Motor Accident – Compensation – Quantum – Income Assessment – Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at ₹15,680 based on Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification for skilled labour – Appellant insurer contended income should have been computed as ₹8,245 per minimum wage notification – Held: Deceased held valid licence for heavy vehicles and was rightly treated as skilled labour – Deputy Commissioner’s wage notification applicable – No perversity or illegality in Tribunal’s approach – Tribunal’s award of ₹19,60,000 with 7.5% interest upheld [Paras 3–11].

Appellate Review – Scope – Interference by appellate court only if findings are perverse or arbitrary – Mere alternative view not sufficient – Citing Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co., 2024 INSC 816, Court held that absence of contrary evidence justifies reliance on local wage notifications for income computation – Findings of Tribunal affirmed [Paras 6–9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award upheld – Appellant Insurance Company entitled to refund of statutory deposit of ₹25,000 [Paras 12–13].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Illegal Gratification – Proof of Demand and Acceptance Mandatory – Appellant, a police officer, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act for allegedly accepting ₹10,000 as bribe to avoid arresting the complainant’s relative – Complainant (PW-7) turned hostile and denied having any direct interaction with the appellant – Panch witness (PW-8) gave contradictory testimony regarding raid and was unaware of crucial facts – Complainant’s friend (PW-11) also did not support the prosecution version – Held: Demand and acceptance not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable. Acquittal [Paras 5–16].

Criminal Trial – Hostile Witnesses – Effect – Complainant and other key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case – Their testimonies inconsistent and materially contradictory – Panch witness admitted he was unaware of facts and signed blank papers – Court held that prosecution failed to prove factum of demand and acceptance of gratification, which is a sine qua non for conviction under PC Act [Paras 5–15].

Burden of Proof – Demand and Acceptance – Standard Reiterated – Citing B. Jayaraj and Neeraj Dutta, Supreme Court decisions – Court reaffirmed that proof of both demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act – Mere recovery or possession of money is insufficient – Even circumstantial evidence must unerringly establish demand and acceptance [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Bail bond cancelled and surety discharged [Paras 17–19].

Criminal Law – Rape and Murder – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 302 IPC for allegedly raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in a secluded area – Trial Court relied on extrajudicial confessions made before a co-villager (P.W.3) and a doctor (P.W.11) and on the appellant’s suspicious conduct at the crime scene – High Court finds that neither P.W.3’s testimony about the confession was reliable nor corroborated by prior police statements or other witnesses – Medical officer (P.W.11) did not record any confession in his report and his oral testimony contradicted documentary evidence – Confessional evidence not put to appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Held: Extrajudicial confession not reliable or admissible to base conviction [Paras 11–12].

Circumstantial Evidence – Guilt Not Proved – Prosecution case entirely based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s presence at crime scene explained plausibly and supported by hostile witness (P.W.7) – Forensic reports failed to find blood, semen, or saliva on appellant’s clothes or body – Court held that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not exclude every hypothesis of innocence – Conviction based on suspicion or conjecture unsustainable in law [Paras 13–15].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Deceased died of asphyxia due to compression of neck, chest, and abdomen – Signs of recent violent sexual intercourse found – Though rape and homicidal death established, identity of perpetrator not conclusively proved [Paras 9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376 and 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 15].

POCSO Act – Rape of Minor – Stepfather – Life Imprisonment – Accused repeatedly raped his 13-year-old stepdaughter after threatening her and her mother with a knife – Incident occurred early morning on 02.04.2018 – Victim lodged prompt FIR, examined as PW3 – Medical evidence revealed fresh hymenal tear and knife wounds – Held: Testimony of PW3 consistent, credible, and supported by medical and documentary evidence – Conviction under Sections 376(2)(f)(n) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act affirmed – Sentence of life imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 2–3, 7–10, 14–19].

Criminal Trial – Sole Testimony of Victim – Evidentiary Value – PW3 deposed clearly and consistently regarding multiple instances of rape by stepfather – Withstood cross-examination without contradictions or omissions – Medical evidence corroborated injuries – Held: Victim's uncorroborated testimony sufficient for conviction where it inspires confidence – No legal requirement for corroboration if prosecutrix is found reliable [Paras 11–14].

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Section 29 – Presumption and Burden of Proof – Once foundational facts established regarding age, sexual act, and identity of accused, presumption under Section 29 applies – Accused failed to rebut presumption even by preponderance of probabilities – Held: Statutory presumption stands unrebutted – Conviction legally sustainable [Paras 16–17].

