***

Reserved judgments -- Constitutional guidelines issued -- Delay in pronouncement held to affect Article 21 rights and institutional credibility of justice delivery system.

***

Reserved judgments -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation.

***

Bail/ Suspension of sentence/ Acquittal -- Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

***

Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately -- Communication of orders to jail authorities and trial courts mandated -- Immediate release directed subject to compliance of conditions.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 21, 226 and 227 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Delay in pronouncement -- Held, right to life and personal liberty includes right to timely adjudication at all stages, including pronouncement of reserved judgments -- Undue delay undermines fairness of adjudicatory process and public confidence in judiciary -- Necessity of systemic reform emphasised.

(Paras 9–11, 18–21)

B. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- Supreme Court -- Binding directions -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Comprehensive framework issued governing timelines, monitoring, transparency and accountability in pronouncement of judgments -- Directions declared binding across all High Courts.

(Paras 15–17)

C. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Timelines for pronouncement -- Judgment to be ordinarily pronounced within maximum period of 3 months from date of reservation -- Special expedition mandated in matters involving personal liberty.

(Para 16A(i))

D. Criminal law -- Bail, suspension of sentence, acquittal -- High Courts -- Personal liberty matters -- Bail applications to be pronounced preferably on same day or next day if reserved and uploaded immediately – Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.

(Para 16A(c)–(e))

E. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Administrative monitoring -- Monthly automated reporting of pending reserved judgments to Chief Justice mandated -- Registrar General to compile and forward list of delayed matters -- Administrative oversight by Chief Justice strengthened.

(Para 16A(ii)(a), 16B, 17)

F. High Courts -- Reserved judgments -- Supervisory mechanism -- If judgment not delivered within 3 months, matter to be placed before Chief Justice -- Direction to concerned Bench to pronounce judgment within stipulated time -- In exceptional cases, matter may be reassigned to another Bench for rehearing.

(Para 16A(ii)(c)–(d))

G. High Courts -- Transparency -- Website disclosure -- Mandatory display of reserved judgments pending beyond 3 months -- Separate disclosure of cases where operative order delivered but reasoned judgment pending -- Automated email/SMS alerts to advocates introduced.

(Para 16B)

H. High Courts -- Judgments -- Operative order and reasoned judgment -- Where operative part is pronounced, reasoned judgment to be uploaded within 7–15 days -- Delay beyond prescribed period triggers administrative review and litigant remedies.

(Para 16A(i)(i), 16A(ii)(e))

I. High Courts -- Remedies to litigants -- Delay in pronouncement -- If judgment not pronounced within 3 months, party entitled to file application for early pronouncement -- If delay persists, party may approach Chief Justice for re-assignment of matter to another Bench.

(Para 16A(iii))

J. Constitution of India, Article 142 -- High Courts -- Reserved judgments – Institutional reform directed to ensure timely pronouncement of judgments and judicial accountability.

(Paras 15–17)

***

Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Held, sentence modified to period already undergone.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 53 and 45 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 433-A, 386 and 401 -- Murder -- Life imprisonment -- Modification of sentence -- Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and having undergone 23 years, 6 months and 3 days of actual imprisonment -- Whether life sentence can be modified to a fixed-term sentence -- Held, life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of natural life subject to constitutional and statutory remission powers -- However, Supreme Court and High Courts are empowered to impose a modified or fixed-term sentence exceeding fourteen years and may convert life imprisonment into a specified term of incarceration -- Considering that appellant was about 21 years of age at the time of occurrence, incident was of the year 1998 and appellant had already undergone more than 23 years of actual imprisonment, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining conviction -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 8 to 18)

***

Cruelty -- General and omnibus allegations -- Letters allegedly written by deceased -- Handwriting not proved and contents vague -- No reliance can be placed thereon -- Conviction cannot be sustained in absence of specific instances, particulars or reliable evidence.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 498-A and 304-B -- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 4 -- Cruelty -- Dowry demand -- Suicide by wife -- Acquittal -- Trial Court acquitted accused under Section 304-B IPC holding that demand of dowry was not proved -- Conviction under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act recorded on basis of oral testimony and letters allegedly written by deceased -- Allegations of dowry demand and cruelty found general and omnibus without specific instances, particulars or identification of persons making demands -- Alleged letters not proved in accordance with law, handwriting of deceased not established and contents did not disclose any definite harassment or cruelty -- Held, evidence fell short of establishing cruelty or unlawful demand within meaning of Section 498-A IPC -- Conviction unsustainable -- Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 2, 5 to 12)

***

Appeal against acquittal -- Reversal of acquittal -- Conviction by appellate court -- Sentencing -- Appellate court cannot remit matter to trial court for hearing on sentence and imposition of sentence after recording conviction.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 235(2), 386(a) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Sections 258, 427 -- Appeal against acquittal -- High Court reversed acquittal and convicted appellant under Sections 376 and 312 IPC -- Instead of hearing appellant on question of sentence, High Court directed trial court to take appellant into custody and impose sentence after hearing him -- Permissibility of -- Appellate court convicting accused for first time after reversing acquittal is itself required to hear him on question of sentence and thereafter pass sentence according to law -- Judicial function of sentencing cannot be delegated to trial court -- Direction remitting matter to trial court for imposition of sentence set aside -- Matter remitted to High Court for hearing appellant on sentence and passing appropriate sentencing order.

(Paras 12 to 22)

***

Compromise in criminal appeal -- Conviction under Sections 364, 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC -- Long pendency of about 22 years -- Parties settled dispute amicably and complainant not willing to pursue case -- Conviction affirmed but sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Fine maintained.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860), Sections 364, 323, 324 read with Section 34 -- Criminal appeal against conviction – Allegation of abduction and assault arising out of enmity -- Conviction upheld on merits -- During pendency of appeal, compromise arrived at between parties and report of CJM confirming settlement -- Complainant not interested in prosecution -- Custody already more than one year -- Considering long pendency of 22 years and period of custody already undergone, sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining fine -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 1–17)

***

NDPS -- Intermediate quantity (5 Kg 90 grams poppy husk) -- Custody of about 05 months and 27 days against sentence of 03 years -- Sentencing principles of reformation and proportionality applied -- long pendency -- Sentence modified to period already undergone while maintaining fine.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 415 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 15(b) -- Appeal against conviction -- Recovery of 5 Kg 90 grams poppy husk from accused -- Case falls in intermediate quantity -- Trial court awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment with fine -- Appeal confined to quantum of sentence as conviction not challenged -- Supreme Court principles of sentencing emphasising reformation and proportionality applied -- Considering custody already undergone (05 months 27 days) and long pendency, sentence reduced to period already undergone -- Conviction upheld, fine maintained -- Appellant directed to be released if not required in any other case -- Appeal partly allowed.

