Criminal Appeal – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction based on solitary eyewitness – Reliability of sole witness – Contradictory versions – Absence of corroboration – Test Identification Parade – Improper conduct – Recovery evidence doubtful – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal

Criminal Appeal – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Conviction based on solitary eyewitness – Reliability of sole witness – Contradictory versions – Absence of corroboration – Test Identification Parade – Improper conduct – Recovery evidence doubtful – Benefit of doubt – Acquittal

Held:
Where the prosecution rests its case solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness, such evidence must be of sterling quality, wholly reliable, free from contradictions, and inspire complete confidence. If the solitary eyewitness gives divergent versions, lacks corroboration, and the surrounding circumstances create serious doubt regarding recovery and identification, conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. A defective test identification parade and improbable recovery further weaken the prosecution case, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt.
(Paras 10–23)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of Appeal

The appeal was preferred by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 10.05.2018 in Sessions Case No.76 of 2016, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine.
(Para 1)

---

II. Prosecution Case

The prosecution alleged that at about 04:00 AM on 20.10.2015, the accused attacked the deceased with a soda bottle, causing fatal head injuries. The case was registered on the report of PW.1, the father of the deceased.
(Paras 2–3)

The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14, marked Exs.P1 to P17, and exhibited MOs.1 to 7.
(Para 4)

---

III. Evidence of the Sole Eyewitness (PW.3)

The prosecution case hinged entirely on PW.3, who claimed to have witnessed the incident while assisting his brother at a pan shop in the early hours of the morning. PW.3 stated that the accused assaulted the deceased with a soda bottle near the pan shop.
(Paras 10–11)

However, critical deficiencies were noticed:

• PW.3 admitted in cross-examination that he had given two divergent versions before the police and the Magistrate.

• His narration as to whether the deceased or the accused was on the motorcycle was inconsistent.

• He admitted that opening the shop at such an early hour was unusual and specific only to that day.
  (Paras 11–12)

The Court found PW.3 not to be a wholly reliable witness.
(Para 13)

---

IV. Absence of Corroboration

Although PW.3 claimed that about 15 persons gathered at the scene and that he complained to a traffic constable, none of these witnesses were examined.

Further, the informant Srikanth (LW.7), who allegedly informed PW.1 about the incident, was also not examined.
(Paras 11, 17)

---

V. Evidence of Relatives and Other Witnesses

• PW.1 and PW.2 (father and wife of the deceased) were not eyewitnesses and their evidence was limited to receiving information after the incident.

• PW.4 and PW.5 spoke only about an earlier altercation and did not support the prosecution regarding the actual occurrence.
  (Paras 17–18)

---

VI. Recovery and Arrest – Doubtful Circumstances

The prosecution relied on alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes and the neck portion of a soda bottle from the accused two weeks after the incident.

The Court found it highly improbable that the accused would still be wearing blood-stained clothes or preserve a broken soda bottle for such a long period.
(Para 19)

Accordingly, no reliance was placed on the recovery evidence.

---

VII. Test Identification Parade

The Test Identification Parade was conducted belatedly on 21.11.2015. PW.3 admitted that the other participants were not of similar age or appearance.

The witness had not given any prior descriptive particulars of the accused. Hence, the Court held that the identification parade lacked credibility.
(Paras 20–21)

---

VIII. Legal Position on Solitary Witness

The Court reiterated the settled principle that conviction on the basis of a single eyewitness is permissible only when the testimony is of sterling quality. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising caution where the solitary witness is unreliable or uncorroborated.
(Paras 14–16)

---

IX. Conclusion on Merits

In view of:

• Unreliable testimony of PW.3,

• Absence of corroboration,

• Improbable recovery, and

• Defective identification parade,

the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(Paras 21–22)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on a solitary eyewitness is permissible only if the testimony is wholly reliable, consistent, and of sterling quality.

2. Where the sole eyewitness gives contradictory versions and lacks corroboration from independent evidence, such testimony cannot form the basis of conviction.

