2 January 2026 Legal Updates

Mere Presence in Free Fight Insufficient for Conviction: J&K High Court

(a) Case Title:

• State of J&K through AAG v. Nazir Ahmad Bhat & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Srinagar

(c) Date of Decision:

• 24 December 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Justice Sanjay Parihar

Facts of the Case

The case arose from a violent clash on 19 May 1997 between villagers of Khull Choher and Renipora (Anantnag) over a disputed pathway across Kachahri land used for taking cattle to the jungle. The complainant alleged that 15 accused, armed with lathis, axes and stones, attacked them near a Dak Bungalow, causing injuries to several persons.

One injured, Ghulam Hassan Reshi, later died due to head injuries. Fifteen persons were charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 307, 336, 148 and 149 IPC. The Sessions Court convicted four accused under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted the rest. The convicted accused appealed against conviction, while the State appealed seeking conviction of all accused under Section 302 IPC.

Issues Raised

• Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused 1–4 caused the fatal injuries with common intention under Section 34 RPC.
• Whether mere participation in a free fight is sufficient to sustain conviction for culpable homicide.
• Whether selective conviction of four accused was justified when others were acquitted on the same evidence.
• Whether the State could seek conviction under Section 302 RPC despite earlier acceptance of lesser charges.

Contentions of the Petitioners 

• Evidence suffered from material contradictions regarding time, place and manner of occurrence.
• Medical evidence did not support the prosecution version; head injuries were blunt-force, possibly due to stone pelting or fall.
• No reliable recovery of weapon or clear linkage between alleged axe and injuries.
• Incident was a free fight between two groups, negating common intention.
• False implication due to land dispute and hostility; benefit of doubt must apply.

Contentions of the Respondent 

• The incident was a premeditated assault arising from land dispute.
• Trial court erred in convicting only four accused and not applying Section 302 RPC.
• Sentence under Section 304 Part I RPC was inadequate.
• Initially challenged acquittal of remaining accused, though later did not press it strongly.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings-

1. Contradictions & Benefit of Doubt:

• Serious inconsistencies existed regarding place, timing and sequence of events.
• Eyewitness accounts conflicted with medical evidence, making attribution of fatal injury unsafe.

2. Free Fight & Group Liability:

• Evidence showed a mutual free fight involving stone pelting from both sides.
• Mere presence in a mob is insufficient without proof of common intention or specific role.

3. Parity Among Co-Accused:

• Ten co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence; no additional material existed against accused 1–4.
• Applying the principle of parity, accused 1–4 were entitled to the same benefit.

4. State’s Appeal:

• State could not seek conviction under Section 302 RPC after acquiescing in earlier charge framing.
• No perversity found in acquittal of accused 5–15.

5. The Court reiterated that “suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.”

Legal Principles Established

Mere Presence Not Enough:

• Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely due to presence in a mob or group clash.
• Prosecution must prove common intention or common object for each accused.
• In a free fight, courts must identify specific acts and intention of the accused.
• Absence of clear evidence bars conviction for culpable homicide or murder.

Benefit of Doubt:

• Where evidence admits two reasonable views, the one favouring the accused must prevail.
• Material contradictions in prosecution evidence mandate acquittal.
• When co-accused are acquitted on the same evidence, selective conviction is impermissible.

Presumption of Innocence:

• Presumption of innocence continues through appeal.
• Investigative lapses and doubtful recoveries strengthen the defence.

Buyer Cannot Reject Goods After Putting Them to Use: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitral Award Against Godrej & Boyce

(a) Case Title:

• Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. Remi Sales and Engineering Limited

(b) Court:

• Bombay High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• 24. 12. 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Facts of the Case

Godrej issued a purchase order in August 2016 to Remi Sales for supplying 8,339 stainless steel seamless tubes for heat exchangers in an oil refinery project in Oman, valuing over ₹5 crore. The tubes were supplied in 2017, accepted, and installed by Godrej.

After installation, Godrej alleged rusting, pitting and discoloration in some tubes. Around 965 tubes were sent back for cleaning under a procedure approved by Godrej and later reinstalled. Subsequently, Godrej rejected the goods and withheld payments, leading Remi to invoke arbitration.

The arbitral tribunal allowed Remi’s claim and awarded ₹4.25 crore with 10% interest, holding that Godrej had deemedly accepted the goods by using them. Godrej challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issues Raised

• Whether use of goods amounts to deemed acceptance under Section 42 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
• Whether the buyer can reject goods after putting them to use on the ground of defects.
• Scope of interference by the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

Contentions of the Petitioner

• Contractual clauses permitted rejection of goods even after acceptance.
• Rusting and pitting constituted material defects.
• Arbitral tribunal wrongly appreciated evidence and contractual terms.

Contentions of the Respondent

• Goods strictly conformed to contractual specifications.
• Godrej used the tubes, amounting to acceptance under Section 42 SOGA.
• Once accepted, goods cannot be rejected; only damages for breach of warranty may be claimed.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Deemed Acceptance Under Sale of Goods Act:

The Court relied on Section 42 SOGA, which states that goods are deemed accepted if the buyer does any act inconsistent with the ownership of the seller.
Using the tubes in heat exchangers was held to be such an act.

2. Limited Scope Under Section 34:

The Court held that findings based on evidence such as test certificates, inspection reports and corrosion tests cannot be re-appreciated in a Section 34 challenge.

3. Contractual Clauses:

Clause permitting rejection applied only before use. After use, rejection was impermissible; at best, payment could be withheld pending compliance.

4. Alleged Defects:

Rusting was not proved to be a material defect, especially when it was cured through cleaning approved by Godrej. No evidence showed defects after re-installation.

5. Doctrine of Election:

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that a party cannot blow hot and cold. Godrej, having accepted cleaning and re-installation, could not later reject the goods.

6. Final Verdict:

• Petition under Section 34 Arbitration Act dismissed.
• Arbitral award of ₹4.25 crore with interest upheld.
• Buyer cannot reject goods after putting them to use; remedy lies only in damages for breach of warranty, if any.

Legal Principles Established

1. Deemed Acceptance of Goods:

• Under Section 42 SOGA, use of goods amounts to acceptance.
• After acceptance, rejection of goods is not permitted.

2. Rejection vs. Breach of Warranty:

• Once goods are accepted, buyer’s remedy is damages for breach of warranty, not rejection.

3. Limited Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards:

• Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence under Section 34 unless findings are perverse or illegal.

4. Doctrine of Election:

• A party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously.
• Once a conscious choice is made, opposite stand cannot be taken later.