(Paras 6-16)

***

Criminal medical negligence -- Anaesthetist giving telephonic post-operative pain management advice after duty hours cannot be held criminally liable for subsequent procedural lapse committed by staff nurse in administering injection -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

***

Criminal negligence -- In absence of direct proximate nexus between telephonic painkiller advice and death caused by acute coronary insufficiency due to 80% coronary blockage, criminal liability of appellant-anaesthetist not sustainable.
***

Medical negligence -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist in case involving epidural anaesthesia rendered medical opinion unreliable and contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew, (2005) 6 SCC 1 -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

***

Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Appellant-doctor having been exonerated on merits by Consumer Forum and such finding attaining finality, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical allegations held abuse of process of law.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal medical negligence -- Rash and negligent act -- Degree of negligence -- Anaesthetist whose duty hours had concluded cannot be held criminally liable for a subsequent procedural error committed by a staff nurse -- Appellant merely suggested administration of painkiller over telephone, which constituted standard medical advice for post-operative pain management and not gross criminal recklessness -- Failure of nurse to accurately locate epidural space may at best amount to deficiency in service giving rise to civil liability, but lacked gross culpability or mens rea necessary to attract Section 304-A IPC -- Essential ingredients of criminal negligence absent -- Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 19, 20, 24, 25)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304-A -- Criminal negligence -- Proximate cause -- Requirement of direct nexus (causa causans) between negligent act and death -- Painkiller advised by petitioner over telephone -- Deceased found having asymptomatic 80% coronary artery blockage -- Medical evidence proving immediate cause of death to be acute coronary insufficiency resulting in heart attack -- Chain of causation too remote to fasten criminal liability upon appellant-anaesthetist -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Para 28)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Medical negligence -- Expert opinion – Requirement of independent competent medical opinion -- Case relating to administration of epidural anaesthesia -- Constitution of expert panel without anaesthetist -- Effect -- Absence of specialist in concerned branch rendered panel incompetent to evaluate technical nuances of epidural anaesthesia and catheter management -- Reliance on such flawed expert report contrary to safeguards laid down in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab -- Criminal prosecution unsustainable.

(Paras 26, 27)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Criminal proceedings and civil proceedings -- Exoneration in civil proceedings -- Effect -- Consumer Forum after detailed appreciation of evidence exonerating appellant-doctor from liability -- Finding attained finality qua the appellant -- Where exoneration on merits holds allegations wholly unsustainable, continuation of criminal prosecution on identical facts amounts to abuse of process of law.

(Paras 21 to 23)

***

Circumstantial evidence -- Acquittal -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction --Supreme Court declined interference under Article 136.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 364, 302, 396, 201 and 120-B -- Constitution of India, Article 136 -- Circumstantial evidence -- Murder -- Appeal against acquittal -- Prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recoveries and alleged disclosure statements -- High Court found prosecution failed to establish complete chain of circumstances and allowed appeal and set aside conviction -- Non-examination of independent witness allegedly present at time of recovery of dead body created serious doubt regarding prosecution claim that recovery was made pursuant to disclosure statement of accused -- Recoveries of tape recorder, wrist watch and towel not connected with crime through legally admissible evidence -- Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof -- When two views are possible and High Court adopts plausible view, Supreme Court would not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice -- Appeals dismissed.

(Paras 24 to 43)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Multiple proceedings -- Where FIR and complaint are founded on identical substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings before different fora is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 156(3) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 469, 505 -- Constitution of India, Articles 20(2) and 21 – Quashing of FIR – Multiple proceedings – Test of sameness – Abuse of process – Where FIR and complaint proceedings arise from the same substratum of facts, continuation of parallel proceedings is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process of law -- It is well settled that there cannot be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence, and splitting of a single transaction by changing the nomenclature of offences is not permissible – Held, the substratum of allegations in the impugned FIR and the earlier complaint before the Ld. CJM, Srinagar, being identical and arising from the same alleged social media activity, continuation of the FIR is unsustainable -- FIR and consequential proceedings quashed.

(Paras 6, 14 to 22)

***

Hostile witness -- Evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence.

***

Postmortem report -- Evidentiary value -- Postmortem report by itself not substantive evidence -- Requires corroboration by oral evidence of medical expert.

***

Independent witnesses -- Incident alleged to have occurred on public road with vehicular movement and presence of nearby persons -- Failure of prosecution to examine any independent witness assumes significance and renders occurrence doubtful.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 323 -- Murder -- Conviction -- PW3 turned hostile and contradicted prosecution story -- Other witnesses did not support prosecution case regarding holding of Panchayat about the issue of elopement of the sister of the accused and the deceased. -- No other evidence which could corroborate the factum of holding of Panchayat etc. -- No independent witness examined though incident allegedly occurred on busy public road -- Medical evidence suffered from discrepancies and contradictions -- Held, prosecution failed to prove occurrence, genesis and motive of crime -- Evidence weak and unreliable -- Conviction unsustainable -- Appellant acquitted.

(Paras 5 to 10.4)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 145, 157 and 159 -- Hostile witness -- Admissibility and evidentiary value -- Evidence of hostile witness remains admissible and can be relied upon once corroborated by other reliable evidence.

(Paras 8.3 to 9)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) -- Medical evidence -- Postmortem report -- Postmortem report by itself cannot be treated as a piece of substantive evidence -- Medical expert required to satisfactorily explain discrepancies and contradictions appearing in postmortem report -- Failure to explain inconsistencies diminishes evidentiary value of medical evidence.

(Paras 6 to 6.1)

***

Mining Act – Ss. 21 & 22 -- Cognizance on police report impermissible -- Theft of minerals from State land constitutes distinct offence under IPC -- FIR quashed qua Mining Act offences but permitted to continue for offences under Ss. 379 and 120-B IPC.

***

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957), Sections 21 and 22 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 379 and 120-B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR -- Illegal mining -- Cognizance of offences under Mining Act cannot be taken on police report and requires complaint by authorised officer -- Theft of minor minerals from State land constitutes distinct and independent offence under IPC -- Disputed questions regarding validity of mining lease and correctness of demarcation cannot be examined in proceedings for quashing -- High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or appreciate evidence while exercising inherent jurisdiction -- FIR and proceedings under Mining Act quashed -- Proceedings for offences under Sections 379 and 120-B IPC allowed to continue.