3. Improbable recovery of incriminating material and defective test identification parade further weaken the prosecution case.

4. In cases of serious doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.

---

FINAL ORDER

The Criminal Appeal was allowed.
The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
(Para 23)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9 and 37 – Interim measures – Attachment / security pending arbitration – Scope of appellate interference – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Mere right to sue – Demurrage claim – Unadjudicated liability – No crystallised debt – Balance of convenience – Delay and lack of expedition – Dismissal of appeal

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 9 and 37 – Interim measures – Attachment / security pending arbitration – Scope of appellate interference – Order 38 Rule 5 CPC – Mere right to sue – Demurrage claim – Unadjudicated liability – No crystallised debt – Balance of convenience – Delay and lack of expedition – Dismissal of appeal

Held:
An interim measure under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking attachment or security, cannot be granted merely on the basis of an unadjudicated claim for demurrage, which constitutes at best a right to sue for damages and not a crystallised debt. Order 38 Rule 5 CPC principles continue to guide Section 9 jurisdiction, and such drastic relief cannot be used to convert an unsecured and disputed claim into a secured one. In an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary order of the Single Judge unless the order is perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled legal principles.
(Paras 27–63)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of Proceedings

The appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, assailing the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in ICOMAOA No.5 of 2024, whereby an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking attachment/security pending arbitration was dismissed and the deposited security directed to be returned.
(Paras 1–5)

---

II. Origin of the Dispute

The appellant, a foreign shipping company, entered into a fixture note/charterparty dated 12.03.2021 with respondent Nos.1 to 3 for carriage of rice from Kakinada to Vietnam. The appellant alleged delay in discharge of cargo and raised a claim for demurrage, followed by an updated claim including interest and costs, aggregating to USD 296,326.74.
(Paras 6–9)

Arbitration proceedings were initiated as per the arbitration clause. Pending arbitration, the appellant invoked Section 9 of the Act, seeking attachment of 1600 MT of rice and security for the claimed amount.
(Paras 9–10)

---

III. Interim Orders and Subsequent Proceedings

An ex parte conditional attachment order was passed on 23.04.2024, subject to furnishing security, which the 1st respondent complied with within 24 hours. Upon objections, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order and dismissed the Section 9 application on merits, directing return of the security.
(Paras 3–5, 13–14)

---

IV. Core Issues Before the Division Bench

The principal issue before the Division Bench was whether the order dated 13.10.2025, vacating interim protection under Section 9, warranted interference under Section 37 of the Act.
(Para 27)

---

V. Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 37

The Court reiterated that appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is narrow and circumscribed, particularly where the appeal arises from an order granting or refusing interim measures under Section 9. Interference is permissible only if the order suffers from perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of settled principles.
(Paras 28–33, 61)

---

VI. Applicability of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC Principles

The Court undertook an elaborate examination of the interplay between Section 9 of the Act and Order 38 Rule 5 CPC, holding that:

• Section 9 relief is discretionary and extraordinary.

• Principles underlying Order 38 Rule 5 CPC continue to apply.

• Mere existence of a claim or prima facie case is insufficient.

• There must be material indicating an intention to defeat the award or a real risk of asset dissipation.
  (Paras 35–43, 58)

---

VII. Nature of the Claim – Demurrage and Right to Sue

The Court held that the demurrage claim, though described as liquidated damages, was seriously disputed and pending adjudication before the arbitrator. Until liability is determined, no pecuniary obligation or debt crystallises.

Relying on settled principles, the Court held that:

• A claim for damages gives rise only to a mere right to sue.

• Such a right is not transferable and does not constitute a debt.

• Attachment/security cannot be ordered to secure such a claim.
  (Paras 47–50, 59)

---

VIII. Balance of Convenience and Delay

The Court found that:

• The respondent had promptly complied with the earlier conditional order, indicating bona fides.

• The attached rice was stock-in-trade, not a substantive asset.

• The appellant remained inactive for nearly three years before seeking interim relief.

