Power Under Section 319 CrPC – Summoning After Conclusion of Trial – Permissibility and Effect – Whether summoning is valid post-trial – Applicability of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Guidelines – Section 319 CrPC empowers courts to summon additional accused during trial based on evidence recorded – The power must be exercised before conclusion of trial – Held: The summoning order issued 13 years after the original trial’s conclusion is without jurisdiction – However, when a revisional court sets aside the trial court’s rejection of a Section 319 application, the revisional order relates back to the date of the trial court’s order – This ensures that the summoning order is deemed to have been passed before trial completion, thus complying with the ruling in Sukhpal Singh Khaira [Paras 47-54, 83-93].

High Court’s revisional power under Sections 397-401 CrPC – Scope and limitations – Revisional jurisdiction is corrective and not expansive – The High Court in revision set aside the trial court’s rejection of a Section 319 application 11 years after trial conclusion, directing reconsideration – Held: A revisional order must be passed before trial concludes – However, once a revisional court sets aside the rejection of a Section 319 application, it substitutes the original order and relates back to the date of the trial court’s rejection – This ensures the trial court does not become functus officio for reconsidering the application despite trial conclusion [Paras 75-89, 102-105].

Interplay between Section 319 and Revisional Jurisdiction – Legal Consequences – Once trial is concluded, any pending revision against rejection of a Section 319 application ordinarily becomes infructuous – The High Court cannot direct a trial court to summon an accused after the main trial has ended – However, when a revisional court directs reconsideration of a Section 319 application, the order relates back, making the trial court’s reconsideration legally valid – Held: In such cases, newly summoned accused must face a separate trial under Section 319(4) CrPC [Paras 90-96, 101-106].

Opportunity to be heard before summoning – Whether mandatory – The High Court set aside the rejection of the Section 319 application without issuing notice to the proposed accused – Held: At the initial stage of a Section 319 application, a proposed accused has no right of hearing – However, if the application is rejected by the trial court, and later set aside in revision, the proposed accused must be heard before being summoned – Failure to provide an opportunity violates Section 401(2) CrPC and principles of natural justice [Paras 108-114].

Separate Trial for Summoned Accused – Compliance with Section 319(4) CrPC Proceedings Against Summoned Accused – Whether Joint Trial Required – Since the original trial concluded before summoning, the newly summoned accused must face a separate trial – Held: Section 319(4)(a) mandates a fresh trial, including re-examination of witnesses, ensuring no prejudice is caused – A joint trial is not mandatory; a separate trial can be conducted if the original trial has concluded [Paras 96, 105, 115].

High Court’s delay in deciding a revision against a Section 319 rejection – Effect on trial process – The revision petition was pending for 11 years, causing significant procedural complications – Held: Courts must prioritize revisions on Section 319 applications to avoid undue delays in criminal trials – Trial courts should stay proceedings if a Section 319 revision is pending, and High Courts must expedite such revisions to ensure timely justice [Paras 106-107].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s revisional order, setting aside the trial court’s rejection of the Section 319 application and affirming the summoning order issued by the trial court – The trial court is directed to proceed with the separate trial of the newly summoned accused under Section 319(4) CrPC – Courts are advised to expedite revisions under Section 319 to prevent procedural delays.
 

Election Law – Discrepancy in Vote Counting – Justification for Recount – Appellant, a candidate for ‘Gram Pradhan,’ challenged election results due to inconsistencies in votes cast and counted – Polling booths 43, 44, and 45 recorded 1,194 votes cast as per oral communication from the Presiding Officer, but official Form 46 showed 1,213 votes – Allegation that 19 extra votes were illegally inserted – High Court set aside the order for recount, citing lack of documentary evidence – Supreme Court held that unexplained discrepancies in vote count justify recount to maintain election integrity [Paras 4-7, 14-18].

Electoral Fairness – Missing Election Records – Adverse Inference – Appellant sought official records under the Right to Information Act, 2005 – Assistant Election Officer failed to produce the ‘Matpatra Lekha’ and Presiding Officer’s Diary, citing inability to locate them – Supreme Court held that the missing records raise serious doubts regarding electoral transparency and warrant recounting – Held: Electoral documents must be preserved and made available for scrutiny in case of disputes [Paras 5.3, 16-17].

Legal Framework for Recount – Standards Under Election Law – Court reiterated that recount orders must satisfy two conditions:
(1) Material facts must establish specific irregularities, and
(2) There must be prima facie evidence to justify recounting – Cited precedents where recount was ordered only in cases of concrete discrepancies – Applied these principles to hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s recount order was legally sound and High Court erred in interfering [Paras 12-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Writ-C No. 35734 of 2022 set aside – Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order for recounting votes in Booth Nos. 43, 44, and 45 restored – Registrar General of the High Court directed to ensure compliance – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 19-20].
 

Temple Management Dispute – Jurisdiction of Civil Court Prevails Over Executive Orders – The dispute over the control of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev Va Dauji Maharaj Temple was pending before the civil court, with an injunction maintaining the status quo – The Allahabad High Court directed the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate to implement an earlier executive order transferring the temple to the Gram Sabha – Held: When civil litigation is pending, the executive authorities cannot decide ownership or possession disputes; the High Court erred in overriding the civil court’s jurisdiction [Paras 6-9, 14].

