(581) BIREN CH. DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — Murder — Section 304 Part II — Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder — Distinction — Principles enunciated in _State of AP Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr., AIR 1977 SC 45_ and _Kishore Singh and Anr. vs. The State of M.P., AIR 1977 Sc 2267_ reiterated — To sustain a charge of murder under Section 300, prosecution must prove the act falls within one of its four clauses — Even proving an act falls under Section 299 does not automatically constitute murder if n India Law Library Docid # 2426170
(582) MOHESWAR KALITA Vs. BISWA NATH JAJODIA[GAUHATI HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of interference with findings of fact — High Court’s power confined to examining if findings of fact by first appellate court are according to law and do not suffer from any error of law — Findings can be corrected if perverse, arrived at without considering material evidence, based on no evidence, misreading evidence, or grossly erroneous leading to miscarriage of justice — Revisional power not equivalent to appellate po India Law Library Docid # 2426171
(583) ANNAMUTHU Vs. DHANUSH (DIED) AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 28-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 96 — Appeal Suit — Partition and Declaration — Validity of Settlement Deeds and Wills — Christian Personal Law — Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Section 70 — Burden of Proof — Suspicious Circumstances — Res Judicata — Abuse of Process — Forum Shopping — Christian daughter’s right in family property. India Law Library Docid # 2427919
(584) PUTTAN @ ARTHANARI Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Law — Murder (Section 302 IPC), House-trespass (Section 449 IPC), Causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) — Proof — Conviction based on eyewitness testimony, motive, medical evidence, and recovery of incriminating materials — Eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), father and sister of the deceased, provided consistent and cogent accounts of the incident, including the accused’s actions, and their testimonies India Law Library Docid # 2427920
(585) KARTHI @ KARTHIKEYAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Child Witness — Appellant accused of enticing and killing a minor girl. The prosecution relied on the “last seen theory,” specifically the testimony of the deceased’s seven-year-old younger brother (P.W.8) who stated he saw the appellant taking his sister away. The court deemed P.W.8’s testimony as crucial and reliable, finding it natural and untutored, after assessing India Law Library Docid # 2427921
(586) MARAPPAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 449, 302 read with 34, 307 read with 34, 324 read with 34 — Murder — Attempt to murder — House-trespass to commit offence — Voluntarily causing hurt — Common intention — Evidence of sole eyewitness (P.W.1) — Corroboration by medical evidence and other witnesses — Admissibility and reliability — The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused for murder and other related India Law Library Docid # 2427922
(587) ARUN @ ARUNKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Law — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Sufficiency of Evidence — Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies (PW1, PW2, PW3) are not fatal to the prosecution’s case when the core narrative, i.e., the deceased being taken away by the accused, remains consistent and credible. India Law Library Docid # 2427923
(588) KABALI @ AZHAGARASAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 374(2) — Appeals — Conviction and Sentence — Murder (Section 302 IPC) — Circumstantial Evidence — Last Seen Theory — Sufficiency of Proof — The prosecution case relies solely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be complete, cogent, and firmly established, pointing India Law Library Docid # 2427924
(589) VELLINGIRI Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 374(2) — Criminal Appeal — Conviction under Section 302 IPC — Sole eyewitness testimony — Evidentiary Value — Reliability of sole eyewitness testimony; it must be credible, reliable, consistent with the prosecution’s case, and inspire implicit confidence. India Law Library Docid # 2427925
(590) VEDIYAPPAN (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Law — Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) and Section 302 read with Section 109 (Abetment to Murder) — Circumstantial Evidence — Extra-Judicial Confession — Corroboration — When a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of evidence must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. Extra-judicial confessions are considered weak evidence and must India Law Library Docid # 2427926
(591) KABALI @ AZHAGARASAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 374(2) — Appeals — Circumstantial Evidence — Conviction — Murder (Section 302 IPC) — Last Seen Theory — Recovery — The prosecution case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, particularly the “last seen theory” through PW9, and recovery of material objects based on confession statements. The Court found PW9’s testimony highly doubtful as he admitted seeing photographs of the accused before the Test Identification Parade and it was improbable to India Law Library Docid # 2427927