Hostile Witness – Victim’s Mother – Mother (PW12) turned hostile but admitted taking victim to police and fear of accused – Her hostility found immaterial as victim’s testimony independently credible and corroborated – Held: Hostile testimony of PW12 does not dent prosecution case – Court right in relying on victim’s version [Paras 9, 15].

Sentencing – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault by Guardian – Abuse of Trust – Sentence Proportionate – Accused was stepfather and guardian – Act committed after placing child and her mother in fear of death – Held: Crime aggravated by breach of fiduciary relationship – Sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life under Section 376(2)(f)(n) IPC appropriate – No separate sentence needed under POCSO due to Section 42 [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 324, 506(ii), and 376(2)(f)(n) IPC and Section 6 read with Section 5(l)(n) of POCSO Act confirmed – Life sentence for remainder of natural life upheld – No interference warranted with findings or sentence imposed by Special Court.

Administrative Law – Blacklisting – Show Cause Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Petitioner blacklisted and debarred from future tenders for three years and Performance Bank Guarantee forfeited on grounds of supplying non-standard quality drugs – Show cause and hearing notices failed to specify that blacklisting or debarment was proposed – No laboratory test reports or sample analysis data provided to petitioner despite repeated requests – Held: Non-disclosure of proposed action and denial of opportunity to contest findings violated principles of natural justice – Impugned order quashed [Paras 1, 5–7, 13–19].

Tender Contracts – Supply of Medicines – Alleged Breach – Respondents relied on Clause 24(C) of tender terms to impose penalty for supply of non-standard quality drugs and short supply – However, absence of specific mention of blacklist/debarment in notices and non-supply of relevant reports rendered the order legally unsustainable – Existence of penalty clause does not exempt requirement of specific notice for harsh measures like blacklisting [Paras 10, 14–17].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of alternative remedy under Clause 25 of tender terms – Held: Writ maintainable in case of breach of natural justice principles – Availability of statutory appeal not a bar to writ jurisdiction in such cases [Para 20].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order of blacklisting and debarment dated 26/09/2025 set aside – Liberty granted to respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner [Paras 19–22].

Service Law – Recruitment Process – Reservation Policy – Horizontal Reservation Misapplied Vertically – Invalid Implementation of Ex-Servicemen Quota – Petitioners challenged recruitment to 303 posts of Security Guard (T&S Grade G) in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited – Court found that Ex-Servicemen reservation of 24.5% was applied vertically by adjusting candidates in General category instead of horizontally across all vertical categories – Held: Application of horizontal reservation must cut across SC/ST/OBC/General categories and not disturb overall vertical structure – Misapplication invalidated the recruitment process to that extent [Paras 6–19].

Reservation – Ceiling Limit – Breach of 50% Cap – Ex-Servicemen Quota Pushed Reservation to 74.5% – Petitioners argued inclusion of 24.5% Ex-Servicemen quota resulted in total reservation exceeding 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney – Court held that such reservation, being horizontal, should not have inflated vertical quota – Improper classification and adjustment led to excessive reservation, contrary to constitutional principles [Paras 4(ii), 9–10, 14–16].

Recruitment – Change in Criteria – Post-Advertisement Modification Not Permissible – Ex-Servicemen quota was not clearly mentioned in employment notification dated 19.02.2014 – Applying such quota retrospectively and without proper disclosure in advertisement violates fairness and transparency in recruitment – Held: Selection criteria cannot be altered mid-way unless compliant with law and advertisement terms [Paras 4(i), 20].

Equitable Relief – Regularization – No Displacement of Appointed Candidates – Creation of Supernumerary Posts Directed – Despite flaws in application of reservation, Court declined to displace already appointed Ex-Servicemen candidates – Held: Appointments made in good faith should not be disturbed – Directed reconsideration of petitioners’ candidature in fresh recruitment – Supernumerary posts to be created to absorb both groups without prejudice [Paras 21–27].

Recruitment Process – Judicial Approach – Balancing Legality with Equity – Relying on Ran Vijay Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Khunjamayum Bimoti Devi, Court held that mistaken appointments should not result in termination if done in good faith – Instead, directed prospective corrective action and seniority protection for rightful candidates [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Selection process to be reviewed – Petitioners to be considered afresh – Existing appointees to retain posts under supernumerary category – Seniority of petitioners to be maintained over them – Entire exercise to be completed expeditiously [Paras 26–30].