(Paras 14-26)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 473, 482 -- Insecticides Act, 1968 (46 of 1968), Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 -- Insecticide Rules, 1971, Rule 27(5) -- Summoning order – Condonation of delay -- Non-speaking order – No satisfaction regarding prima facie case and no discussion of material on record – Limitation to be reckoned from date of receipt of report of Public Analyst – Complaint filed after considerable delay of several years – No application of mind to question of limitation or condonation of delay – Impugned order not sustainable – Matter remanded for fresh consideration with direction to pass speaking order after considering limitation and material on record.

(Paras 7 to 10)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138, 139 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 528 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Issuance of process – Presumption -- Dismissal of complaint at pre-trial stage – At the stage of issuance of process what is prima facie required to be seen is issuance of cheque by drawer, its dishonour on presentation, issuance of statutory notice and filing of complaint within prescribed period – Once issuance of cheque and signature are not disputed, statutory presumption u/s 139 that cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability comes into play – Burden shifts on drawer to prove contrary during trial – Statutory presumption cannot be dislodged in a summary manner at pre-trial stage by contending that cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt – Sessions Court and High Court erred in setting aside order issuing process – Complaint restored for trial on merits.

(Paras 8-12)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 88, 92, 312, 325, 426, 120-B, 406, 465, 468, 471, 501 (1) & (2) -- Quashing of criminal proceedings -- Medical negligence -- Consent for surgery – Act done in good faith -- Allegation that doctor performed Orchidectomy instead of Orchidopexy without consent – Consent form signed by father of minor patient mentioned both procedures separated by slash – Medical Review Board opined that Orchidectomy is a recognized alternative procedure in cases of undescended testicle and may be undertaken to prevent malignancy – Director, Medical and Rural Health Services found no fault in consent form – No material showing interpolation, different ink or handwriting in consent form – No allegation of malice against doctor – Continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process of Court – Proceedings quashed.

(Para 16-21)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 292, 294 -- Obscene words – Acquittal -- Mere use of the word ‘bastard’, by itself, is not sufficient to arouse prurient interest of a person -- More so, when such words are commonly used in modern era during heated conversations -- Conviction of the appellants for offence punishable u/s 294(b) IPC is not sustainable, set aside.

(Para 20)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 34, 324, 304 Part II – Common intention – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- A-1 charged on the deceased by taking an Aruval in his hand but, when PW-4 intervened, gave two blows to PW-4, which did not result in any grievous injury -- Testimony of PW-4 that A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies, but this statement is not attributed to A-1 -- Besides, there is no evidence that A-1 exhorted A-2 to strike the deceased -- No reliable evidence to show that A-1 had beaten the deceased after he fell to the ground --  Not be safe to hold that A-1 shared common intention with A-2 to cause such bodily harm to the deceased as is likely to cause his death -- Conviction of A-1 u/s 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC set aside -- However, conviction of A-1 for causing injury to PW-4 and thereby committing offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is confirmed.

(Para 21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304 Part II – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder -- Section 304 Part II IPC – A-2 took a log and gave a hard blow on the head of the deceased while uttering that all problems are because of the deceased and it is better that he dies – Injury sustained by the deceased discloses fracture of the skull and there were blood clots in the brain -- No evidence that the death had occurred on account of improper treatment – Conviction of A-2 under Section 304 Part II IPC confirmed -- Having regard to the fact that the incident is of the year 2014 and was preceded by an altercation between neighbours, who are close relatives, arising from a boundary dispute, and injury was not caused by using a dangerous weapon, but by a log lying on the spot, and only a solitary blow was inflicted in the heat of the moment – Sentence reduced to 03 years from 05 years R.I.

(Para 21-28)

***

Dowry death -- Mere proof that death occurred within seven years of marriage is insufficient -- Prosecution must establish that death was caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances and that there existed a live and proximate link between dowry-related cruelty or harassment and the death.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Dowry death -- Essential ingredients -- Death within seven years of marriage by itself not sufficient to attract Section 304-B IPC -- Prosecution required to prove that death was caused by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances and that deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before death -- Post-mortem report disclosed no injuries, viscera report ruled out poisoning and cause of death remained unascertained -- Ingredient relating to unnatural death held not proved -- Conviction under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC set aside.

(Paras 12-22, 36-38)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Dowry demand -- Mere demand for articles or valuables not amounting to dowry demand unless accompanied by cruelty or harassment connected therewith -- To invoke statutory presumption under Section 113-B, prosecution must establish a live and proximate nexus between death and dowry-related cruelty inflicted soon before death -- Vague allegations of demand unsupported by evidence of specific acts of cruelty or harassment held insufficient to sustain conviction.

(Paras 29-35)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 304-B and 498-A -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 113-B -- Presumption as to dowry death -- Expression "shown" occurring in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B Evidence Act requires foundational facts to be proved by prosecution before statutory presumption can arise -- Burden shifts to accused only after prosecution establishes unnatural death within seven years of marriage and cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death.

(Paras 27-30)

***

Scheduled Caste status -- Conversion to Christianity -- Person openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor ceases to be member of Scheduled Caste within meaning of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 -- Statutory protections and benefits under SC/ST Act not available.

***

Scheduled Caste -- Conversion and reconversion -- Mere birth in Scheduled Caste not sufficient once person professes Christianity -- Reconversion claim must be established by proof of bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community.

***

Quashing of proceedings -- SC/ST Act and IPC offences -- High Court justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where foundational requirement of Scheduled Caste status absent and evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose ingredients of offences alleged.

***

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3 -- Constitution of India, Articles 341 and 342 -- Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Appellant openly professing and practising Christianity as Pastor for more than ten years -- Clause 3 of Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order categorically excludes persons professing religions other than Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism from Scheduled Caste status -- Upon conversion to Christianity, appellant ceased to be Scheduled Caste in law and could not invoke protections of SC/ST Act.

(Paras 35 to 61)

B. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Expression “professes” -- Meaning and scope -- “Profess” means open declaration and public practice of religion -- Person publicly preaching and conducting Christian religious services as Pastor clearly professes Christianity -- Irrespective of the appellant’s caste of origin, he cannot be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.

(Paras 36 to 44)

C. Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, Clause 3 -- Scheduled Caste -- Conversion to Christianity -- Reconversion -- Conditions precedent -- Claimant seeking restoration of Scheduled Caste status must establish original caste status, bona fide reconversion, complete renunciation of converted faith and acceptance by original caste community -- Mere possession of caste certificate insufficient unless in consonance with Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.

