Supreme Court may reappreciate evidence – Findings of High Court and Trial Court on key issues found unsustainable [Paras 14–15]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Suit OS No. 212 of 2013 dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking evidence of valid oral gift or status – No costs – Pending applications disposed of [Para 49]

Criminal Law – PMLA – Quashing at Pre-Trial Stage – Alternate Remedy – ECIR did not name appellants and CBI dropped them in supplementary report – ED complaint rests on alleged withdrawal of attached sums (post-PAO) linked to an identified quantum ₹33,80,87,617/- claimed as proceeds of crime – Held: With statutory appeals under Section 26 PMLA pending and PMLA being a self-contained mechanism, interference to quash cognizance is unwarranted – Issues whether the attached amount is “proceeds of crime” and effect of withdrawals are for Appellate Tribunal – Appeals disposed of; liberty to pursue statutory remedies; no costs [Paras 33-41].

PMLA – Provisional Attachment & Confirmations – Statutory Scheme – Court reiterates that Section 5 (provisional attachment), Section 8 (confirmation), and Section 26 (appeal) comprise a comprehensive adjudicatory path – Constitutional/appellate jurisdiction ordinarily not exercised where efficacious remedy exists and is actively pursued [Paras 34-35].

PMLA – Proceeds of Crime – Scope and Identification – Core question is confined to whether the specified sum ₹33.80 crore (unpaid consideration for iron ore supplied by AMC) is “proceeds of crime” and whether its post-PAO withdrawals constitute an offence under Section 3 – Apprehension that entire banking operations are tainted is misplaced where payments were through regular channels and in the books; determination falls within Tribunal’s domain [Paras 37-38].

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance & Summons – Where allegations are confined to recovery of quantified amount and do not presently fasten wider criminal liability, apprehension of arbitrary prosecution is misplaced – No ground made out to quash cognizance or interdict proceedings at this stage [Para 39].

Practice & Procedure – Writ/Appeal vs. Statutory Forums – Court declines to prejudge issues pending before Appellate Tribunal; proceedings may continue uninfluenced by observations in the judgment; appeals disposed of with liberty; no order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Decision: Appeals disposed – No interference with ED proceedings/cognizance at this stage – Appellants at liberty to pursue PMLA appeals – No costs – Pending applications disposed [Paras 40-43].

Taxation – Works Contract – Transfer of Property in Goods – Printing of Lottery Tickets – Appellant engaged in printing lottery tickets using ink and chemicals procured by itself while paper was supplied by contractee – Assessing Authority levied tax under Section 3F(1)(b) of U.P. Trade Tax Act on ink and chemicals – Appellate Authority and Tribunal deleted levy holding such materials “consumed” and not transferred – High Court reversed holding ink and chemicals passed to customers as part of printing – Held: Tax under Section 3F(1)(b) is on goods involved in execution of works contract, not on end product – Lottery tickets being actionable claims immaterial – Ink and chemicals adhering to paper are transferred “in some other form” – Hence liable to tax [Paras 34–37, 52–56, 67–73].

Works Contract – Constitutional Scope – Article 366(29-A)(b) – After 46th Amendment, indivisible works contract deemed divisible into sale of goods and supply of services – Dominant intention test irrelevant – States empowered to tax transfer of property in goods “whether as goods or in some other form” – [Paras 21–33, 60–63].

Consumables – Meaning and Deduction – Only those consumables whose property is not transferred (e.g., water, electricity, fuel) are deductible – Ink and chemicals incorporated in printing process are not “consumables” but goods transferred in execution of works contract [Paras 61–64].

Interpretation – Moment of Transfer – Transfer of property occurs when contractor’s goods are incorporated in the “works” – Later consumption or transformation of goods immaterial – Taxable event is the deemed sale at the point of incorporation [Paras 59–63].

Precedents – Followed Builders Association of India v. Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 645; Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1993) 1 SCC 364; Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2014) 1 SCC 708; State of Maharashtra v. Sarvodaya Printing Press Fine Art Printer (1999) 114 STC 388 – Overruled Rainbow Colour Lab v. State of M.P. (2000) 2 SCC 385 to the extent inconsistent [Paras 25–33, 57–58].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upholding levy of tax affirmed – Appellant liable to pay tax on ink and processing material under Section 3F(1)(b) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 – [Paras 70–74].