Gram Sabha’s Authority Over Public Property – Procedural Non-Compliance – The respondents relied on Sections 34 and 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, to claim Gram Sabha’s management rights over the temple – The Supreme Court held that for the Gram Sabha to initiate legal proceedings, a formal resolution was required under paragraph 128 of the Gram Sabha Manual – Held: Since no such resolution was passed, the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the Gram Pradhan in her personal capacity [Paras 10, 15].

Failure to Consider Prior Judicial Orders – High Court’s Erroneous Approach – The High Court disregarded prior orders of the Additional District Judge, which had recognized the civil court’s jurisdi’tion and directed a status quo – The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to reference or consider these judicial findings – Held: High Courts must ensure that orders do not contradict existing judicial decisions, particularly in pending litigation [Paras 12-14].

Public Interest Litigation in Private Disputes – Limits on Writ Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court observed that the High Court treated the writ petition as a public interest litigation despite its private nature – Held: A dispute over temple management between two rival committees does not constitute a public interest matter warranting extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 [Paras 15-16].

Directions for Expeditious Disposal of Civil Suit – Status Quo to Continue – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh, to decide the pending civil suit within six months – Till then, the interim order maintaining the status quo would continue [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The High Court’s order was set aside, and the civil court was directed to resolve the dispute within six months.

Criminal Law - Murder – Dying Declaration – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Sustained – The deceased suffered a fatal gunshot wound and, before succumbing, named the accused as his assailants before PW-1 (his wife) and PW-2 (his brother) – Both witnesses provided consistent testimonies regarding the deceased’s statement – Held: The dying declaration was credible and reliable, forming the basis for conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 6-9, 14].

Dying Declaration – No Requirement for Medical Certification – Admissibility Upheld – The defense argued that no dying declaration was recorded by the doctor – The Court held that a formal medical certification is not mandatory for the admissibility of a dying declaration – The spontaneous and voluntary nature of the statement to close family members was sufficient to establish its reliability – Held: Absence of medical certification does not affect the validity of a dying declaration [Paras 7, 10].

Ballistic Report – Failure to Match Bullet with Firearm – Not Fatal to Prosecution’s Case – The forensic report was inconclusive regarding whether the bullet extracted from the deceased's body was fired from the recovered pistol – However, since the dying declaration was credible, this forensic gap did not undermine the case – Held: Conviction can be based on a dying declaration alone if found reliable, even in the absence of corroborating forensic evidence [Paras 13, 15].

Common Intention – Presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Crime Scene – Section 34 IPC Attracted – The deceased identified three accused, stating they were present when accused No.1 shot him – The Court held that their presence and conduct supported the prosecution’s case of common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held: The conviction of all accused was justified as they shared a common intention in committing the crime [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – The Supreme Court found no error in the Trial Court and High Court’s findings – The appeals were dismissed – Accused directed to surrender within one month to serve the remainder of their sentence – Directed that when eligible, their remission applications be considered expeditiously [Paras 18].

Criminal Law - Preventive Detention – PITNDPS Act - Detenus Already in Judicial Custody – No Material to Show Likelihood of Bail – Detention Orders Quashed – The detenus were already in judicial custody at the time of passing the detention orders – The detaining authority failed to record any cogent material suggesting that there was a likelihood of them being released on bail – Held: Preventive detention cannot be used as a substitute for criminal prosecution unless there is a real possibility of release on bail—Detention orders held illegal and quashed [Paras 8-9, 12-13].

Preventive Detention – Violation of Article 22(5) – Failure to Communicate Grounds in a Language Understood by Detenus – Orders Invalid – The detenus were served detention orders in English, a language they did not understand – Though the authorities claimed oral explanation in Nagamese, this did not satisfy the constitutional requirement of effective communication – Held: As per the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench ruling in Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, grounds of detention must be provided in a language the detenus can read and understand—Detention orders set aside [Paras 11, 14].

Non-Application of Mind – Detaining Authority Merely Endorsed Police Proposals – Orders Invalid – The detaining authority did not independently record grounds of detention but merely relied on police proposals – This violated the statutory requirement under Section 6 of the PITNDPS Act, which mandates that separate and specific grounds must be framed – Held: The detention orders were passed mechanically without due application of mind and are therefore invalid [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Detention Orders Quashed – Detenus Directed to be Released – The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s judgment upholding the detention orders – The detention orders dated 30.05.2024, and subsequent extensions, were quashed – Detenus directed to be released immediately unless required in any other case [Paras 17].

Civil Law - Contempt of Court – Violation of Undertaking – Appellants Held Guilty of Disobedience – The appellants’ counsel gave an undertaking before the Trial Court on 11th July 2007 and 13th August 2007 that they would not alienate the suit property – The undertaking was later made into a court order on 17th November 2007 and extended periodically – Despite this, the appellants executed multiple sale deeds between 2007 and 2011 – Held: The High Court rightly held the appellants guilty of contempt for willful disobedience of the undertaking given to the court [Paras 3, 6, 12].