(Paras 55, 58)

D. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 506 and 34 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Conversion to Christianity – Applicability of SC/ST Act -- Quashing of proceedings -- Allegations of assault, restraint and intimidation unsupported by independent witnesses -- Statements of material witnesses inconsistent and lacking specific attribution against accused -- Evidence collected during investigation failed to disclose essential ingredients of offences alleged -- Continuation of proceedings held abuse of process -- Appellant ceased to be member of Scheduled Caste -- High Court justified in quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(Paras 60 to 69)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 307, 326 – Attempt to murder – Compromise quashing of FIR – Court may look into the medical evidence and examine the same to see as to whether the conviction u/s 307 of the IPC was possible or not -- Mere registration of an FIR u/s 307 did not foreclose the right of the petitioner/accused to effect a compromise and get the FIR quashed -- An injury which has been “declared dangerous to life” is in fact an injury which is “endangering life” and therefore would be punishable u/s 326 IPC – Therefore, if a conviction was to be recorded, in all probability it would be one u/s 326 IPC and not u/s 307 IPC – FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

(Para 7-12)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190 -- Summoning of accused – Procedure – Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – It is not sufficient that the complainant merely produces two witnesses to support the allegations in the complaint to set the criminal law in motion – Order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect due application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto – Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out – Magistrate may also put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers so as to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations and then examine whether any offence is prima facie committed by any of the accused.

(Para 13)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Quashing of Complaint/ FIR – Inherent powers of High Court -- When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care -- It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not -- In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines – Court is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.

(Para 14)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190, 482 -- Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957), Section 63, 65, 65A -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 387 -- Quashing of complaint/ summoning order --  Complaint only contains a bald and unsubstantiated allegations -- Statement of the complainant and witnesses (brother of the complainant) and (cousin of the complainant), do not identify any feature of the script allegedly copied -- Dispute Settlement Committee of SWA comprising experts found no similarity between the film and the script and dismissed the complaint -- Complainant and his witnesses concealed the aforesaid material fact and did not bring the same to the notice of the Court -- No material on record to prima facie conclude that there was any similarity between appellant’s film and complainant’s script – Summoning order held to be passed in mechanical manner and suffers from vice of non-application of mind -- Summoning order and complaint quashed.

(Para 16-20)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Cheating – Intention to deceive – Inducement -- In order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence when the inducement was made -- It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise -- Mere failure to keep the promise subsequently cannot be the sole basis to presume that dishonest intention existed from the very beginning.

(Para 13, 14)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Cheating – Quashing -- Inherent powers of High Court -- High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under the Code, or under Article 226 of the Constitution, upon consideration of the attending circumstances, take a decision whether the dishonest intention existed or not at the time of making the promise -- And, if it comes to the conclusion that the alleged conduct of the parties does not reflect a dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning, it may quash the criminal complaint/ proceedings and relegate the aggrieved party to civil remedies.

(Para 15)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 415, 420 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Cheating -- Breach of contract -- Money invested for making a movie on promise of sharing profits – Failure to pay returns/profits – No allegations that the movie earned profits and the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of transaction – Mere non-fulfilment of promise or breach of contractual obligation does not constitute cheating – By issuance of post-dated cheques, the de facto complainant was led to vacate his objection to movie’s release, even then an offence of cheating would not be made out for two reasons; First, those cheques were post-dated therefore, did not carry a representation of sufficient funds in the bank account at the time of its issuance, Second, initial agreement, as per the allegations, was to share profit on release of the movie – Allegations only disclosed a civil cause of action and the High Court fell in error in not quashing the criminal proceedings -- Impugned criminal proceedings u/s 420 IPC quashed.

(Para 16-21)

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Punishment for minor offence compare to charged offence -- Section 364 IPC cannot be treated as minor/cognate offence of Section 302 IPC -- Accused charged under Section 302 IPC cannot be convicted under Section 364 IPC in absence of specific charge.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Minor offence not determined merely by lesser punishment -- Where two offences are cognate offences and main ingredients are common, offence carrying lesser sentence can be treated as minor offence vis-a-vis other offence.

***

Minor offence under section 222 Cr.P.C. – Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

***

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 364 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Conviction for offence not charged -- Minor offence -- Scope – Murder / Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder -- Accused charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC -- Trial Court acquitting accused of offence under Section 302 IPC but convicting under Section 364 IPC on finding that accused had taken deceased with him on pretext of watching movie -- Validity -- Offence under Section 364 IPC is separate and distinct offence and cannot be construed as minor/ cognate offence vis-a-vis Section 302 IPC -- Ingredients of both offences not common -- In absence of specific charge under Section 364 IPC, conviction thereunder caused prejudice to accused and violated fair trial norms -- No evidence of forceful taking away or abduction of deceased by accused -- High Court justified in setting aside conviction -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 8 to 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 222 -- Minor offence -- Interpretation -- Expression “minor offence” found in Section 222 is not defined under the Code, it can be discerned from the context which is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence -- If the two offences are cognate offences and the main ingredients are common, the offence punishable with lesser sentence can be considered as a minor offence with reference to the other offence.

(Para 9)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 304B -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 221, 222 -- Murder – Dowry death -- Composition of the offence under Section 304-B is vastly different from the offence of murder indicated under Section 302 IPC and hence the former cannot be regarded as a minor offence vis-a-vis the latter.

(Para 10)

***

Quashing of FIR -- Inherent powers of High Court -- Proceedings can be quashed where they are manifestly mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or private grudge, to prevent abuse of process of law and secure ends of justice.

***

Quashing of FIR -- Election speech -- Allegations of abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India -- Ingredients of Sections 125 of Representation of the People Act and 504 IPC not made out -- FIR and proceedings quashed.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Inherent powers of High Court – Quashing of FIR -- Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him/her due to private and personal grudge, High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to quash the proceedings.

(Para 11)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Section 528 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 504 -- Quashing of FIR -- Allegations that petitioner made abusive remarks against Prime Minister of India during election speech and violated Model Code of Conduct -- Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. contains vague and omnibus allegations without specific particulars of words used -- Held, ingredients of Section 125 R.P.C. Act not satisfied as there is no material showing promotion of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language -- Further held, essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC missing as no material to show intentional insult with intent or knowledge to provoke breach of public peace -- Complainant not the person allegedly provoked, allegations vague and unsupported by material evidence -- Powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C. reiterated to be exercised to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice -- FIR and consequential proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law and quashed.

(Paras 18 to 24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B  -- Quashing of FIR -- Forgery and Cheating – Premature Exercise of Jurisdiction – High Court quashed FIR alleging forgery while the investigation was ongoing and documents were pending examination by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL) – Held: It is wholly unjustified for a High Court to quash an FIR at the threshold when the Investigating Agency is awaiting a handwriting expert’s report on disputed signatures – High Court glossed over vital aspects of investigation and prematurely concluded that ingredients of fraud were not made out –Prosecution of accused cannot be stifled when prima facie evidence of criminal misappropriation and falsification exists – Impugned order of the High Court set aside.