(592) NOOR BASHA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 28-04-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Habeas Corpus — Custodial Violence — Compensation for Injuries — In a Habeas Corpus petition seeking release and compensation for injuries sustained by a detainee while in police custody, where a One Man Commission’s report confirms brutal lathi-beating causing severe injuries and permanent disability (amputation of fingers), the State is liable to pay pecuniary India Law Library Docid # 2427928
(593) SAMAR DEBANGSI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 354 & 376 read with 511 — Outraging Modesty & Attempt to Commit Rape — Proof and Appreciation of Evidence — Appeal against conviction under Ss. 354 & 376/511 IPC — Court analysed evidence of prosecutrix (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses regarding the incident in a sugarcane field — Considered issues of delay in FIR, inconsistencies between FIR and deposition, non-exhibition of injury report, non-seizure of clothes by IO, and alleged land dispute motive India Law Library Docid # 2425160
(594) GOVINDA KRISHNA GUPTA AND OTHERS Vs. SIBA PADA DAS AND OTHERS[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 58(c) — Mortgage by Conditional Sale vs. Sale with Condition of Repurchase — Distinction — A transaction where a sale deed is executed and a separate, contemporaneous agreement for reconveyance is executed between the parties does not constitute a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the TPA, especially in view of the Proviso added by Act 20 of 1929 which requires the condition of repurchase to be embodied in the same document that effects India Law Library Docid # 2425161
(595) MAMTA CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025 Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 — Section 39(6) — Suspension of Member/Chairperson — Grounds and Judicial Review — Section 39(6) empowers the State Government to suspend a member (including a Chairperson) against whom proceedings for removal under Section 39 have commenced, pending conclusion of the inquiry — While suspension is not a penalty and is normally ordered when allegations of misconduct or corruption are under scrutiny, the power, especially concerning elected public representatives India Law Library Docid # 2425476
(596) DR. DEVA RAM SHIVRAN Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025 Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16, 21 and 41 — Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Sections 2(h), 2(r), 2(s), 3, 20, 21 — Discrimination in Public Employment — Non-Benchmark Disability — Medical Unfitness for one Cadre but Fitness for Similar Cadre — Denying a meritorious candidate appointment to a preferred non-technical service cadre (like Rajasthan Administrative Service - RAS) solely on grounds of a visual impairment (Congenital Nystagmus) that does not meet the 40% benchma India Law Library Docid # 2425477
(597) PHOOL CHAND Vs. RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)] 25-04-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Suit Barred by Limitation — Oral Agreement — A suit based on an alleged oral agreement (for sale of property) entered into several years prior (in this case, an agreement of 1996 for which a suit was filed in 2023) is prima facie barred by limitation — An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of such a plaint on the ground of limitation should be allowed if the plaint, on its face, discloses that the suit is time- India Law Library Docid # 2425478
(598) NIRANJAN SINGH KAURAV Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025 Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Acquittal in Criminal Trial on Same Facts — Effect on Disciplinary Proceedings — When departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based on an identical and similar set of facts, charges, evidence, and witnesses, and the employee is honorably acquitted in the criminal trial after a full contest, the findings of guilt in the departmental enquiry are not sustainable — If the star witness for the prosecution (complainant in a trap case) deposes in the c India Law Library Docid # 2425541
(599) KAMLABAI Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)] 25-04-2025 M.P. Panchayat (Election Petition, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 — Rule 3 — Presentation of Election Petition — Mandatory Requirements — Rule 3 mandates that an election petition shall be presented to the specified officer either by the person making the petition or by a person authorized in writing in this behalf by the petitioner — Presentation by an advocate under a general vakalatnama without specific written authorization to present the petition is not a India Law Library Docid # 2425542
(600) MANOHAR LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA THR. ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-04-2025 Electricity Act, 1910 — Section 26(6) — Dispute regarding correctness of meter — Estimation of energy supplied — Penalty for fake meter seals — Where an electricity meter was found intact in a prior inspection (26.11.1985) but its seals were allegedly found fake in a subsequent inspection (13.05.1986), the liability for penalty, if any, under Section 26(6) of the Act should be determined by considering the default period at best from the date of the last correct inspection to the date of the fre India Law Library Docid # 2425552