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]

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].

Town Planning – OSR Charges – Sub-division prior to 1975 proved by registered gifts and separate pattas – Site area 2229 sq. m. squarely within Annexure XX “first 3000 sq. m. – Nil” slab – Demand set aside and refund with 8% interest upheld – No interference under Article 136 with concurrent, non-perverse findings [Paras 14–17, 20–21].

Open Space Reservation (OSR) – Basis of Computation – Parent Tract vs. Independent Parcel – CMDA’s attempt to club respondent’s parcel with erstwhile 21-ground estate rejected – Documentary chain (1949 partition; 1972 & 1973 gift deeds; separate pattas; 1984 gift) shows long-standing, identifiable holding prior to 05.08.1975 – Fresh sub-division plea in 2008 termed ipse dixit and unsupported [Paras 14–16].

Revenue Records & Registered Instruments – Evidentiary Value – Separate pattas, though not title per se, corroborate possession/demarcation—read with unimpeached registered deeds, they establish a separate holding; once produced, burden shifts to authority to dislodge pre-1975 recognition—no contrary material produced [Para 15–16].

Regulatory Exemption – Annexure XX – “For the first 3000 sq. m. — Nil” – Respondent’s plot being 2229 sq. m. entitled to full exemption—Notional recombination with parent estate impermissible—Text of regulation cannot be defeated by retrospective enlargement of liability [Para 17].

Layouts vs. Individual Development – No layout formation by respondent—Provisions aimed at layout promoters inapplicable—Hospital construction on individual site cannot trigger layout-based OSR levy [Para 18].

Appellate Review – Article 136 – Interference confined to manifest illegality/perversity—Concurrent findings of Single Judge and Division Bench, resting on public documents and proper appreciation of evidence, warrant no interference [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s direction to refund ₹1,64,50,000/– with 8% p.a. interest affirmed – Payment to be made within six weeks – No order as to costs – All pending applications disposed of [Para 21].

Civil Procedure Code – Order XLI Rule 5 – Stay of Execution – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – High Court justified in granting unconditional stay of money decree where decree found egregiously perverse, procedurally infirm, and passed without valid service of summons – Practice of deposit under Order XLI Rule 5 is prudential, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 125, 129-137].

Stay of Execution – Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Discretionary Power – Unconditional Stay – “Sufficient Cause” – Deposit not Mandatory – Filing of appeal does not operate as automatic stay – Stay of execution must be based on recorded satisfaction of “sufficient cause” – Although the word “shall” is used in Order XLI Rule 5, it is directory in character – Deposit of decretal amount is not a mandatory condition precedent – Appellate court may grant unconditional stay if decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal or facially untenable – Discretion to be exercised sparingly and on compelling facts [Paras 70, 80, 82-87, 134(VI)-(X)].

Meaning of “Sufficient Cause” – Interpretation – “Sufficient” means adequate and reasonable – Appellate court must be satisfied that refusal of stay would cause substantial loss – Recording of satisfaction is a precondition – “Sufficient cause” encompasses cases of gross procedural error, jurisdictional defect or manifest illegality [Paras 81, 134(III)-(IV)].

Stay of Money Decree – Deposit or Security – Non-mandatory – Under Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) CPC, security may be in form of bond, property or undertaking – No statutory mandate to order cash deposit as sole form of security – Practice of insisting on deposit is a rule of prudence, not a rule of law [Paras 84-87, 134(XI)].

Exceptional Circumstances for Unconditional Stay – Parameters – Exceptional case for unconditional stay arises when decree is egregiously perverse, patently illegal, or facially untenable – Exceptional nature must be established from facts and reasons – Mere filing of appeal not sufficient [Paras 82-83, 134(VIII)-(IX)].

