Indian Judgements

Indian Judgements

Sudden Quarrel: High Court Modifies Conviction and Grants Probation in a Decades-Old Rural Clash

Picture of Judgments Online

Judgments Online

This criminal appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., challenges a judgment and order dated October 26, 1987, passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, wherein the appellants (Desh Raj and Bahadur) were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution arose from a November 1984 sudden altercation over the cutting of wild grass (moonj) on an intervening field boundary, during which an injury was inflicted on the victim’s back with a knife. Upon review, the Allahabad High Court noted that the single injury sustained was medically opined to be simple in nature, with no fracture or pre-mediation, and that the incident occurred spontaneously at the spur of the moment. Consequently, the High Court modified the conviction from Section 307/34 IPC (Attempt to Murder) to Section 324/34 IPC (Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons). Considering the passage of over 42 years since the incident and 39 years of pendency of the appeal, the Court extended the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, releasing the elderly appellants on probation of good conduct instead of incarceration.

  • Incident and Prosecution Origin:
    • On November 25, 1984, an altercation broke out between the parties in Village Summerpur, District Mainpuri, when the accused started cutting wild grass (moonj) on the boundary dividing their fields and the first informant’s nephew (Kaushal @ Rajesh) objected.
    • Accused Desh Raj allegedly fired a country-made pistol (which missed), while Bahadur struck the victim with a knife, causing a single incised wound on the back of his chest.
    • An FIR was promptly lodged at Police Station Kotwali within hours of the incident, and subsequent investigation led to a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC.
  • Trial Court Decision:
    • The V Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, convicted appellants Desh Raj and Bahadur under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing them to 4 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500 each, while acquitting co-accused Kali Charan.
  • Appellate Court Analysis and Findings:
    • Ocular and Medical Evidence: Direct testimony from the first informant (P.W. 2) and an independent witness (P.W. 5) established the core sequence of events and prompt medical examination, aligning with the medical report showing a simple incised wound with no bone fracture.
    • Dying Declaration Inadmissible: Because the injured victim died 13–14 months later due to unrelated illness rather than the incident, his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not qualify as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.
    • Modification of Offence: The Court observed that the attack was unpremeditated, arose instantly from a minor land boundary dispute, involved no repeat attacks, and resulted in a simple injury. Therefore, the ingredients for an “intent to murder” under Section 307 IPC were absent, warranting a conversion of the conviction to Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.
  • Relief and Probation:
    • Noting that the appellants possessed no criminal history, had no pre-mediation, and that the case had languished in appeal for nearly 39 years (with the incident dating back 42 years), the High Court deemed it fit to grant the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
    • The appellants were ordered to be released on probation for one year upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties each, alongside an undertaking to maintain good behavior.

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 62

Deshraj and Ors. v. State of U.P. (D.O.J. 03.07.2026)

J.O. (Web) 2026 ALL 62 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

September 18, 2026 No Comments

Supreme Court Judgment Summary 15th Sep, 2026

A Definitive Review on Disability Pension Rights for Ex-Servicemen

This landmark batch of appeals brought by the Union of India challenged various orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) and High Courts, which had granted the disability element of service pensions to ex-servicemen. These former personnel had been assessed by Release Medical Boards (RMB) as having disabilities that were “Neither Attributable Nor Aggravated” (NANA) by military service. The Supreme Court addressed the core tension between the protective, beneficial jurisprudence established in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India (governed by the Entitlement Rules 1982) and the restrictive framework introduced by the subsequent Entitlement Rules 2008. Crucially, the Court undertook a deep constitutional and administrative review of the legitimacy of the 2008 rules, evaluating whether they possessed binding legal force and whether they could dilute established beneficial entitlements.

2026 INSC 993 : Union of India & Ors. v. Col. NC Isaac (Retd.) and Connected Appeals (D.O.J. 15.09.2026)

Next Story

Setting Aside Ineligible Selection to Protect Merit

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by Sunita Lahu Panchpande, upholding the Bombay High Court’s judgment that had set aside her appointment as an Anganwadi Supervisor in Nashik District. The appellant, who originally served as an Anganwadi Sevika in Jalgaon District, applied for and was appointed to the post in Nashik despite an express restriction in the advertisement and the governing Government Resolution (G.R.) dated November 17, 2001, mandating that applicants must possess ten years of work experience specifically within Nashik District. Although the Divisional Commissioner had erroneously issued a clarification stating that experience from other districts was acceptable, the Supreme Court ruled that a subordinate administrative official cannot issue clarifications contrary to statutory G.R.s and recruitment advertisements. Citing the doctrine that appointments made in disregard of advertised qualifications amount to a fraud on the public, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s order directing the appointment of the eligible wait-listed candidate (the sixth respondent) in her place, while acknowledging the compassionate observation permitting the appellant’s accommodation in her home district.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court evaluated whether a candidate lacking the mandatory territorial work experience stipulated in a recruitment advertisement and government resolution can retain public employment based on an erroneous administrative clarification.
  • Mandatory Territorial Eligibility: A conjoint reading of the 2001 Government Resolution and the specific conditions of the advertisement clearly established that applicants must have accumulated their ten years of qualifying experience as an Anganwadi Sevika within the same district (Nashik).
  • Incompetence of Administrative Clarifications: The Divisional Commissioner lacked the legal authority to issue a clarification that ran completely contrary to the explicit text of the 2001 G.R.; any genuine doubt ought to have been referred back to the State Government.
  • Fraud on Public Aspirants: Reaffirming the principle laid down in Tripura Sundari Devi, the Court emphasized that appointing ineligible candidates in violation of advertised terms without an express relaxation clause constitutes a fraud on public candidates who possessed better qualifications but refrained from applying.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, the High Court’s judgment was upheld, the sixth respondent was awarded the rightful appointment with benefits to be disbursed within two months, and the appellant was granted time until September 30, 2026, to transition out of the post.

