Search Judgments

• Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that points exclusively to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. The circumstances “must” or “should” be proved, not “may be” proved.
  • “Last Seen Together” Theory: When the accused is last seen with the deceased, especially a small child, and the time gap between “last seen” and death is short, the accused has a burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to offer a plausible and satisfactory explanation for how they parted company. Failure to offer a reasonable explanation forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to guilt.
  • Conduct as Evidence (Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872): The conduct of an accused, such as leading investigators to the scene of the crime or to the hiding place of articles connected to the crime, is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of the admissibility of a formal discovery statement under Section 27.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012:
  • Section 3 (Penetrative Sexual Assault), Section 5 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault), Section 6 (Punishment): The post-mortem report detailing injuries indicative of aggressive penetrative sexual assault, coupled with medical evidence of injuries on the accused’s private parts and matching blood groups, provides strong evidence for these offenses.
  • Section 29 (Presumption as to certain offenses): Once foundational facts for offenses under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 of POCSO Act are established, the Special Court shall presume that the accused committed or abetted the offense unless the contrary is proved.
  • Section 30 (Presumption of culpable mental state): In offenses requiring a culpable mental state, the Special Court shall presume its existence, with the burden on the accused to prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt.
  • DNA Test – Not always Fatal to Prosecution: The absence of a DNA test, while advisable, is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution’s case if other strong circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain pointing to the accused’s guilt.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 364 (Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder): Enticing a minor child away from their lawful guardian under false pretenses (e.g., offering ice cream) and without consent, leading to their death, establishes the offense of kidnapping with intent to murder.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 377 (Unnatural Offences): Evidence of penetrative sexual assault through the anus clearly establishes an offense under this section.

Final Decision:      The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 (Murder), 364 (Kidnapping in order to murder), and 377 (Unnatural Offenses) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 4 (Punishment for penetrative sexual assault) and 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLI, Rule 17 – Dismissal of Appeal for Appellant’s Default: As per the Explanation to Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the CPC, if an appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the court can only dismiss the appeal for default of appearance (for non-prosecution) and not on its merits.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Dismissal on Merits in Absence of Appellant: An appellate authority cannot pass an order on the merits of an appeal when there is no representation from the appellant. Passing a detailed order on merits in the absence of the appellant is a procedural irregularity and contrary to the provisions of the CPC.

Final Decision:   The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The common order passed by the Principal District Judge is set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the trial court. The appellate court is directed to either pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the appellants, or dismiss the appeal for default if they fail to appear, strictly in compliance with Order XLI, Rule 17 of the CPC.

• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXVII, Rule 3(5) – Leave to Defend: A defendant in a summary suit must raise a bona fide defence or a triable issue to be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. A mere bald denial of the execution of a promissory note, without more, is not sufficient to establish a triable issue.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXVII, Rule 3(1) & Appendix B, Form No. 4 – Summons in Summary Suit: The summons in a summary suit must be in the prescribed format, clearly informing the defendant of the provisions of Order XXXVII. However, if the defendant appears and files an application for leave to defend, the defect in the summons may be waived.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXVII, Rule 4 – Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree: If a decree has been passed after the refusal of leave to defend, the proper remedy for the defendant is to file a petition under Order XXXVII, Rule 4 to set aside the ex parte decree or to file an appeal against the decree itself.
• Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 105(1) – Challenge to Interlocutory Orders in Appeal: An order refusing leave to defend is an interlocutory order.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Sections 122, 123, 126 & 127 – The case concerns a dispute over an oral gift of land made in 1953, with the plaintiffs, heirs of the donor, seeking resumption of the land after 45 years, claiming the donees had stopped rendering lifelong services as a condition of the gift.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, and the First Appellate Court agreed. However, the High Court allowed the defendant’s Second Appeal, dismissing the suit primarily on the ground of limitation.

The Supreme Court noted that in 1953, Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was implemented hence land was gifted.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8: A suit cannot be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act if it involves parties who are not signatories to the arbitration agreement and whose presence is necessary for the effective resolution of the dispute. The court cannot bifurcate the suit and refer only some parties to arbitration.
• Arbitrability of Disputes – Scope of Judicial Intervention: Post the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the scope of judicial interference at the reference stage under Section 8 is limited. A court should refer a matter to arbitration unless it finds a prima facie case of the non-existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Issues of subject-matter arbitrability, including allegations of fraud, are generally to be decided by the arbitral tribunal, unless it is a clear case of “deadwood.”
• Arbitration Clause in Society Bye-laws: An arbitration clause in a society’s bye-laws is binding on its members.