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]

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]

Civil Law – Injunction Suit Without Declaration – Maintainability – Plaintiff sought injunction against defendant (her brother) on the basis of a Will executed by their father – Admitted that defendant was in possession – No prayer for recovery of possession or declaration of title made – Held: Where possession is with defendant and ownership is disputed, suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without declaratory relief – Trial court and High Court erred in granting injunction against interference with possession [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Will-Based Title – Plaintiff claimed half share in 1.74½ acres based on Will dated 30.09.1985 executed by father – Suit filed for injunction simpliciter to restrain brother (defendant) from alienating or interfering with possession – Defendant claimed possession as co-owner and later exclusive owner under an arrangement with father – Trial court decreed suit – First appellate court dismissed suit finding Will invalid as property was ancestral – High Court reversed, upheld Will, and restored injunction – Supreme Court: While Will is proved, plaintiff’s lack of possession disentitles her to injunction without prayer for recovery or declaration of title [Paras 2–4, 10–11]

Possession – Admitted Possession with Defendant – Plaintiff in pleadings and evidence admitted that defendant was in possession – No relief sought for recovery of possession – Held: Plaintiff, not being in possession, could not seek injunction to protect possession or restrain interference – Suit ought to have included prayer for declaration and recovery – Grant of injunction against interference by defendant was legally unsustainable [Paras 8–11]

Tenancy Claim – Inconsistent Pleadings – Plaintiff initially claimed defendant inducted as tenant by father – Defendant denied tenancy and claimed co-ownership – Past suit (OS No. 895 of 1984) filed by father for possession and rent was dismissed for default – Plaintiff admitted no tenancy documents existed – Defendant’s consistent stand of co-ownership unshaken – Held: Inconsistencies in plaintiff’s case on possession and title further weakened claim for injunction [Paras 7–9]

Title – Will Proven but Ownership Disputed – Will executed by father found to be proved through attesting witnesses – However, father’s right to bequeath the property remains uncertain – Property originally purchased in grandmother’s name – No declaration of ownership granted in favour of plaintiff – Defendant claimed property was divided between brothers during father’s lifetime – Held: Title under cloud – Suit for injunction without declaration not maintainable when title is disputed [Paras 4, 10–11]

Relief – Injunction Against Alienation Upheld – Despite possession with defendant, neither party sought declaration of ownership – Court held injunction restraining alienation of property by defendant justified in absence of counterclaim – Liberty granted to both parties to file fresh suit for declaration of title and recovery within three months – Such proceedings to be decided independently without being influenced by current findings [Paras 11–12]

Decision: Appeal disposed – Injunction against interference in possession set aside – Injunction against alienation upheld – Liberty granted to file fresh declaratory and recovery suit within 3 months – No alienation or encumbrance of suit property allowed until final adjudication [Paras 12–13]

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].

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Section 8(3) – Alienation of Minor’s Property – Mode of Repudiation – Natural guardian sold minors’ immovable property without prior court permission – Upon attaining majority, minors executed fresh sale deed of same property in favour of appellant within limitation – High Court held absence of suit to cancel earlier sale rendered later sale void – Held: Prior permission of court is sine qua non under Section 8(2); transaction without such permission is voidable, not void – Such voidable transaction may be repudiated by the minor on attaining majority either by filing a suit or by unequivocal conduct, such as executing a fresh sale deed – Institution of suit is not mandatory [Paras 10–14, 22, 32–34].

Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 60 – The period of three years for a minor to challenge alienation of property by guardian runs from date of attaining majority – Repudiation by conduct within such period is sufficient; formal suit not necessary [Paras 10, 33–34].

Transfer of Property – Repudiation by Conduct – Execution of a subsequent sale by the minors within limitation amounts to effective repudiation of earlier voidable transfer – Once repudiated, earlier transfer becomes void ab initio – Avoidance relates back to date of original transaction [Paras 17–20, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Power of Attorney Holder – Competence to Depose – Plaintiff failed to enter witness box; evidence led through power of attorney holder inadmissible on facts within personal knowledge of plaintiff – Such proxy cannot substitute principal’s testimony – Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 981, relied on [Paras 38–39].

Civil Procedure – Pleadings and Proof – Plaintiff neither pleaded nor proved valid title of vendor; sale deed not proved – Evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings – Failure to enter witness box fatal to plaintiff’s case [Paras 36–40].

Decision: Judgment of High Court dated 19.03.2013 and that of First Appellate Court dated 30.06.2005 set aside – Trial Court decree restored – Suit dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 41–42].

