Criminal Law - Rape – Section 376(2)(g) IPC - Proof of Penetration – Sine qua non – Slightest penetration sufficient – Medical indicators (smegma, hymen) explained – The Court reiterated that penetration, even to the slightest degree within the labia, completes the actus reus of rape – Rupture of hymen or emission is not necessary – Presence of smegma after 24 hours loses significance; if present, it may negative recent complete penetration; hymen elasticity/variation and injuries to labia majora are relevant considerations – Held: In the present case, specific evidence of penetration was absent – conviction under Section 376(2)(g) not sustainable [Paras 6–7, 12–13].

Attempt to Commit Rape – Section 511 IPC – Distinction between intention, preparation and attempt – Attempt begins when preparations are complete and the accused commits an act directly moving towards commission – Requires determination to gratify passion “at all events” notwithstanding resistance – On facts, material did not show determination to have sexual intercourse in all events – Section 376/511 not attracted [Paras 8–11, 13].

Prosecutrix’s Testimony – Corroboration – Hostile witnesses – A prosecutrix is not an accomplice and her testimony can by itself found conviction – Court may seek assurance if version is difficult to accept at face value – Hostility of witnesses does not render their entire testimony effaced – In the instant case, discrepancies between FIR/statement and deposition and lack of penetration evidence weakened the rape charge [Paras 5, 12].

Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty – Ingredients and standard – Use of criminal force with intention/knowledge to outrage modesty is sufficient – Acts like pulling a woman, removing dress, sexual overtures can amount to outraging modesty; the crux is the accused’s culpable intention/knowledge – On the evidence, case made out under Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 13–15].

Sentencing – Conversion from Section 376(2)(g) to Section 354/34 IPC – Custodial sentence of two years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 each and three months’ RI in default held to meet the ends of justice [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Conviction altered from Section 376(2)(g) IPC to Section 354 read with Section 34 IPC – Sentence: two years’ RI each, fine Rs. 500 each, and three months’ RI in default [Para 15].

Criminal Law - Appeal Allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act set aside – Courts below erred in relying on doubtful recovery evidence – Prosecution failed to establish chain of custody of cartridges, bullets and pistol – Recovery from open space near place of occurrence not credible – Several discrepancies in investigation corroded prosecution case – Held: Accused entitled to acquittal, bail bonds discharged [Paras 10, 18].

Section 27, Evidence Act – Scope and Limits – Only that portion of information leading directly to discovery of fact is admissible – “Fact discovered” includes object, place of recovery and accused’s knowledge thereof – But cannot include inadmissible confessional parts – Recovery by itself seldom sufficient to form foundation of conviction – Must be corroborated by other links of evidence [Paras 11, 13-17].

Recovery Evidence – Panch witnesses turned hostile – Recovery made from open space accessible to all, in close proximity to place of occurrence – Implausible that police missed weapon for three weeks – Chain of custody of cartridges and bullets unexplained – Seals affixed belatedly at police station, raising suspicion – Forensic evidence unreliable – Held: Recovery not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7-10].

Chain of Custody – Empty cartridges recovered on 11.4.1979, bullets extracted during post-mortem, but all deposited with forensic lab only on 12.5.1979 – Custody during interim period unexplained – Inconsistencies in sealing process – Fatal to prosecution case [Paras 10, 18].

Section 27 – Principles Restated – As laid down in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 and followed in Mohmed Inayatullah, Udai Bhan, Prabhu, Santa Singh and K. Chinnaswamy Reddy – Recovery evidence is only one link in chain of proof, cannot be treated as sole foundation of conviction [Paras 11-17].

Decision – Prosecution evidence unreliable and riddled with discrepancies – Conviction unsustainable – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 18].

Criminal Law - Appeal allowed – Conviction under Sections 302, 364, 323/34 IPC set aside – Courts below erred in relying on purported dying declaration which was unproved, unreliable and contradicted by medical evidence – Prosecution failed to establish kidnapping, murder or assault – Benefit of doubt extended to appellants – Accused Hamir Singh directed to be released forthwith, bail bonds of Narain Singh cancelled [Paras 7-10].

Dying Declaration – Section 32(1), Evidence Act – Exception to rule against hearsay – Must pass test of reliability – Cannot be accepted if inconsistent with medical evidence, circumstances, or not proved to be recorded properly – In this case, original statement not produced, only carbon copy exhibited – Doctors (PWs 12, 19) opined deceased not fit to give long detailed statement – Investigating officer himself uncertain whether he recorded it – Held: Not safe to base conviction on such declaration [Paras 7-9].