Plea of Lack of Authorization – Rejected – Advocates’ Authority in Court Proceedings – The appellants argued that their counsel gave the undertaking without express authorization – The Court rejected this claim, holding that an advocate-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and any statement made before the court is binding unless proven otherwise – Held: The appellants’ inaction for four years after the undertaking was given showed that they accepted it – No evidence was presented to show that the counsel acted beyond his authority [Paras 9-11].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Justified Exercise – Orders of the Court Must Be Obeyed – The Court reaffirmed that contempt jurisdiction exists to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and enforce compliance with court orders – Even if an injunction order is later set aside, disobedience during its validity remains punishable – Held: The High Court correctly exercised contempt jurisdiction in punishing the appellants for disregarding their undertaking and violating the court’s authority [Paras 7, 13].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Imprisonment Deleted, But Fine Enhanced – The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order – The three-month civil imprisonment imposed on appellant No.1 was deleted due to advanced age (68 years) – However, the fine was increased from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.13 lakhs with 6% interest from 2nd August 2013 – The attachment of the suit property remained undisturbed [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Belting Method – Improper Application – Belting principle applied by the Reference Court and affirmed by the High Court – Held: Inappropriate in the present case as no evidence proved distinct belts or potential for differential use within the acquired land – The entire land was homogeneous and similar in nature – Belting method discarded [Paras 22-24].

Comparable Sale Instances – Reliance on Pre-Acquisition Sale Deeds – High Court enhanced compensation based on three sale instances prior to the date of notification – Held: The sale deeds were genuine and could be relied upon as the transactions were between willing parties and proximate in time – Adjustment towards development potential considered appropriate [Paras 26-31].

Deduction for Development Charges – Applicability – DDA argued for 50% deduction citing undeveloped nature of land – Held: Deduction reduced to 33.33% as the land was located near developed colonies and urban infrastructure – Supreme Court considered ground realities and likelihood of moderate development expenses [Paras 32-35].

Interest under Section 28 – Delay in Payment – High Court granted interest for delayed payment of enhanced compensation – Held: Properly granted as delay was attributable to the appellant – No interference warranted [Paras 36-38].

Final Compensation – Moderate Enhancement – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing deduction from 50% to 33.33%, resulting in modified compensation – The rest of the judgment, including reliance on comparable sale deeds and grant of interest, upheld [Paras 39-40].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Compensation Recalculated – Supreme Court modified the compensation by reducing the deduction percentage and upheld the grant of interest on enhanced compensation [Para 40].

Criminal Law - Murder – Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Upheld – Accused persons armed with swords fatally assaulted the deceased following a land and water dispute – The trial court and High Court convicted the accused under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Held: The prosecution successfully established the presence and participation of the accused in an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the murder – Conviction upheld [Paras 5, 8, 13].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Omissions Not Material – Conviction Based on Trustworthy Evidence – Three eyewitnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-5) provided a consistent and detailed account of the murder – Minor omissions in statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC were not sufficient to discredit their testimonies – Held: Their evidence was of sterling quality and sufficient to convict the accused – The failure to examine other potential eyewitnesses did not weaken the prosecution's case [Paras 9-11, 14].

Plea of Alibi – Accused No. 9 Fails to Prove Absence at Scene of Crime – Conviction Sustained – Accused No. 9 (Tanaji) claimed he was on duty with the crime branch at the time of the incident – However, the prosecution proved his presence at the crime scene – No documentary evidence was produced by the accused to support his alibi – Held: The plea of alibi was not substantiated and was rightly rejected by the lower courts [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Confirmed – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals – The conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court were upheld – Accused No. 9 directed to surrender within one month to serve the remaining sentence – No relief granted to the other accused, as they had already completed their sentence [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction - Abetment of Suicide – Essential Elements – Absence of Proximate Incitement – Conviction Set Aside – For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or active participation in the act of suicide – Mere allegations of harassment, without direct incitement, are insufficient to establish abetment – In this case, no act of the accused was proximate to the suicide or of such nature that it left the deceased with no alternative but to take his life – Held: Conviction under Sections 306 and 114 IPC is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside [Paras 22, 25, 45].

Suicide Note – Delay in Production – Lack of Authentication – Cannot be Sole Basis for Conviction – The alleged suicide note was produced 20 days after the incident, raising doubts regarding its authenticity – Handwriting expert was not examined in court, and no independent verification was conducted – Held: The suicide note, being highly suspect and uncorroborated, cannot be relied upon to establish abetment [Paras 31-34, 40-42].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Benefit of Doubt Given to Accused – In criminal trials, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – The prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of evidence linking the accused to the suicide – Lack of recovery of blackmail material, poison container, or other corroborative evidence weakens the case – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt—Acquittal granted [Paras 36, 38, 45-46].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – The Supreme Court found serious inconsistencies in witness testimonies and a lack of direct evidence linking the accused to the abetment of suicide – The suicide note, which formed the primary basis of conviction, was found unreliable due to delayed production and absence of authentication – No proximate act of incitement by the accused was established – Held: The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court are set aside – The accused are acquitted – Bail bonds stand discharged [Para 46].