Service of Summons – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Irregularity vs Invalidity – Second proviso to Order IX Rule 13 applies only when there is irregular service of summons, not when summons were never served – Knowledge of proceedings cannot replace valid service – Absence of valid service prevents court from acquiring jurisdiction – Division Bench rightly held that absence of service vitiated all proceedings after 20 April 2022 [Paras 88-93, 125, 131-133].

Damages – Order VII Rules 2 and 7 CPC – Enhancement Without Amendment – Single Judge enhanced damages from ₹2,00,05,000/- to ₹336,02,87,000/- without amendment of plaint or notice to defendant – Held impermissible – Damages cannot be awarded beyond pleadings – Evidence cannot traverse pleadings – Violation of fundamental procedural law [Paras 127-138, 175-178].

Trademark Infringement – Liability of Licensor – Lack of Pleadings and Findings – Licensing agreement between Amazon Tech and Cloudtail related only to ‘SYMBOL’ mark – No authorization for infringing acts – No pleading establishing complicity – Finding that defendants formed cohesive commercial entity unsupported by record – Held: prima facie patent illegality justified unconditional stay [Paras 126, 128, 142-153].

Arbitration Act – Section 36(3) – Analogy with CPC Inapplicable – Analogy of Section 36(3) Arbitration Act to civil appeals misconceived – Phrase “due regard” in Section 36(3) only directory – CPC provisions serve as guidance, not mandate – Courts under Arbitration Act or CPC retain discretion to grant unconditional stay in appropriate cases – Application of Pam Developments and Sepco Electric decisions confined to arbitration context [Paras 95-123, 114-120].

Practice and Prudence – Stay of Money Decree – Deposit of decretal amount is a rule of prudence evolved by courts to protect decree-holder’s interest – Not a universal principle – Appellate courts may depart in cases showing exceptional infirmities or grave procedural lapses [Paras 80, 134(X)].

Jurisdiction – Service of Summons and Due Process – Court’s jurisdiction founded on valid service of summons – Without such service, defendant not bound to appear – Proper service ensures due process; substituted service is exceptional and must be justified – In absence of service, ex parte proceedings void [Paras 131-133].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned judgment of Division Bench affirming unconditional stay of money decree upheld – Division Bench correctly found serious procedural infirmities, invalid service of summons, lack of pleadings, and patent legal errors in decree – No interference warranted – Main appeal to be decided independently on merits [Paras 129-137].

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]

Property Law – Declaration of Title – Oral Gift (Hiba) – Suit for declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds based on oral gift by Muslim mother to daughter – Plaintiff claimed oral gift of 10 acres out of 24 acres 28 guntas, and inheritance of remaining land – Trial Court disbelieved oral gift, but decreed 3/4th share based on succession – High Court reversed finding on oral gift without cross-appeal and granted absolute title to Plaintiff – Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under CPC – In absence of cross-appeal, it could not enlarge Plaintiff’s relief – No valid oral gift proved – Reversal impermissible [Paras 8, 9.3, 20–21]

Oral Gift – Conditions for Validity – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gift requires: (1) declaration by donor, (2) acceptance by donee, and (3) delivery of possession – Plaintiff failed to prove delivery of possession of 10 acres – Revenue records showed continued possession with donor and her husband – No mutation in Plaintiff’s name – Plaintiff remained silent for over 23 years – Held: Oral gift incomplete – No transfer of title in law – Possession is essential and not proved [Paras 34–39]

Evidence Act – Section 50 – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be daughter of original owner Khadijabee – No documentary proof filed – Only oral testimony of interested witnesses (PW-2, PW-3) relied upon – Held: Section 50 allows opinion evidence based on conduct by persons with special knowledge, but court must evaluate credibility – Trial Court and High Court accepted opinion without applying tests of relevancy, admissibility, or credibility – Mere assertions not enough to prove status – Perversity in finding Plaintiff to be legal heir without reliable proof [Paras 22–33]