Eyewitnesses – PWs 7, 8 and 15 – All turned hostile and did not support prosecution version – PW-7 (alleged injured witness) denied role of accused – PW-15 (informant and advocate) departed from earlier statements – Held: Prosecution version unsupported by direct evidence [Paras 3-4, 8].

Motive – Though motive of land dispute existed between appellants and deceased, motive alone cannot sustain conviction – Courts below erred in applying different standards to acquitted co-accused and appellants solely on motive – Suspicious distinction rejected [Paras 8-9].

Recovery of Weapons – Lathi and Khukri allegedly recovered – Doctor (PW-19) stated injuries not possible by such weapon – Recovery not credible – Held: No corroboration to prosecution case [Para 9].

Decision – Prosecution failed to establish charges under Sections 364, 302, 323/34 IPC – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Hamir Singh to be released unless required in other case, bail bonds of Narain Singh cancelled [Para 10].

Limitation Law – Applicability of Articles 58 vs. 113 – Suit for Refund – Declaration of Excess Freight by Tribunal – Special Leave Petition filed and dismissed by Supreme Court – Held: Limitation begins from final appellate order and not Tribunal’s order – Article 113 applies, not Article 58 – Time spent in bona fide writ proceedings and pendency before Supreme Court excluded – Suit held within limitation – [Paras 6 to 21]

Limitation – Doctrine of Merger – Starting Point of Limitation – Applicability of Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Suit Within Time – The Tribunal held the freight charges levied by the Railways unreasonable – The Railways filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1970 – The respondents filed a writ petition which was dismissed in 1973 and later filed suits for refund in 1973 and 1974 – Held: The limitation did not commence from the Tribunal’s decision but from the date of the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP – The doctrine of merger applied – Article 113 (residuary) was applicable, not Article 58 – The suit was filed within limitation [Paras 14–21, 43–44].

Article 136 – Appeal before Supreme Court – Impact on Finality of Tribunal's Decision – Stay Not Material – Once special leave is granted and appeal is entertained by the Supreme Court, the correctness of the lower court’s decision is under review – Its finality is in jeopardy – Held: Whether or not stay is granted is immaterial; once appeal is admitted, merger applies and limitation runs from the final appellate decision [Paras 13–15, 22–23, 42].

Sections 14 and 15, Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Bona Fide Proceedings in Wrong Forum – Applicable to Writ Proceedings – The respondents prosecuted their claim bona fide through a writ petition before filing the suit – Held: Time spent in writ proceedings is excludable for the purpose of limitation under Section 14 – Suit was not barred [Paras 16–18].

Article 58 vs. Article 113 – Distinction – Suit for Refund Not a Declaratory Relief – Article 113 Applies – The claim for refund based on Tribunal’s declaration does not fall under Article 58 as no independent declaration was sought in the suit – Held: Article 113 applies where no specific limitation is prescribed elsewhere – Time begins when right to sue accrues, not when it first arises [Paras 19–21].

P.K. Kutty Case – Overruled – Tribunal's Decision Not Final When SLP Is Pending – Supreme Court’s Judgment Determines Limitation – The Court overruled P.K. Kutty Anuja Raja v. State of Kerala, holding that it was incorrect in laying down that limitation begins from the date of the Tribunal’s decision – Held: Where SLP is granted, finality is reached only with the Supreme Court’s decision – Earlier ruling ignored merger doctrine and binding Constitution Bench precedents [Paras 41, 45].

Limitation – Liberal and Just Construction – Narrow Technical Interpretation Discouraged – The Court emphasised a common-sense and equitable approach to limitation issues – Technical interpretation should not override substantive justice especially where parties act bona fide [Paras 27–28].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Licence or Tenancy – Agreement of 1976 styled as licence but conferred exclusive possession with rights to construct, install utilities and renew – Held tenancy in disguise attracting West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – Eviction decree without notice under Section 13(6) or grounds under Section 13(1) invalid – High Court rightly exercised powers under Sections 100 & 103 CPC – Appeal dismissed, parties to bear own costs.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41 Rule 23, Sections 100 & 103 – Second Appeal – Scope – High Court can interfere only on substantial question of law – Where core issue (tenancy or licence) raised but not adjudicated by first appellate court, substantial question of law arises – High Court justified in invoking Section 103 CPC to determine issue of tenancy. [Paras 8-9, 11]