(Para 14-24)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200, 202 -- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(x) -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 506, 34 -- Enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. – Role of -- An inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted and a report was submitted – Summoning order is completely silent on the material collected during the inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and lacks any discussion of the essential ingredients of the offences alleged cannot be sustained being a non-speaking order passed without due application of mind -- Summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be done in a mechanical manner and that absence of such indication amounts to non-application of mind – Summoning order set aside, matter remitted back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration.

(Para 5-8)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Cheating – Forgery -- Agreement to Sell -- Quashing of FIR -- Dispute between the parties arose out of an agreement to sell executed in 2004, and during the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance the accused sold a portion of the land to a third party -- Matter was already subject matter of adjudication before civil courts, and the decree passed therein had been challenged in second appeal where execution proceedings stood stayed -- FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 11 years -- Not the case of the complainant that the petitioner had dishonestly induced him to part with property or money by making false representations at the very inception -- No allegations of fabrication or forgery of documents so as to attract offences u/ss 467, 468 or 471 IPC -- Allegations essentially pertained to non-execution of the sale deed and subsequent transfer of property, which would be governed by civil remedies and the doctrine of lis pendens -- Dispute is predominantly civil in nature and criminal proceedings are initiated merely to pressurize the opposite party -- FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 8-13)

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Evidentiary value – A dying declaration is a very important species of evidence capable of proving the crime proper and identifying the accused, an exception to hearsay having been provided by Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act -- Court should be satisfied it is made by the deceased without any prompting or tutoring or coercion or is a mere figment of imagination -- Then conviction can be based solely on the dying declaration and there is no requirement of any corroboration.

(Para 13)

B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Form of declaration -- It can be reduced to writing or can be oral, as testified by reliable witnesses -- It can be one or numerous and if more than one; exculpatory and inculpatory, it is for the Court to find out which is believable -- It can be a lengthy one or a short one, so far as the crime is spoken of and identification of the perpetrator comes through -- It can be a single narrative or in a question and answer form -- It can either have a history of the rancour between the perpetrator and the victim or can be merely the brief statement of the incident.

(Para 13)

C. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Medical condition/ opinion -- The capacity of the injured to make the statement, both physical and mental, need not be necessarily certified by a doctor and would rest again on the satisfaction of the Court on an analysis of the testimony of the various witnesses and the other evidence coming forth in trial -- If the Court is satisfied of the fit state of mind of the injured from the evidence on record, a contrary medical opinion or an absence of it will be inconsequential.

(Para 13)

D. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Dying declaration – Where to made -- It can be made before a Magistrate; Executive or Judicial, a Doctor, a Police Officer, a relative or a third party whose presence is not doubtful -- The desire of the declarant to live, through the truth despite fear of imminent death cannot be easily brushed aside.

(Para 13)

E. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 32 – Murder – Son and daughter-in-law accused of murder – Acquittal – Lapses in investigation and trial – Non-compliance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Investigation found to be grossly deficient – Scene mahazar not drawn, no forensic examination conducted at the scene of crime and no independent witnesses examined – Cause of fire not investigated and presence of the accused near the crime scene not established – Delay in registration of FIR despite prior information received at the police station and presence of police officials at the scene constituted a serious lapse – Manner in which the FIS was recorded cast doubt on the conduct of the Investigating Officer – Dying declarations ought to have been recorded with greater caution and preferably in the presence of a doctor with certification – Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence must be put to the accused in their entirety under Section 313 Cr.P.C., a duty cast upon both the Court and the Prosecutor – Failure to do so may vitiate the prosecution case – Acquittal recorded by the High Court upheld.

(Para 21-32)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B --  Quashing of FIR – Cheating/ Forgery -- Civil dispute -- Allegations primarily related to return of money and alleged partnership without any written agreement -- Dispute was purely civil in nature – Criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process of law – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed.

(Para 10-17)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – General and omnibus allegations against in-laws -- High Court quashed proceedings against sister-in-law but declined similar relief to other in-laws – FIR disclosed that allegations against appellants and sister-in-law were identical – No specific overt act, date or place attributed to appellants – Mere allegation that appellants used to quarrel does not constitute ingredients of offences alleged – Applying different standards to similarly placed accused held erroneous – Where allegations against accused persons stand on identical footing, relief granted to one accused on ground of general and omnibus allegations must equally extend to others – Different standards cannot be applied -- Proceedings against appellants also quashed.

(Paras 7, 10, 11)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 341, 323, 498-A, 34 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), Section 3, 4 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Matrimonial dispute – Delay in lodging complaint – Counter-blast to divorce proceedings --  Marriage solemnised in July 2019 – Husband filed divorce petition in March 2021 – Criminal complaint against in-laws lodged in March 2022 – Though delay alone not sufficient ground for quashing, viewed in conjunction with the absence of any specific allegations attributable to them, the delay lends credence to the submission that the criminal complaint against the in-laws may have been instituted by way of a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the husband -- When these two considerations are read together, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present appellants cannot be sustained.

(Para 8)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 (2)(n), 506 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape on false promise of marriage -- Consensual relationship -- Quashing of FIR -- Complainant, a married woman and mother of two children, employed in a massage parlour and in charge of running the same, had a physical relationship with the appellant who visited the parlour as a customer – Relationship commenced in August 2023 and continued till March 2024 – Complainant informed appellant of pregnancy on 15.03.2024 – FIR lodged after appellant’s marriage on 12.03.2024 alleging rape on promise of marriage – No allegation that she was divorced from her husband or even separated from him – Held, there was a consensual relationship, neither inducement nor threat and no possibility of a deception luring the complainant into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage – Even if FSL report establishes paternity, consent demolishes allegation of rape on promise of marriage – Order of High Court refusing to quash proceedings set aside and FIR quashed.

(Para 7 to 9)

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing – Inherent powers of High Court -- While considering a prayer to quash an FIR, ordinarily the allegations made therein are to be taken at their face value to assess whether prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made out or not -- Where the cause espoused in the FIR is essentially of a civil nature, while addressing a quashing petition, the Court must have regard to the attending circumstances and assess whether it has been given cloak of criminal offence and whether proceeding further on the FIR would amount to the abuse of the process of the court/ law -- In making such assessment, the Court may consider not only the contents of the FIR but also the admitted facts / documents recited therein.