2026 INSC 1002

Sunita Lahu Panchpande v. The District Collector & Ors. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1002 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

Acquittal Under NDPS Act Due to Flawed Sampling and Unproven Contraband

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India allowed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind, setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had convicted them under Section 8 read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and 8 years respectively, following allegations that they were caught carrying charas. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution fundamentally failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized samples, pointing out severe lapses, including the total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act (drawing samples without a Magistrate), missing entries in the malkhana register regarding the exit of samples, a silent carrier constable, and an unexplained five-day delay before the samples reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Consequently, the FSL report became untrustworthy, and with no other reliable scientific proof that the recovered material was actually charas, the Court granted the appellants the benefit of the doubt and acquitted them.

  • Core Issues Addressed: The Supreme Court examined the validity of convictions under the NDPS Act concerning the integrity of link evidence, the absolute necessity of maintaining a secure chain of custody for seized contraband samples, and the legal consequences of failing to comply with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
  • Breach in Link Evidence and Custody: The prosecution failed to prove the safe transit of the samples from the malkhana to the FSL. Crucially, the forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police was dated December 1, 2004, whereas the FSL recorded receipt on December 6, 2004, leaving an unexplained five-day gap with zero evidence as to whose custody the samples remained in during this period.
  • Non-Compliance with Section 52-A: The investigating officer completely omitted the mandatory statutory safeguard of drawing representative samples in the presence of an Executive or Judicial Magistrate, which severely dented the integrity of the seizure and sampling process.
  • Exclusion of the FSL Report: Due to the shattered chain of custody and procedural flaws, the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) lost its evidentiary value and had to be discarded. Furthermore, the informal spot-testing method (burning a small piece of the substance) was deemed unscientific and insufficient to prove the material was charas.
  • Final Outcome: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of conviction and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges with their bail bonds discharged.

2026 INSC 1001

Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1001 click here to view full text of judgment

Share
Next Story

The Finality of Tax Settlements: Barring Reassessment After ITSC Orders

September 18, 2026 No Comments

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the civil appeal filed by the Revenue (Income Tax Department), upholding the judgment of the Delhi High Court which had quashed a reassessment notice and order issued against the respondent-assessee, M/s. Omaxe Limited. The core controversy revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) retained the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to disallow housing project deductions under Section 80IB(10) after the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) had already passed a final settlement order under Section 245D(4). The Supreme Court ruled that Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code. Once an application for settlement is admitted and a final order is issued, it attains absolute finality under Section 245-I, and the regular assessment machinery cannot be invoked to bypass this conclusiveness. The Court clarified that if the Revenue wishes to challenge a settlement order on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation, its sole exclusive remedy is to approach the ITSC directly under Section 245D(6)—not to initiate parallel reassessment proceedings.

  • Core Issue Addressed: The Supreme Court examined whether an Assessing Officer can independently issue a reassessment notice under Section 148 to disallow deductions (such as under Section 80IB(10)) that were part of the total income considerations during a concluded proceeding before the Settlement Commission.
  • Exclusive Jurisdiction of the ITSC: The Court reaffirmed that upon the admission of a settlement application, the ITSC assumes exclusive jurisdiction over the case for that assessment year, placing the regular assessment machinery under statutory abeyance pursuant to Section 245F(2).
  • Conclusiveness of Settlement Orders: Under Section 245-I, orders passed by the ITSC under Section 245D(4) are final and conclusive on the matters stated therein, barring the Revenue from splitting an assessment to re-litigate items through standard reassessment channels.
  • Exclusive Remedy for Fraud or Misrepresentation: If the Revenue discovers that a settlement order was obtained through misrepresentation or concealment, Section 245D(6) provides the exclusive statutory pathway to declare the settlement void by moving the ITSC directly, a route the Revenue unsuccessfully attempted and exhausted in this very case.
  • Final Outcome: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming that the regular tax authorities cannot initiate parallel reassessments once an ITSC settlement order has attained finality.

2026 INSC 1000

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another v. M/s. Omaxe Limited (D.O.J. 16.09.2026)

2026 INSC 1000 click here to view full text of judgment

Share

The specified slider does not exist.

Recent Articles

Hi Judgments Online

Subscribed
Logins