• Such unexplained delay defeated any claim of urgency or necessity for extraordinary protection.
  (Paras 53–57)

Accordingly, the balance of convenience was held to be against the appellant.
(Paras 52–56)

---

IX. No Perversity in the Single Judge’s Order

Applying the principles governing appellate interference with discretionary orders, the Division Bench held that the learned Single Judge’s order was neither arbitrary nor perverse, and was in consonance with settled legal principles.
(Paras 61–62)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. An unadjudicated claim for demurrage or damages does not constitute a crystallised debt and amounts only to a right to sue, which cannot be secured by attachment under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Relief under Section 9 is discretionary and guided by principles underlying Order 38 Rule 5 CPC; it cannot be used to convert an unsecured and disputed claim into a secured one.

3. In an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, the appellate court will not interfere with a discretionary order of the Single Judge unless it is perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.

4. Unexplained delay and absence of material showing risk of asset dissipation are fatal to a claim for interim protection under Section 9 of the Act.

Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) – Sections 63, 64 and 76 – Dispute as to title and apportionment – Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer – Duty to refer dispute to Competent Authority – Findings on title by Acquisition Officer impermissible – Writ Appeal disposed with directions

Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) – Sections 63, 64 and 76 – Dispute as to title and apportionment – Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Officer – Duty to refer dispute to Competent Authority – Findings on title by Acquisition Officer impermissible – Writ Appeal disposed with directions

Held:
Where rival claims and disputed questions of title arise in land acquisition proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such disputes. In terms of Sections 63, 64 and 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, such disputes must be referred to the Competent Authority constituted under the Act. Any adjudication on title by the Acquisition Officer is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. While affirming the order of the learned Single Judge directing reference, the appellate court may clarify that the Competent Authority shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court.
(Paras 15–20)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background and Genesis of the Dispute

Late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy owned about 317 Ankanams of land at Venkatrampuram, Nellore. After partial alienation by his sons, the remaining land was sought to be acquired for construction of an under-bridge. Instead of monetary compensation, an exchange of land was proposed and partially accepted, but later modified by Government orders, giving rise to prolonged litigation.
(Paras 2–3)

The daughters of late Sri K. Radha Krishna Reddy asserted their share at various stages, including impleadment in earlier writ proceedings and by filing O.S.No.140 of 2013, seeking partition.
(Paras 2, 4, 13)

---

II. Cancellation of Exchange and Direction for Acquisition

Subsequently, exchange deeds were cancelled, and by a judgment dated 04.03.2021, the Municipal Corporation was directed to acquire the original land under Act 30 of 2013. The daughters were not parties to those writ petitions.
(Para 5)

---

III. Acquisition Proceedings and Competing Claims

During acquisition proceedings, notices under Section 21(1) of Act 30 of 2013 were issued. The daughters approached the High Court contending that they were not heard. The Court directed the Acquisition Officer to consider their claims and pass orders in accordance with law.
(Para 6)

The Acquisition Officer, however, rejected the daughters’ claims on grounds of delay and non-challenge to exchange deeds, thereby deciding questions of title and entitlement.
(Para 7)

---

IV. Order of the Learned Single Judge

The learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.20569 of 2024, set aside the Acquisition Officer’s order and directed reference of the dispute to the Competent Authority under Sections 64 or 76 of Act 30 of 2013.
(Para 8)

---

V. Issues in the Writ Appeal

The sons (appellants) contended that:

• The learned Single Judge had recorded findings of fact that could prejudice further proceedings;

• The Acquisition Officer acted within jurisdiction pursuant to earlier directions; and

• Section 76 was inapplicable.
  (Paras 9–10)

The daughters contended that once disputed claims of title arose, the Acquisition Officer was bound to make a reference, as he lacked jurisdiction to decide such disputes.
(Paras 11–12)

---

VI. Interpretation of Sections 63, 64 and 76 of Act 30 of 2013

The Division Bench analysed Sections 63, 64 and 76, holding that:

• Section 63 bars civil courts and vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Competent Authority to decide claims;

• Section 64 mandates reference when a person interested disputes entitlement or apportionment;

• Section 76 applies to disputes as to apportionment or persons entitled to compensation.