(Para 15)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Cheating – Forgery – Civil dispute -- Quashing of FIR -- Parties had entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for development of property -- Disputes regarding title to the property/land including suppression of litigation pending in respect thereof, non-fulfilment of contractual obligations, non-refund of security money and furnishing false document arose -- If there was something stark about the dishonest intention on part of one of the parties to the agreement, it would have been reported promptly and not after 10 years -- Merely because a document is not traceable in the office records after several years of its issuance, it cannot be said that the document is forged -- Recourse to appropriate civil remedy was required -- Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law -- FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom quashed.

(Para 16-30)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 2(xv), 2(xvi), 18, 21 – Quashing of FIR – NDPS – ‘Opium’ – ‘Opium derivative’ – Morphine content detected in recovered contraband is less than the stipulated quantity of 0.2% and the medicines recovered from the spot thus cannot be termed as ‘opium’ or ‘opium derivative’ – No prima facie case made out -- Continuation of proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of law -- FIR and the consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7-11)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial Evidence – Last seen together theory – Failure to establish proximity and reliable identification – Effect – No clear-cut time specified on which the death occurred, when it is trite that the last seen together theory projected by the prosecution should be proximate to the death of the victim – It is the roommates of the deceased who informed PW1 that they were told by a friend of the deceased that he was going to meet A1 in the evening -- The roommates of the deceased were not examined -- Identification of the accused by a witness for the first time in the police station, without holding a Test Identification Parade -- Nothing on record to indicate ownership of auto rickshaw, who was alleged to be driver of auto rickshaw, who had picked up three persons and dropped them near scene of occurrence --   Ransom calls hence remained an unsolved puzzle – Last scene theory not proved -- Conviction set aside.

(Para 13-16, 31)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 24 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Confession statement -- Confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made -- Confession allegedly made by the appellants is of no use in bringing home a conviction, especially when there was no corroboration available, of the statements made, from other valid evidence -- Admissions were only that made in the confessional statements, of the death having occurred in the presence of the accused, on the day the deceased was found missing, which is not worthy of acceptance – Conviction set aside.

(Para 29-31)

***

Criminal Appeal against Acquittal -- Hostile prosecutrix -- Prosecution evidence insufficient -- Truncated trial justified -- No perversity in acquittal.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 161, 164, 378 -- Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), Section 67 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 376-D, 509, 506, 120-B, 201 -- Appeal against acquittal -- Truncated trial -- Sexual assault case -- Prosecutrix turned hostile and categorically denied rape, stating allegations were based on mistaken belief regarding fake photographs/videos -- No credible material to support charge under Section 67 IT Act as FSL report uncorroborated and electronic evidence not proved – Alleged relationship found to be consensual on record – Trial Court truncated proceedings and acquitted accused holding further trial would be an empty formality – Prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient  -- Acquittal based on appreciation of evidence calls for no interference – Acquittal upheld.

(Paras 9-20)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Rape – Hostile witness – Acquittal -- When the main witness of the prosecution, i.e. the victim herself, has not supported the case of the prosecution, it is not open for the Court to presume that she did not support the case of the prosecution because the appellant-accused has won over the said witness -- Moreso, PW-2, i.e., the husband of the victim, also did not support the case of the prosecution -- Further, medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution -- Furthermore, three independent witnesses, though cited as prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet, were not examined by the prosecution – Held, Trial Court as well as the High Court committed an error by recording the order of conviction of the appellant-accused and therefore, the said orders are required to be quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted.

(Para 18-22)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 363, 376(2)(i), 201 – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 3, 4 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 106 -- Acquittal -- Rape of four-year old girl – Circumstantial evidence -- Omission in FIR – Investigation lapses -- First Information Report, despite the informant’s professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find mention -- Investigation hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a  pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth -- Highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/ rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case -- Yet, in face of this disturbing matrix, the accused-appellant stands convicted and has remained behind bars for nearly thirteen long years – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside -- Appellant acquitted.

(Para 2, 24-52, 78)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 393 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 354 -- Criminal trials – Judgment must contain -- More structured and uniform practice must be adopted to enhance the legibility of criminal judgments -- Directions issued to all trial Courts across the country for :  

Preparation of Tabulated Charts in all the judgments:

All trial Courts dealing with criminal matters shall, at the conclusion of the judgment, incorporate tabulated charts summarizing: -

a. Witnesses examined,

b. Documents exhibited, and

c. Material objects (muddamal) produced and exhibited.

These charts shall form an appendix or concluding segment of the judgment and shall be prepared in a clear, structured and easily comprehensible format.

Standardized Chart of Witnesses

Each criminal judgment shall contain a witness chart with at least the following columns:

a. Serial Number

b. Name of the Witness

c. Brief Description/Role of the Witness, such as: Informant, Eye-witness, Medical Jurist/Doctor, Investigating Officer (I.O.), Panch Witness, etc.

The description should be succinct but sufficient to indicate the evidentiary character of the witness. This structured presentation will allow quick reference to the nature of testimony, assist in locating the witness in the record, and minimize ambiguity.

Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined

Standardized Chart of Exhibited Documents

A separate chart shall be prepared for all documents exhibited during trial. This chart shall include:

a. Exhibit Number;

b. Description of document;

c. The Witness who proved or attested the document.

Illustratively, the description may include: FIR, complaint, panchnamas, medical certificates, FSL reports, seizure memos, site plans, dying declarations, etc.

The requirement of specifying the witness who proved the document ensures traceability of proof and assist the Court in appreciating compliance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents

Standard Chart for Material Objects (Muddamal)

Whenever material objects are produced and marked as exhibits, the trial Court shall prepare a third chart with:

a. Material Object (M.O.) Number;

b. Description of the Object;

c. Witness who proved the Object’s Relevance (e.g., weapon, clothing, tool, article seized under panchnama, etc.)

This enables clarity regarding the physical evidence relied upon.

Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals

Special Provisions for Cases Involving Voluminous Evidence

In complex cases, such as conspiracies, economic offences or trials involving voluminous oral or documentary evidence, the list of witnesses and exhibits may be substantially long. Where the number of witnesses or documents is unusually large, the trial Court may prepare charts only for the material, relevant, and relied-upon witnesses and documents, clearly indicating that the chart is confined to such items. This ensures that the charts remain functional reference tools rather than unwieldy compilations.

Application to Defence Witnesses and Evidence

The aforesaid directions shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to all witnesses examined and all evidence adduced by the defence.

Adoption of Specimen Format and Permissible Deviations

The specimen charts provided herein shall ordinarily serve as the standard format to be followed by trial Courts across the country.

Observations Regarding Applicability to Civil Proceedings

While these directions are primarily intended to streamline criminal trials, we leave it open to the High Courts to consider, wherever appropriate,  the adoption of similar tabulated formats in civil matters as well, particularly in cases involving voluminous documentary or oral evidence, so as to promote clarity, uniformity, and ease of reference.