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].

Public Interest Litigation – Road Safety – Pedestrian Protection – Directions Issued – Supreme Court takes cognizance of alarming rise in road accident deaths (1.72 lakh in 2023 including 35,000 pedestrians) – Court issues detailed directions on five key aspects: (i) pedestrian footpaths, (ii) pedestrian crossings, (iii) mandatory helmet use, (iv) prevention of wrong-lane driving, and (v) control of dazzling LED lights and unauthorised red–blue strobes and hooters – States, UTs and NHAI to ensure implementation of IRC:103–2022 and MOHUA accessibility norms, enforce helmet and lane-discipline laws, and curb misuse of lighting and sirens [Paras 6, 11, 28, 30–35.17].

Pedestrian Infrastructure – Footpaths – IRC Guidelines Compliance – Directions issued for footpath audits in 50 major cities and NHAI corridors to identify deficiencies in width, height, surface, and encroachments – Authorities to prioritise accident-prone and high-footfall areas (markets, schools, transit hubs) – Audit findings to guide repairs, retrofitting, and enforcement drives using GIS and camera-based monitoring – Dedicated Accessibility and Pedestrian Cells to be established in urban local bodies for implementation and monitoring [Paras 35.1–35.5].

Pedestrian Crossings – Safety and Accessibility – Authorities directed to audit and retrofit pedestrian crossings with high-visibility zebra markings, illumination, CCTV coverage, panic buttons, and barrier placements – Raised crossings and traffic-calming measures mandated near schools and hospitals – New crossings to be designed per IRC:103–2022 with signalisation, audible cues, and tactile paving – NHAI and cities to create new crossings where heavy pedestrian movement exists (including Delhi High Court–Zoo crossing) within 7 months [Paras 35.2–35.9].

Grievance Redress and Accountability – Online grievance portals to be set up by PWDs, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities for complaints on encroachments, non-maintenance of footpaths, and lack of crossings – Complaints to be addressed within fixed time – DRSCs to review pedestrian safety monthly – Officials and contractors liable under Section 198A MV Act for deaths arising from road design failures [Paras 35.10–35.12].

Helmet Enforcement – Sections 128, 129 & 194D MV Act – Court directs strict enforcement of helmet laws for drivers and pillion riders – E-enforcement through automated cameras and data reporting to Court – States/UTs to submit statistics on challans, fines and licence suspensions – Non-compliance to attract contempt and monitoring [Paras 28–29, 35.13].

Lane Discipline – Sections 184 & 206 MV Act – Wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking to be checked by automated cameras, fines, rumble strips, coloured lane markings, and tyre killers at intersections – Real-time dashboards on violations suggested for deterrence and transparency [Paras 30–32, 35.14].

Traffic Hazards – Dazzling LED Headlights and Unauthorised Hooters – MoRTH and States to set luminance and beam-angle limits for headlights – Ban on sale/use of unauthorised red–blue strobes and sirens – Enforcement through vehicle fitness checks, seizures and penal action – Nationwide awareness campaigns directed on glare hazards and misuse of emergency lights [Paras 33–35.15].

Statutory Rulemaking – Sections 138(1A) and 210D MV Act – All States/UTs directed to frame rules within six months regulating access of pedestrians and non-mechanised vehicles and ensuring road design and maintenance standards for non-National Highways [Paras 35.16–35.17].

Constitutional Law – Right to Safe Mobility – Article 21 – Court reiterates pedestrians’ right to safe, unobstructed movement and directs removal of encroachments from footpaths and pavements – Reaffirms Olga Tellis v. BMC, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, Sudhir Madan v. MCD, and M.C. Mehta v. UOI – Violation of pedestrian safety treated as infringement of life and dignity [Paras 24–25].

Monitoring and Compliance – Supreme Court to review implementation after 7 months – States, UTs, NHAI to file progress reports on audits, enforcement, and rule framing – Appreciation recorded for Amicus Curiae Mr. Gaurav Agrawal for decade-long assistance in advancing pedestrian safety jurisprudence [Paras 35.10, 36–37].

Decision:

Comprehensive directions issued to Union and State Governments, NHAI, and Municipal Authorities to implement pedestrian infrastructure safety audits, enforce helmet and lane discipline, curb unauthorised lights and hooters, and frame statutory rules within six months under the Motor Vehicles Act – Matter to be listed after seven months for compliance review.

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].

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.