1). Supreme Court: Delay in Recording Eyewitness Testimony is Not Fatal If Properly Explained

Case Background

This case involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• The appellants challenged their conviction on the ground that the eyewitnesses' statements were recorded after a delay of 3-4 days from the incident.
• They argued that, as per the ruling in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1978) 4 SCC 371, such a delay is always fatal to the prosecution's case.
• The State responded that the delay was due to ongoing riots, and the Investigating Officer (IO) was busy handling law and order issues in the affected area.

Since the delay was properly explained, the prosecution argued that it should not weaken their case.

Issues of the Case

1. Does a delay in recording an eyewitness's statement automatically weaken the prosecution's case?
2. Can an adequately explained delay in recording a statement be considered justified?
3. Should the court take into account the circumstances that caused the delay?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a three-judge bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka
• Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah (who authored the judgment)
• Justice A.G. Masih

Key Observations

1. Delay in recording an eyewitness’s statement is not automatically fatal to the case.
   • The Court ruled that if the delay is properly explained, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
2. The delay in this case was sufficiently justified.
   • The eyewitnesses and the Investigating Officer confirmed that the delay was due to ongoing riots, and the IO was engaged in maintaining law and order.
   • Since this explanation was reasonable, the delay did not affect the credibility of the witness statements.
3. There is no strict rule that delay in recording statements always benefits the accused.
   • The Court clarified that each case must be assessed based on its specific facts.
   • If the delay is unjustified and raises suspicion, it may weaken the prosecution’s case.
   • However, if the delay is due to genuine reasons, the prosecution case remains strong.
4. Distinguishing from Ganesh Bhavan Patel Case
   • The Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra.
   • In that case, there was not only a delay in recording witness statements but also a delay in registering the FIR and other suspicious circumstances.
   • The present case was different because the FIR was registered promptly, and the delay was justified.
5. Reference to Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 4 SCC 557
   • In this case, a 27-day delay in recording witness statements was held to be justified due to communal violence.
   • The Court followed the same reasoning, holding that delay due to riots and law-and-order duties is not fatal to the prosecution.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld.
2. The Court confirmed that a delay in recording an eyewitness’s statement is not necessarily damaging to the prosecution if a valid explanation is provided.
3. Each case must be analyzed based on its unique circumstances, and no rigid rule should be applied.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
2. Section 34 IPC – Common intention (when multiple people act together with a shared intention).
3. Section 161(5) of CrPC – Statements of witnesses recorded during investigation.
4. Section 164 of CrPC – Statements recorded before a magistrate.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies that delay in recording witness statements does not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Ensures that courts consider the reasons for the delay before making conclusions.
• Prevents misuse of technical arguments by the defense to escape liability.
• Upholds the principle that justice must be based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a delay in recording an eyewitness’s testimony is not necessarily harmful to the prosecution if the delay is reasonably explained. The ruling protects the integrity of criminal trials by ensuring that procedural delays do not unfairly benefit the accused.

Case Title: FIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2). Supreme Court: Failure to Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice May Lead to Adverse Inference Against Government

Case Background

This case involved a land ownership dispute in Andhra Pradesh.

• The Appellants claimed ownership and possession of the disputed land since 1970, relying on the Pattadar Passbook (issued under the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971) and land revenue receipts as proof.
• They alleged that in 1995, the State forcibly took possession of the land without issuing any notice or providing compensation.
• To seek redress, they sent a Section 80 CPC notice to the District Magistrate, warning that they would file a lawsuit if the land was not returned.
• However, the government authorities never responded to the notice, forcing the Appellants to file a civil suit in court.

Issues of the Case

1. Was the Appellants' claim of ownership valid under the law?
2. Did the Andhra Pradesh Government lawfully resume possession of the land?
3. Does the government's failure to respond to a Section 80 CPC notice weaken its case?
4. What are the consequences of ignoring a Section 80 CPC notice?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a two-judge bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala (who authored the judgment)
• Justice R. Mahadevan