High Court may consider incorporating the above directions in their respective rules governing the procedure of trial Courts.

(Para 86-90)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape case -- Discharge – Although the Court ought not to minutely marshal evidence at the stage of framing of charges, however, when the primary material on record is only the statement of the prosecutrix, the Court cannot be precluded from considering whether the same inspires such confidence so as to give rise to grave suspicion against the accused or if the same is riddled with inconsistencies, delays or improbabilities – To hold otherwise would frustrate the purpose of sifting evidence and warrant framing of charges in every case where the prosecutrix makes allegations of rape in her statement u/s 164 of the CrPC.

(Para 14)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 164, 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 -- Rape case -- Discharge – In the FIR as well as in her statement u/s 164 of the CrPC, the petitioner asserted that accused had inserted his finger in her private part, however, during her medical examination, the petitioner stated that she had been subjected to oral sex – For another incident, the prosecutrix has alleged on one hand that both the accused persons raped her one by one which implies that she was conscious to some level, however, she has alleged in her statement u/s 164 of the CrPC that she was unconscious and she had felt something wrong had been done to her after she regained consciousness -- Said inconsistencies in regard to the petitioner being conscious or not during the 2nd incident as well as the precise nature of acts cannot be deemed to be minute, especially when coupled with lack of corroboration from CDR -- There is also significant delay in registration of FIR after a lapse of around seven months -- No explanation tendered as to why no complaint was given by the petitioner in the 10 day gap between the two incidents either – Due to delay no medical evidence can be obtained – Discharge order upheld.

(Para 15-24)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Discharge of accused -- At the stage of discharge, a strong suspicion suffices -- However, a strong suspicion must be found on some material which can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial.

(Para 17)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 341, 354C, 506 -- Discharge of accused -- Allegation by complainant that by clicking her photographs without her consent accused intruded her privacy and obstructed her entry into premises -- FIR and charge sheet silent about the manner in which complainant was threatened or was watched or captured by the accused while she was engaging in a 'private act' to attract Section 354C -- Except for the bald allegation that the Appellant-accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her photographs, the FIR and charge-sheet are completely silent about the manner in which the complainant was threatened with any injury to her person or her property -- The words, if any, uttered by the complainant are not mentioned in the FIR -- Complainant or her associates never made a statement to substantiate her allegations -- Ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation are not attracted -- Ingredients of wrongful restraint u/s 341 not made out, in absence of material on record to show that complainant was a tenant in the property at any point of time -- On the date of the alleged offence, complainant had no right to enter the property - Accused enforce bonafidely thought was his lawful right over property in terms of injunction order -- Accused discharged.

(Para No. 20-30)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376, 376(2)(n), 507 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Rape -- False promise to marry – Quashing of FIR -- Respondent No.2 continued to meet the appellant and indulged in physical relations with him even though she was already married -- FIR also states that in September 2022, when respondent No.2 found out that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child, she told the appellant, “You live your life and I will live my life” -- At that time, the appellant assured her that they would get married and asked for some time from respondent No.2, to which she refused -- However, despite her refusal to be with the appellant, respondent No.2 continued to meet him at Hotel and engaged in physical relations with him – Held, not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished -- Relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time -- They remained close and emotionally involved -- In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage – FIR quashed.

(Para 24-28, 41)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust -- Sale of partnership property by accused -- Cheating – Inducement – Dishonest intention -- There is a clear absence of material on record to attribute any dishonest and fraudulent intention to the appellant-accused at the time of creation of partnership agreement -- No allegation in the complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellant-accused right from the time of formation of the partnership deed -- Mere allegations that the appellant-accused dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the property of the partnership firm and subsequently sold the property to a third party does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 of the IPC – Complainant failed to place any material on record to show us as to how he had entrusted the subject property to the appellant-accused -- Furthermore, the complaint also omits to aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the appellant-accused, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust – Complainant has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed and claim damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication – Held, criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas – Appellant-accused could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable – Criminal complaint quashed.

(Para 20, 22, 24, 29)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406 -- Criminal breach of trust  -- Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of a property entrusted to him -- In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a person comes into possession of the property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the question whether such retention is with dishonest intention or not and whether such retention involves criminal breach of trust or only civil liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

(Para 21)

C. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 406, 420 -- Cheating – Criminal breach of trust – Cannot co-exist together -- In case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same -- Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property -- In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously -- Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct -- Said offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.

(Para 23)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 378, 386 -- Appeal against acquittal – Power of Appellate Court -- Appellate Court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal u/s 378 and 386 of the Cr.P.C. -- However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited -- If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed -- Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court’s view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice -- Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own.

(Para 12)

B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 20 – Corruption case -- Demand of illegal gratification and acceptance – Presumption -- Statutory presumption u/s 20 of the PC Act is not automatic and arises only once the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved.

(Para 18)

C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 7, 20 – Corruption case -- Acquittal by Trial Court – Conviction in appeal by High Court -- Demand of illegal gratification and acceptance – Proof of – Sole basis of the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is the narration of the complainant, a close scrutiny of which reveals serious infirmities -- Both, the DSP and the Inspector of ACB, admit they did not question the complainant on this point, and till date no explanation has ever been offered for keeping Mediator/ R out of the room -- They also admit that they did not question any of the other office staff or visitors -- Other mediator B was not examined by the prosecution at all -- These circumstances are nowhere addressed by the High Court -- Such omissions cannot be brushed aside lightly, as they strike at the root of the prosecution version and cast serious doubt on whether demand and acceptance were proved beyond reasonable doubt – Order of acquittal restored.

(Para 20-22, 35)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195, 482 -- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 182 -- False complaint – Kalandra u/s 182 of IPC – Quashing -- Complaint submitted to Director General, State Vigilance Bureau and marked to Deputy Superintendent of Police -- Proceedings u/s 182 IPC initiated by Superintendent of Police -- Held, complaint u/s 182 IPC could be filed only by the concerned public servant or the authority to whom he is administratively subordinate – Even such power cannot be delegated -- Initiation of proceedings by Superintendent of Police void ab initio being without jurisdiction -- Cognizance taken by Magistrate illegal -- Kalandra and all consequential proceedings quashed.

(Para 7, 8)

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 190 – Registration of FIR -- Application under Section 156(3) CrPC – Procedure of -- Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies provided under Section 154(3) CrPC, but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent under Section 156(3) CrPC to direct the registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated.