Constitutional Law – Live-in Relationship – Right to Protection – Petitioners in consensual live-in relationships alleged threats to life from private individuals and sought police protection – Held: Right to cohabit without marriage is protected under Article 21 – Personal autonomy cannot be compromised by societal disapproval – Police directed to grant protection if petitioners are adults and living willingly [Paras 1–3, 22, 45–49, 51–52]

Live-in Relationships – Legality and Social Morality – Court held that live-in relationships, though not widely accepted socially, are not illegal or punishable under law – Such arrangements are not barred by any legislation and are protected by constitutional rights to life, liberty and equality [Paras 6–9, 18–21, 30–33, 45–48]

State Obligation – Protection under Article 21 – Rejected State's contention that police cannot protect non-marital couples – Observed that State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty irrespective of marital status – No justification to deny anticipatory protection where threat is genuine or credible [Paras 12–13, 22, 46]

Personal Autonomy – Right to Choose Partner – Emphasised that major individuals have full autonomy under Article 21 to choose life partners and live together – State or family cannot compel marriage or interfere – Morality cannot override legality [Paras 6–7, 22, 33, 48–49]

Presumption of Marriage – Long-term Cohabitation – As per Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 119(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, long-standing cohabitation gives rise to presumption of marriage – Ensures protection of women and children from such relationships [Para 50]

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – Court relied upon extensive Supreme Court and High Court rulings recognising live-in relationships and protecting individual choice – Distinguished the contrary view in Kiran Rawat as not binding and factually distinguishable [Paras 18–21, 24–33, 40–44]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Petitioners declared free to live together peacefully – Police directed to provide protection upon verification of age and willingness – No coercive action to be taken unless FIR is registered – Petitioners may produce educational documents or undergo ossification test to prove majority if required [Paras 51–53]

Service Law – Retiral Benefits – Teachers of Aided Institutions – Long service with approved appointments and salary payments – Subsequent inquiry following a PIL cast doubts on appointments – Held: Teachers cannot be denied retiral benefits based on belated administrative findings when appointments were previously upheld by High Court – Appointments were approved, and teachers rendered service for decades – State estopped from denying benefits [Paras 4-6, 14, 19, 22-24, 28].

Finality of Litigation – SLP Dismissal – Effect – Earlier judicial decisions upholding appointments attained finality after dismissal of Special Appeal and SLP – Held: Non-speaking dismissal of SLP does not preclude High Court from reviewing later developments, but prior judicial findings on appointments remain binding – Subsequent administrative action cannot override judicial conclusions [Paras 15-17, 21].

Constitutional Law – Article 136 – Scope of Review Post-SLP Dismissal – Held: Dismissal of Special Leave Petition does not amount to affirmation of lower court judgment in absence of a speaking order – Doctrine of merger not applicable – However, prior High Court decision remains binding on administrative authorities unless set aside through review or proper legal process [Paras 16-18, 21].

Equity – Legitimate Expectation – Teachers served for over 25 years – No fault found in appointments attributable to them – Held: They cannot be penalised for alleged lapses of the management – Entitled to gratuity and pension under applicable rules – State derived benefit of their service and cannot now deny benefits [Paras 19-20, 28-29].

Recall Application – Delay and Finality – Recall application filed in 2012 against judgment passed in 1998 and affirmed in 2003 – Rejected as not maintainable – Judgment had attained finality and review was also dismissed – Delay of over 9 years held unjustified and fatal [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 28.04.2025 set aside to the extent it denied retiral benefits – Appellants held entitled to salary arrears and retiral benefits including pension and gratuity – Respondents directed to compute and release benefits within three months – Recall application of Lallan Tiwari dismissed as not maintainable – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Territorial Jurisdiction – Return of Plaint – Trial Court held after full trial that no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction and directed return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Trial Court found that offer, acceptance, payment, and dishonour of cheque occurred at Indore/Pithampur, and not at Malanpur where appellant’s factory was located – Held: Finding that trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction upheld based on evidence showing transaction was centered at Indore and Dhar districts [Paras 9–10].

Civil Procedure – Non-Compliance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC – Mandatory Procedure – Despite full trial and appearance of defendant, Trial Court returned plaint without intimating plaintiff or fixing date of appearance in transferee court – Held: Failure to follow mandatory procedure under Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC vitiated the order in part – Order of dismissal of suit unsustainable – Direction issued to Trial Court to return plaint in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix a date for appearance before competent court [Paras 11–16].

Civil Procedure – Suit Dismissed While Returning Plaint – Improper – Trial Court both dismissed the suit and returned the plaint, which is legally contradictory – Held: Where jurisdiction is lacking, suit cannot be dismissed on merits and must be returned for presentation before proper court following due procedure [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Finding on lack of territorial jurisdiction affirmed – Impugned order dated 18.02.2016 set aside to the extent it dismissed the suit – Trial Court directed to return plaint strictly in accordance with Order 7 Rule 10-A CPC and fix date for appearance before appropriate court – No order as to costs.