The Acquisition Officer, upon noticing contested claims, ought to have made a reference, instead of adjudicating title himself.
(Paras 15–17)

---

VII. Scope of Appellate Interference

The Division Bench affirmed the conclusion of the learned Single Judge but clarified that:

• The Competent Authority must decide the dispute independently,

• It shall not be influenced by any observations made either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench.
  (Paras 19–20)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In land acquisition proceedings under Act 30 of 2013, the Land Acquisition Officer has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed questions of title or entitlement; such disputes must be referred to the Competent Authority under Sections 64 or 76.

2. Section 63 of Act 30 of 2013 bars adjudication of such disputes by authorities other than the Competent Authority, save for constitutional courts.

3. Any determination of title by the Acquisition Officer is beyond jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

4. While directing reference, the High Court may safeguard the adjudicatory independence of the Competent Authority by clarifying that it shall not be bound by prior observations.

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Sections 480 & 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69, 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2), 79 r/w Section 3(5) – Allegation of sexual relationship on promise of marriage – Consensual relationship – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise – Custody period – Progress of investigation – Bail granted with conditions

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Sections 480 & 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 69, 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2), 79 r/w Section 3(5) – Allegation of sexual relationship on promise of marriage – Consensual relationship – Distinction between false promise and breach of promise – Custody period – Progress of investigation – Bail granted with conditions

Held:
Where the relationship between the petitioner and the victim appears prima facie consensual, and the allegations indicate a breach of promise rather than a false promise of marriage at inception, continued incarceration is not warranted. Bail can be granted after considering the age of the parties, nature of allegations, period of custody, progress of investigation, and settled legal position that every breach of promise to marry does not constitute an offence.
(Paras 3–5, 15–17)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of Proceedings

The Criminal Petition was filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in Crime No.113 of 2025 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 69, 74, 78(1)(i), 351(2), 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(Para 1)

---

II. Allegations in the FIR

As per the record, the petitioner (aged about 22 years) and respondent No.2 (aged about 23 years) belong to the same community and are relatives. The allegation is that the petitioner developed a love relationship with respondent No.2 during her degree studies, engaged in sexual intercourse on several occasions, and later refused to marry her.
(Paras 3–4)

It was further alleged that resistance from the petitioner’s family and threats of suicide by his mother and brother prevented the marriage. Respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner used deceitful words under the guise of love and failed to honour the promise of marriage.
(Paras 4)

---

III. Custody and Stage of Investigation

The petitioner was arrested on 01.12.2025 and had undergone 37 days of judicial custody by the date of consideration. He is a permanent resident with a fixed abode. Nine witnesses had already been examined, and the material portion of the investigation stood completed.
(Para 5)

The Court recorded that the allegations are matters to be proved during trial by the prosecution.
(Para 5)

---

IV. Legal Position on Promise to Marry

The Court undertook an extensive survey of binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including:

• Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra – holding that a consensual relationship turning sour does not justify criminal prosecution.
  (Para 6)

• Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal – emphasising absence of evidence of rape where relationship was consensual.
  (Para 7)

• Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) – drawing a clear distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise, and holding that not every breach attracts criminal liability.
  (Para 8)

• Prithivirajan v. State – reiterating that physical relations based on a promise to marry do not per se constitute rape unless the promise was false at inception.
  (Paras 12, 15)

• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand – laying down that consent must be vitiated by a false promise given in bad faith from the beginning to attract criminal offence.
  (Paras 13–14)

---

V. Application of Law to Facts

Applying the above principles, the Court found that:

• The relationship appeared consensual, spread over a period of time.

• There was no prima facie material to show that the promise to marry was false at inception.

• The alleged misconception of fact had spread over a long duration.