Key Observations

1. Governments must take Section 80 CPC notices seriously
   • Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) requires a party intending to sue the government to give prior notice before filing a lawsuit.
   • The Court criticized the government for ignoring the notice and forcing citizens into litigation.
   • It emphasized that public authorities must acknowledge such notices and inform litigants of their stance in a timely manner.
2. Failure to respond to a notice can lead to adverse inference against the government
   • The Court warned that when the government ignores a Section 80 notice, courts may presume that the government’s later legal defense is an afterthought.
   • In this case, the State’s silence weakened its defense.
3. The Appellants’ long possession raised a presumption of ownership
   • The Appellants had been in possession since 1970, and their claim was supported by official land records.
   • Under Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act), long and uncontested possession creates a presumption of ownership unless proven otherwise.
   • The Court found that the State failed to prove that the land was "assigned land" that could be resumed under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
4. The High Court was wrong in dismissing the Appellants’ claim
   • The Trial Court had ruled in favor of the Appellants, finding procedural irregularities in the government's land acquisition process.
   • However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that the 1977 Act gave the government ownership of the land with retrospective effect.
   • The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s ruling, holding that the State had not provided sufficient proof that the land was "assigned" under the 1977 Act.
5. Compensation instead of restoration of land
   • Since the government had already built a structure on the land, the Court decided not to order demolition.
   • Instead, the Court ordered the government to pay Rs. 70 lakhs as compensation to the Appellants.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment.
2. The Appellants were declared to be the rightful owners of the land, but instead of restoring possession, the Court awarded monetary compensation.
3. The State’s failure to respond to the Section 80 CPC notice weakened its legal position.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 80 CPC – Requires litigants to serve prior notice to the government before filing a suit.
2. Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Indian Evidence Act, 1872) - Section 113 (formerly Section 110) – A person in long, uncontested possession of property is presumed to be its owner.
3. Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Governs land ownership records in Andhra Pradesh.
4. Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 – Regulates the resumption of government-assigned lands.

Significance of the Case

• Strengthens the importance of Section 80 CPC notices, ensuring that government authorities take them seriously.
• Prevents misuse of procedural delays by the government, protecting citizens from unnecessary litigation.
• Clarifies that long possession creates a legal presumption of ownership, reinforcing property rights.
• Encourages fair compensation when land restoration is impractical.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Appellants, emphasizing that government authorities must respond to Section 80 CPC notices in a timely and meaningful manner. It criticized the State for ignoring the notice, noting that such conduct forces citizens into unnecessary legal battles. Since the land had already been developed, the Court awarded Rs. 70 lakhs in compensation instead of restoring possession.

Case Title: YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS. 

3). Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Man, Rules Woman Willingly Accompanied Accused to Hotel Room Thrice

Case Background

This case involved a rape allegation based on a false promise of marriage.

• The victim alleged that the accused forced her into sexual intercourse on three occasions, claiming he did so under a false promise of marriage.
• She claimed that after the first incident, where she alleged forced intercourse, the accused promised to marry her but later refused.
• Despite feeling distressed, she accompanied the accused to a hotel twice more, alleging coercion.
• The accused was charged under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The Madras High Court refused to quash the FIR, prompting the accused to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Did the accused commit rape by making a false promise of marriage to obtain consent for sexual intercourse?
2. Was the victim coerced into sexual intercourse on multiple occasions, as alleged?
3. Should the FIR against the accused be quashed?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a two-judge bench:

• Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
• Justice K. Vinod Chandran (who authored the judgment)

Key Observations

1. Breach of a promise to marry is not automatically rape
   • The Court reaffirmed that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not amount to rape unless the promise was made fraudulently at the time of consent.
   • It cited the recent case of Prithvirajan v. The State, which established that rape is only committed in such cases if the accused never intended to marry from the beginning and used the false promise solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.
2. The victim’s repeated consent contradicted her claims of coercion
   • The Court noted that the victim willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room three times.
   • She claimed distress after the first incident, yet she continued to meet him in a private setting.
   • This behavior was inconsistent with her allegations of force or coercion.
3. No evidence of inducement or fraud
   • The Court found that the promise of marriage, if made, came after the first sexual encounter and not before it.
   • Since there was no initial deception to obtain consent, the charge of rape could not be sustained.
4. Allegations of forceful intercourse were not credible
   • The victim did not explicitly claim she gave consent due to coercion.
   • The Court found it unbelievable that someone would repeatedly go to a hotel room with the accused if they truly feared force or coercion.
5. The High Court should have quashed the FIR
   • The Supreme Court ruled that the case was an abuse of legal process.
   • It criticized the Madras High Court for not using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the case earlier.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the accused.
2. The Court ruled that the accused did not commit rape, as the allegations did not meet the legal standard for rape based on a false promise of marriage.
3. The trial court proceedings pending before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode, were also quashed.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 376 IPC – Defines and penalizes the offense of rape.
2. Section 420 IPC – Penalizes cheating, including cheating by inducement.
3. Section 482 CrPC – Grants High Courts the power to quash criminal proceedings if they are an abuse of legal process.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies the legal distinction between a breach of promise to marry and rape.
• Prevents misuse of rape laws in cases where a relationship breaks down but no fraudulent intent existed at the outset.
• Reaffirms that courts must carefully assess consent, particularly in long-term relationships.
• Encourages High Courts to use their powers to prevent frivolous or malicious litigation.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused, holding that breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent. The victim’s repeated willingness to meet the accused contradicted her claims of force, and there was no evidence that the accused deceived her into consenting to sexual relations. Accordingly, the FIR was quashed, and the trial court proceedings were stopped.