Licence or Tenancy – Determination – Nomenclature not decisive – Intention of parties and surrounding circumstances to prevail – Agreement granting exclusive possession for business in residential area, for monetary consideration, with right to install electricity/telephone and extend structure, and clause for renewal – Held, transaction amounted to tenancy in disguise, not licence – Occupants not trespassers. [Paras 7, 9]

West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 13(1), 13(6), 2(h) – Tenancy covered by Act – Lease cannot be terminated merely under Transfer of Property Act – Eviction only on statutory grounds under Section 13(1) and after notice under Section 13(6) – In absence, eviction decree is a nullity. [Paras 9-10]

Plea of Tenancy – Rejection of amendment to written statement in second appeal not fatal – Issue of tenancy already framed before trial court and argued before appellate courts – Non-adjudication by first appellate court warranted High Court’s decision under Section 103 CPC. [Para 11]

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 65 – Referred to in context of substantial question of law – Principle reiterated: failure of first appellate court to decide core issue (e.g. tenancy/adverse possession) gives rise to substantial question of law. [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Subsequent expiry of 11-year agreement during pendency – Not ground to mould relief for eviction when suit was founded on licence theory which failed – Entire substratum of eviction suit collapsed. [Para 10]

Result – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs. [Para 12]

Civil Law – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Transferee Pendente Lite – Entitlement to Seek Relief – Appellant challenged the maintainability of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by Respondent No. 4, who had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the civil suit – Trial court had set aside the ex-parte decree against the original defendants (vendors of Respondent No. 4), and condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act – High Court upheld this decision – Appellant argued that only the original defendants could apply under Order 9 Rule 13 and not a third-party transferee – Held: A transferee pendente lite is a representative-in-interest of the defendant under Section 146 CPC – Entitled to seek setting aside of the decree – Mere non-impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC does not bar such right [Paras 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 15]

Representative-in-Interest – Scope of Section 146 CPC – Section 146 enables proceedings to be taken by a person claiming under a party to the suit – A transferee pendente lite from the defendant is such a person – Can invoke Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside decree passed against his transferor – Beneficent provision to be construed liberally to advance justice [Paras 7, 10, 11, 12, 13]

Lis Pendens – Doctrine under Section 52 TPA – Effect on Transferee – Sale during pendency of litigation does not affect the rights of the decree-holder – Transferee bound by the result of litigation – But can also challenge decree if aggrieved and claiming under the defendant [Paras 5, 6, 9]

Discretion under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Discretionary Nature – Transferee pendente lite not automatically entitled to be impleaded – However, absence of impleadment does not affect his right under Section 146 CPC – Court distinguishes case where impleadment was refused due to violation of restraint order [Paras 8, 14]

Limitation – Delay Condonation under Section 5 – Trial Court found sufficient cause to condone delay in application under Order 9 Rule 13 – Finding upheld by High Court – Supreme Court did not interfere, terming it a question of fact [Para 16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Respondent No. 4 held to have locus standi to file application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC – No costs awarded [Para 17]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Confiscation Proceedings – Forest produce/vehicles seized – Authorized Officer initiated/confiscation contemplated under WB-inserted Sections 59A–59G – High Court, invoking Section 482 CrPC, directed interim release/custody – Held: Confiscation proceedings form a self-contained code – On initiation, criminal court’s jurisdiction over custody/release is barred by Section 59-G – High Court cannot exercise Section 482 CrPC in such matters – Remedy lies in statutory appeal/revision and judicial review – Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Parties at liberty to pursue remedies in confiscation proceedings [Paras 20, 26-34, 37-39, 47-48].

Confiscation vs. Criminal Trial – Independent remedies – Confiscation under Section 59-A(3) may proceed irrespective of prosecution/acquittal – Acquittal does not ipso facto nullify confiscation – Distinction between confiscation (civil liability) and forfeiture (post-conviction) emphasized [Paras 34-37, 43-45].

Section 482 CrPC – Inherent power limited to matters pending before a criminal court – Once confiscation is initiated, Magistrate’s jurisdiction over custody/release is excluded by Section 59-G – High Court cannot order release under Section 482 – Only judicial review of confiscation orders is open [Paras 31-34, 47].

Statutory Scheme & Safeguards – Notice to registered owner and opportunity to show absence of knowledge/connivance mandatory (Section 59-B) – Appeal to District Judge under Section 59-D with finality clause – Despite finality, judicial review maintainable – Confiscation not automatic; valid seizure and satisfaction regarding forest offence required [Paras 26-28, 27, 46].

Environmental Purpose – Purposive interpretation to protect forests and ecology – Articles 48A and 51A(g) guide construction – Strict release norms for vehicles involved in forest offences reiterated [Paras 21-24, 38-39].