(Para 19, 33)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 190 – Registration of FIR -- Application u/s 156(3) of the CrPC – Procedure of -- Application nowhere states that the informant has ever approached the officer-in-charge of the police station for lodging the FIR in accordance with Section 154 of the CrPC or that on refusal to record such information he has availed the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police concerned -- Mere bald allegation without any details or proof thereof, that the police authorities were approached several times is not acceptable -- In such a situation, the Magistrate ought not to have ordinarily entertained the application under Section 156(3) so as to direct the Police for the registration of the FIR, rather, it ought to have relegated the informant to first approach the officer-in-charge of the police station and then to the Superintendent of Police.

(Para 27-30)

C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3) -- Application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – Reasoned order – Requirement of -- A reasoned order upon application of judicious mind is inherent while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

(Para 35-41)

D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 156(3), 482 -- Application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. – Procedural lapses -- Quashing of FIR – Not obligatory upon the court to exercise the inherent power in each and every case, even if the order impugned suffers from minor procedural irregularity, provided there is no miscarriage of justice -- In a case where pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, which is not illegal or without jurisdiction, an FIR has been registered which discloses a cognizable offence and, thereafter, upon investigation, chargesheets have been submitted, there is apparently no justification for the court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction so as to quash the FIR or the order of the Magistrate.

(Para 42, 43)

E. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Quashing of FIR – Dispute of civil nature – Effect of -- Once allegations are made out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or may not be having any criminality attached to it.

(Para 45)

F. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 154, 300 -- Successive FIR -- Section 300 CrPC debars a second trial -- This is based on the public policy that no one should be harassed twice for the same offence by putting him to trial again and again -- Successive FIRs in respect of a same cognizable offence are not maintainable provided that on the basis of the earlier FIR, investigations have been completed and the trial had either resulted in conviction or acquittal of the accused.

(Para 52-55)

Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (1 of 1914), Section 61 – Constitution of India, Article 21 -- Excise matter – Protracted trial – Sentenced to already undergone -- FIR of 15.08.2001 and petitioner was put to trial in 2001, convicted and sentenced on 12.03.2005 -- His appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2007 -- Ever since then, his revision petition pending – Held, petitioner has faced the agony of trial and pendency of his appeal/ revision etc. for the last almost 24 years -- He has already undergone sentence of three months and five days -- No history of the petitioner being a previous offender -- No useful purpose would be served by sending him to custody at this stage -- Order of sentence is modified to that already undergone by the petitioner.

(Para 10-12)

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(viii), (ix) & (3)(2)(vii) – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 --  Offence under SC/ ST Act -- Quashing of criminal proceedings by High Court – Challenge to -- Dispute occurred between two Scheduled Caste groups, and the same was not driven by caste-based malice -- There was no substantive evidence on record to reflect involvement in the matter beyond the complainant’s time-barred assertions -- Delay itself casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations made against them – No evidence on record which would indicate mala fide intention on the part of Respondent No. 2 or any connivance -- Bald allegations against the Appellant would not in itself be sustainable -- High Court’s order does not call for any interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 16-26)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Permissibility of -- Offence u/s 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature --  Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly -- However, the power of the Court u/s 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

(Para 6)

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 – Rape case -- Compromise quashing of FIR – FIR invoking Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side -- This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step -- More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case -- She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability -- Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous -- Parties have amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding -- Continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose -- It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome -- Continuation of the criminal proceedings would only amount to abuse of process -- FIR along with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case, quashed.

(Para 7-9)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 413, 419(4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal – Right of appeal -- Scope and ambit of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C./413 BNSS are inherently broader and more accommodating when juxtaposed with the comparatively narrower confines of Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., 1973/ 419(4) of BNSS, 2023 – Matter relegated to Session Judge :

-- The appeal, along with accompanying application(s) remitted to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to treat the same as having been filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., 1973/ Section 413 of BNSS, 2023. The said learned Sessions Judge may entrust the appeal to himself or assign it to another Court of competent jurisdiction for its disposal, as per law.

-- The Registry directed to send, expeditiously, the complete records of the present appeal (including the paper-book) to the said learned Sessions Judge.

(Para 3, 4)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 372, 378(4) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 413, 419(4) -- Acquittal in cheque bounce complaint – Leave to appeal – Delay/ Limitation -- Appeal before Session’s Court -- Application u/s 378(4) Cr.P.C. disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge to treat the present leave to appeal as an appeal filed u/s 372 of the Cr.P.C. and entrust the same to any appropriate Court to try the same -- The concerned Court shall decide the appeal on merits as per law, as expeditiously as possible -- Concerned Appellate Court need not to adhere to the delay aspect, if any, involved in the case, for the purpose of considering the issue raised in the appeal and its disposal on merit.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 8, 106 -- Murder – Acquittal -- Circumstantial evidence – Motive -- Recovery of weapon -- A blood-stained weapon even bearing the same blood group as that of the victim would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder – Regarding motive, the evidence are very vague and vacillating -- Law is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence -- Prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence to bring home the charges -- Impugned judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 6-10)

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 354A(1)(i) – Sexual harassment -- In order to attract Section 354A(1)(i) IPC, it has to be shown that the petitioner has resorted to physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures – Thus it is of prime importance to show that the offender had committed the act with sexual intention.

(Para 5)

B. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – POCSO – Sexual assault -- To establish the offence of sexual assault as envisaged u/s 7 of the POCSO Act, it has to be shown that the offender had done the act with sexual intent.

(Para 5)

C. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (32 of 2012), Section 7 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- POCSO – Allegation of sexual assault against Doctor – Quashing of Criminal proceedings -- Victim complained about chest pain and abdominal pain -- Medical examination of the victim was conducted by the petitioner in the presence of the mother of the victim on the first occasion, and in the presence of the elder sister of the victim on the second occasion -- It is too hard to believe that the petitioner would have resorted to sexual advances upon the victim in the close presence of the victim’s mother and elder sister -- Neither the statement given by the victim to the Police, nor her statements to the learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.PC, contained any indication that the alleged act committed by the petitioner was with sexual intent – Chances of that adolescent girl getting misunderstood about the act of the petitioner, cannot be ignored -- Section 41 of the POCSO Act assumes much relevancy -- Provisions of Sections 3 to 13 shall not apply in case of medical examination or medical treatment of a child when such medical examination or medical treatment is undertaken with the consent of his parents or guardian – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 304A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 -- Causing death by negligence -- In order to attract the offence u/s 304A, the death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act of the accused -- Petitioner cannot be attributed with criminality in taking up the work, since the harm involved, due to the passing of live electric wires, adjacent to the building was not foreseeable -- Unfortunate incident occurred when the worker stretched his hand while fixing the reducing coupling, as part of the plumbing work, and accidentally touched the live wire -- In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be attributed with either rashness or negligence – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)