Case Title: JOTHIRAGAWAN VERSUS STATE

4). Supreme Court: Delivery of Possession Not Essential for Valid Gift/Settlement, Donor Can't Unilaterally Cancel Gift Document 

Case Background

This case involved a property dispute within a family. The father had executed a registered settlement deed on June 26, 1985, transferring property to his daughter (Respondent No.1) out of love and affection. However, the father retained life interest and limited mortgage rights over the property.

The settlement deed allowed the daughter to construct on the land and pay property taxes, giving her immediate rights to the property, with full possession to be taken after the father’s death.

The Dispute

• In 1993, the father unilaterally canceled the settlement deed and sold the property to his son (Appellant)instead.
• The daughter filed a lawsuit, seeking:
  1. A declaration of her ownership rights.
  2. A declaration that the cancellation deed and subsequent sale to the son were void.
  3. An injunction to prevent further interference with the property.

Lower Court Decisions

1. Trial Court & First Appellate Court:
   • Held that the settlement deed was a Will, not a gift or settlement.
   • Dismissed the daughter's claim, allowing the father’s cancellation and sale to stand.
2. High Court:
   • Reversed the lower courts’ decisions.
   • Declared that the document was a gift deed in the form of a settlement.
   • Ruled that the father's cancellation and sale of the property were invalid.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

The son (Appellant) challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Was the 1985 document a Will, a gift deed, or a settlement deed?
2. Could the father unilaterally cancel the transfer after the daughter had accepted it?
3. Did the daughter's acceptance and registration of the document make it legally binding?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan.

Key Observations

1. Difference Between a Gift, Settlement, and Will
   • A gift deed is a voluntary transfer of property without monetary consideration, and it requires acceptance by the donee during the donor’s lifetime.
   • A settlement deed is a transfer made out of love and affection, creating immediate legal rights while allowing the donor to retain life interest.
   • A Will takes effect only after the testator’s death and is revocable during their lifetime.
2. The 1985 Document Was Not a Will
   • The father's retention of life interest did not make the deed a Will.
   • Since the daughter had immediate rights (construction rights, tax payments, title registration), the document created an enforceable interest in her favor.
   • Delivery of possession is not necessary to validate a gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
3. Acceptance Makes a Gift or Settlement Irrevocable
   • The daughter accepted the deed, it was registered, and the original document was in her possession.
   • Once a gift or settlement is accepted and registered, it cannot be revoked unilaterally.
   • The father had no legal right to cancel the deed or sell the property to the son.
4. Sub-Registrar Had No Authority to Cancel the Gift
   • Only a court can decide on the revocation of a gift, not the registry department.
   • Since the gift was validly executed and accepted, the cancellation was void.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the 1985 document was a settlement deed in the form of a gift.
2. The father’s unilateral cancellation was invalid.
3. The sale to the son was void, as the father no longer had ownership rights to transfer the property.
4. Once a gift is executed, accepted, and registered, it becomes final and irrevocable unless legally challenged in court.
5. The Sub-Registrar had no legal power to register the cancellation deed, making it null and void.