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Comparison of Signatures – Trial Court compared signatures on disputed Memorandum of Gift (Ex. P-8) with sale deeds (Exs. D-3 to D-7) without admitting either document as genuine – Held: Court cannot act as handwriting expert without proper basis – Unsafe to base findings solely on signature comparison where both sets of documents are disputed – Comparison must be corroborative, not conclusive – Approach flawed [Paras 30–31]

Limitation – Article 58 and 59 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit filed in 2013 challenging 1995 sale deeds and mutation entries – Plaintiff claimed knowledge of dispossession only in 2013 – Held: Plaintiff had constructive notice of mutation and sale deeds since 1989 and 1995 – Continuous inaction for over two decades without challenge amounts to negligence – Registered sale deeds enjoy presumption of validity – Suit barred by limitation under Articles 58 and 59 – Cause of action not continuing [Paras 40–48]

Constructive Notice – Plaintiff failed to act despite multiple opportunities to assert her rights in 1989, 1990, 1995 and 2001 – Revenue records showed transfer and possession with Defendants since 1995 – Plaintiff did not rebut presumption of validity of registered sale deeds – Held: Constructive notice applies – Plaintiff cannot claim ignorance – Her silence results in legal bar to suit [Paras 44–46]

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Appellate Court – High Court reversed trial court’s finding on oral gift and enhanced Plaintiff’s relief despite absence of cross-appeal – Held: In absence of cross-appeal or cross-objection, appellate court cannot grant relief beyond what was granted by trial court – Modification of decree in favour of non-appealing party illegal – Trial Court had already disbelieved gift – Reversal not justified [Paras 16–21]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Plaintiff’s suit dismissed – Oral gift and legal heirship not proved – Suit also barred by limitation – No costs [Paras 49]

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].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and committing murder of two persons – Trial Court convicted 21 accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment – High Court affirmed conviction of 11 and acquitted 7 by extending benefit of doubt – Supreme Court found prosecution evidence unreliable and full of inconsistencies – Held: Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 65-76, 81-83]

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC – Common Object Not Established – Accused convicted for murder and assault as members of unlawful assembly intending to seize land – Supreme Court held that mere presence in mob insufficient for conviction – Common object to commit murder not proved by consistent and reliable evidence – Key witnesses’ testimonies contradictory and uncorroborated – Benefit of doubt granted to all appellants [Paras 40-50, 67, 74]

Criminal Procedure – First Information Report – Statement of Injured Eyewitness (PW-20) Recorded at Hospital – Treated as FIR – Court held that statement could not be treated as FIR as prior information about occurrence had already reached police – Delay in FIR reaching Magistrate and absence of supporting GD entry raised doubt on authenticity – Statement held to be under Section 161 CrPC and not FIR under Section 154 CrPC [Paras 69-73]

Evidence Law – Credibility of Injured Witnesses – Contradictions and Omissions – Multiple injured eyewitnesses named 72 accused – Allegations omnibus and inconsistent with medical evidence – Several PWs contradicted themselves or each other – Some declared hostile – Witnesses failed to explain key aspects such as weapons, injuries and presence of accused – Held: Testimonies not trustworthy for conviction under Sections 302 or 149 IPC [Paras 47-60]

Evidence Law – Medical Evidence vs. Ocular Evidence – Injuries Alleged Not Matching Medical Findings – Discrepancy between weapons described and wounds found – Some injuries inconsistent with alleged acts – Court held where medical evidence contradicts oral testimony materially, benefit of doubt must go to accused – Medical evidence found more reliable [Paras 62-66]

Criminal Law – Standard of Proof – Reasonable Doubt – Prosecution Failed to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Presence of large mob not sufficient to fix individual liability – Prosecution failed to prove participation and common object of each accused – No specific overt acts proved against many – Conviction based on surmises and conjecture – Held: Appellants entitled to acquittal on ground of reasonable doubt [Paras 67-74]

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/149 and 307 IPC set aside – All appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Appellants to be released unless wanted in any other case.