• Continued detention was not necessary, especially when investigation had substantially progressed.
  (Paras 15–17)

---

VI. Grant of Bail

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation, and the settled legal position, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to stringent conditions.
(Paras 17–18)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. A consensual sexual relationship based on a promise to marry does not, by itself, constitute an offence unless the promise is shown to be false at inception and made in bad faith.

2. There is a clear legal distinction between a false promise to marry and a subsequent breach of promise; only the former may attract criminal liability.

3. At the stage of bail, where the relationship appears consensual, the accused has undergone custody, investigation has substantially progressed, and the allegations require trial, continued incarceration is not warranted.

4. Bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS, 2023 can be granted with stringent conditions to balance personal liberty with the interests of justice.

---

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Sections 480 & 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 8(c) – Commercial quantity – Period of custody – Role of accused – Completion of substantial investigation – Absence of criminal antecedents – Bail granted with stringent conditions Held: Even in a case involving alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, bail can be granted where the accused is shown to have a limited role, no criminal antecedents, has undergone substantial period of custody, investigation is substantially completed, no custodial interrogation is sought, and the accused has a fixed place of residence. Grant of bail is permissible subject to stringent conditions to ensure presence of the accused and to safeguard the investigation and trial. (Paras 3–6)

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Sections 480 & 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – NDPS Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 8(c) – Commercial quantity – Period of custody – Role of accused – Completion of substantial investigation – Absence of criminal antecedents – Bail granted with stringent conditions

Held:
Even in a case involving alleged offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, bail can be granted where the accused is shown to have a limited role, no criminal antecedents, has undergone substantial period of custody, investigation is substantially completed, no custodial interrogation is sought, and the accused has a fixed place of residence. Grant of bail is permissible subject to stringent conditions to ensure presence of the accused and to safeguard the investigation and trial.
(Paras 3–6)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of the Petition

The Criminal Petition was filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.190 of 2025 of Bhogapuram Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
(Para 1)

---

II. Allegations Against the Petitioner

The prosecution case, as noted by the Court, was that the petitioner was allegedly found in possession and transportation of 42.235 kilograms of ganja in one car, out of a total seizure of 120.27 kilograms from three vehicles. The petitioner was found in an Alto car and was alleged to have acted as a coolie-cum-driver.
(Para 4)

---

III. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that:

• The petitioner was of young age (impressional age of 20 years).

• His senior paternal uncle had died on 19.12.2025, leaving no heirs, and the petitioner alone was required to perform the final obsequies.

• The petitioner had no similar adverse antecedents.

• He was arrested on 24.07.2025 and had undergone 168 days of judicial custody.

• Nine witnesses, who were material and official witnesses, had already been examined.

• Substantial part of the investigation was completed.

• No application for police custody was filed and the permissible period for seeking custodial interrogation had expired.

• The petitioner is a permanent resident of Ballel Village, Lamtaput Mandal, Koraput District, Odisha, having a fixed abode.
  (Paras 3 & 4)

The fact of death of the senior paternal uncle was confirmed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
(Para 3)

---

IV. Consideration by the Court

The Court took into account:

• The nature and gravity of the allegations,

• The role attributed to the petitioner,

• The length of detention already undergone, and

• The stage of investigation and trial.

On an overall assessment, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his availability for investigation and trial and to prevent misuse of liberty.
(Para 5)

---

V. Conditions Imposed

While granting bail, the Court imposed detailed conditions including:

• Execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each.

• Non-involvement in any future offence.

• Cooperation with the investigating agency.

• Non-tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

• Surrender of passport or filing of an affidavit if no passport is held.
  (Para 6)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. In NDPS cases involving commercial quantity, bail is not barred per se where the Court, upon consideration of custody period, role of the accused, absence of criminal antecedents, and progress of investigation, is satisfied that continued detention is not warranted.

2. Substantial completion of investigation, examination of material witnesses, and absence of any request for custodial interrogation weigh in favour of grant of bail, even in serious offences, subject to stringent safeguards.

3. Grant of bail under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS, 2023 must balance the gravity of the offence with the right to personal liberty, ensuring that appropriate conditions are imposed to secure the ends of justice.