Analogy with Essential Commodities Act – Bar on court interference during confiscation and limited interim release principles noted – Release before completion of confiscation/prosecution would defeat statutory scheme [Paras 40-41].

Maintainability & Article 136 – Discretion not declined – Distinction between confiscation proceedings and criminal findings preserved – Matter remitted to statutory forum where notices found defective to proceed afresh [Paras 43, 45-46].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Parties free to raise permissible objections before the Authorized Officer/Appellate authority – No orders for release under Section 482 CrPC maintainable once confiscation is initiated [Para 48].

Land Acquisition – Determination of Market Value – Comparable Sale Instances – Reliance on Stamp Duty Valuation Improper – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued in 1988 and award passed in 1990 – Land Acquisition Officer relied upon a sale deed within the acquired land fixing compensation at Rs. 15.37 per sq. yard – Reference Court enhanced to Rs. 150 per sq. yard relying on District Magistrate’s circle rates and Stamp Officer’s valuation of Rs. 120 per sq. yard – High Court further enhanced to Rs. 170 per sq. yard applying 15% annual increase – Held: As per Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer (1994), circle rates or stamp duty valuations cannot determine market value under Section 23 – Comparable sale deeds alone relevant [Paras 2-7].

Evidence Act – Section 92 – Sale Deed Binding – Party Cannot Contradict Own Document – Respondent himself purchased portion of acquired land in 1984 at Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard – Under Section 92, it was not open to him to contend actual value was Rs. 120 per sq. yard contrary to his own registered deed – Permitting such plea would encourage undervaluation and dishonesty [Paras 5, 7].

Compensation – Potentiality of Land – Permissible Increase – Fixation at Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard – Evidence showed nearby petrol pump, cold storage, highway access, and rising construction – High potentiality justified enhancement – 15% annual increase over four years on Rs. 15.40 (not Rs. 120) correct – Market value fixed at Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard with solatium and statutory benefits – Orders of Reference Court and High Court set aside [Paras 3, 8].

Uniformity of Compensation – Same Notification – Extension to Connected Appeals – Where land acquired under the same notification and no comparable sale evidence led, to maintain uniformity compensation fixed at Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard as in Civil Appeal No. 7463 of 1997 – Appeals disposed accordingly [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation finally fixed at Rs. 24.64 per sq. yard with statutory benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 8-11].

Right to Information – Article 19(1)(a) – Fundamental right recognised – subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Court affirms that the right to information is a facet of freedom of speech and expression – international instruments (UDHR, ICCPR, ECHR) noted – but the right is not absolute and yields to security and public interest exceptions – Held: Right to information fundamental but circumscribed by Article 19(2) [Paras 45–48, 55–57, 59–62].

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 – Section 18 – Restriction on disclosure – Validity – Intra vires – Provision contains intelligible criteria specifying the class of information and fields (plants, processes, methods) where disclosure may be restricted – sufficient guidance gleaned from the statute’s preamble, scheme and Sections 3, 16, 17, 23, 27 – presumption of constitutionality applies – Held: Section 18 neither unguided nor overbroad – a reasonable restriction in the interest of national security and public safety [Paras 35–44].

AERB Report – Plea for disclosure – National security sensitivity – Court notes report classified ‘Secret’ under Order dated 04/02/1975 issued under Section 18(1) – affidavits show the 130 “issues” are technical safety items across four categories with agreed action plans and ongoing oversight – disclosure risks reverse engineering of strategic capability and sabotage – existing public domain disclosures via AERB newsletters/annual reports considered adequate – Held: No direction to disclose – classification and non-disclosure sustained [Paras 2–12, 34, 64–66, 80–81].

Evidence Act – Sections 123 and 162 – Privilege for affairs of State – Balancing test – Court reiterates two-step inquiry: whether the unpublished document relates to affairs of State and whether disclosure would injure public interest – court—not the executive—ultimately balances competing aspects of public interest in justice and secrecy – class claims possible but never absolute – Applied to facts, privilege upheld over AERB report [Paras 67–79].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 136 – Limited in matters of State security and privilege – absent mala fides, extraneous considerations, or irrationality, courts defer to statutory classification and privilege claims – Offer to produce report in sealed cover noted but perusal found unnecessary – Held: No ground to interfere with High Court’s refusal [Paras 66, 80].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Section 18 of the Atomic Energy Act upheld – claim of privilege sustained – no disclosure directed – no order as to costs [Para 81].