Legal Provisions 

1. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Defines a gift as a voluntary transfer of property that is valid upon acceptance.
2. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Deals with ostensible ownership, stating that someone retaining life interest does not mean they own the property.
3. Registration Act, 1908 – Requires immovable property gifts to be registered for validity.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies the difference between Wills, gifts, and settlements.
• Confirms that life interest retention does not affect the validity of a gift or settlement deed.
• Reinforces that once a gift is accepted and registered, it cannot be revoked unilaterally.
• Prevents misuse of cancellation deeds to deprive legal owners of property rights.
• Establishes that Sub-Registrars cannot unilaterally cancel validly executed gift deeds.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the daughter’s ownership was valid and the father’s cancellation and subsequent sale to the son were legally void. This case serves as an important precedent in property law, reinforcing that once a validly registered and accepted gift deed is executed, it cannot be unilaterally revoked.

Case Title: N.P. SASEENDRAN VERSUS N.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

5). Understanding the Legal Distinction Between Gift/Settlement Deed & Will: Supreme Court's Explanation

Case Background

The Supreme Court was asked to interpret a legal document in which a father transferred property to her daughter out of love, care, and affection while retaining a life interest.

• The document transferred ownership rights to the daughter, but possession of the property remained with the transferor (father).
• The daughter accepted the transfer, and the document was registered.
• The Court had to decide whether the document was a Gift Deed, a Settlement Deed, or a Will, as this would affect its revocability under the law.

Issues of the Case

1. Was the document a Gift Deed, a Settlement Deed, or a Will?
2. What legal principles determine whether a transfer of property occurs in the present (during the lifetime of the transferor) or in the future (after the transferor's death)?
3. Does a transfer of property require physical possession to be valid?

Supreme Court Observations

Bench Composition

The case was heard by a two-judge bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala
• Justice R. Mahadevan

Key Observations

1. Difference Between Gift, Settlement, and Will
   • Gift: A gift is a voluntary transfer of property without any consideration, and it requires acceptance by the donee during the lifetime of the donor. If the property is immovable, registration is mandatory, but physical possession is not necessary.
   • Settlement: When a transfer is made out of love, care, and affection, and rights in the property are immediately created while the transferor retains a life interest, it is considered a settlement.
   • Will: A Will transfers property only after the testator's death and remains revocable during the testator’s lifetime.
2. When Does a Property Transfer Take Effect?
   • If ownership rights are given immediately (even if possession is delayed), it is not a Will but a Gift or Settlement.
   • If the transfer only takes effect after the death of the transferor, it is a Will.
3. Legal Test to Determine the Nature of a Document
   • The Supreme Court referred to the case of Mathai Samuel v. Eapen Eapen (2012) 13 SCC 80, which set out the test to determine whether a document is a Gift or a Will.
   • The key test is whether the document creates an immediate interest (Gift/Settlement) or a future interest (Will).
4. Registration Does Not Change the Nature of a Document
   • A Will does not require registration, but if it is registered, it does not automatically become a Gift or Settlement.
   • Similarly, a Gift or Settlement must be registered, but registration alone does not determine its nature.

Supreme Court Ruling

1. The Court ruled that the document was a valid Gift and Settlement Deed, not a Will.
2. Since the daughter accepted the transfer, and the document created an immediate legal right in her favor, it met the requirements of a Gift under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
3. The transfer was out of love, care, and affection, and since the mother retained a life interest, it also qualified as a Settlement Deed.
4. The Court clarified that possession of the property is not mandatory to validate a Gift or Settlement. Acceptance of property documents and registration is enough.

Legal Provisions

1. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Defines a Gift as the voluntary transfer of property without consideration, requiring acceptance by the donee.
2. Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Governs Wills, which take effect only after the testator’s death.
3. Registration Act, 1908 – Requires that a Gift Deed for immovable property be registered.

Significance of the Case

• Clarifies the distinction between Gift, Settlement, and Will.
• Confirms that ownership transfer does not require physical possession—only acceptance and registration matter.
• Protects the rights of donees, ensuring they receive ownership even if they do not immediately take possession.
• Prevents misclassification of documents, which could lead to disputes over revocability.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the daughter, holding that the property transfer was a valid Gift and Settlement Deed. The document created immediate ownership rights, even though possession was retained by the mother. The ruling reinforces that a property transfer does not require physical possession, only acceptance and registration. Thus, the document could not be revoked as a Will but remained a valid settlement in favor of the daughter.

Case Title: N.P. SASEENDRAN VERSUS N.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.