Identification Evidence – Examination of Key Witnesses – Trial court and appellate court convicted the accused based on identification testimony – Court examines the evidence of crucial eyewitnesses, PW2 and PW3 – Witness testimony hinges on identification of the accused as the driver of the tanker lorry involved in the accident – Both PW2 and PW3 identify the accused for the first time at the dock – Court highlights the significance of proper identification evidence, referring to the need for test identification parade (TIP) for corroboration – Court emphasizes the importance of familiarity with the accused prior to occurrence for identification to be reliable – Absence of prior familiarity and lack of statements to the police regarding identification – Court assesses the veracity of the identification evidence provided by PW2 and PW3. [Para 13, 16, 22]

Concurrent Conviction and Sentence – Court discusses the legal principles related to identification evidence – Cites the rule of prudence to corroborate identification testimony through TIP – Refers to the exceptions when the court can rely on the testimony without corroboration – Highlights the role of TIP as a stage of investigation, not constituting substantive evidence – Court underscores the discretion of the court of fact in determining the weight to attach to identification without TIP – Court mentions the reliance on the decision in Malkhansingh&Ors. V. State of M.P. – Court refers to the recent decision in Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab regarding the consequences of non-conducting TIP. [Para 14]

Evidentiary Value of Identification – Court analyzes the evidence provided by PW2 and PW3 – Notes the contradiction in their statements regarding the presence of light at the scene of occurrence – Highlights the omission to provide statements about the accused’s actions after the occurrence – Court addresses the absence of familiarity with the accused prior to the occurrence – Court underscores the requirement for proper corroboration through TIP in cases of unfamiliarity – Cites the case of PW15 as insufficient to establish the identity of the accused as the driver – Court examines the reliability of the identification evidence based on these factors. [Para 17, 21, 23]

Acquittal – Court concludes that the evidence of identification presented in the case is insufficient to establish the accused as the driver of the lorry – Conviction and sentence imposed by trial court and appellate court set aside – Accused acquitted – Court emphasizes the need for proper identification evidence in criminal cases and highlights the importance of adhering to legal principles when relying on identification testimony. [Para 24]

Civil Suit - Recovery of Stridhan Articles and Gifted Money - Evaluation of Evidence and Legal Claims - Appellants' Appeal against Decree - Examination of Inconsistencies and Corroboration - Interpretation of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code - Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Cases - Analysis of Donor Statements - Differentiation of Precedents - Conclusion on Appeals and Cross-Objection - Setting Aside Part of Decree, Dismissal of Cross-Objection, Cost Allocation, Decree Issuance, and Record Transmission.

Facts: The case pertains to an appeal against a decree in a civil suit involving the recovery of stridhan articles and gifted money. The appellants contested the decree on grounds of inconsistencies and lack of evidence corroboration.

Issues: The primary issues revolve around the credibility and consistency of evidence presented, the application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, and the distinction between standards of proof in civil and criminal cases. The evaluation of donor statements regarding gifted money and the differentiation of relied-upon precedents also come into play.

Observations: The court meticulously analyzed the evidence presented by the plaintiff, specifically regarding claims of ownership of gold ornaments and valuables. The evidence lacked consistency and corroboration, with discrepancies between the plaintiff's claims and her father's testimony. The appellants' compliance with an interlocutory court order, involving the presentation of some ornaments, was deemed insufficient evidence.

The court further examined the gifted money, its origin, and purpose. The oral statements of donors contradicted their written declarations, but the court refrained from accepting their oral evidence to modify the declarations. The court highlighted the importance of consistent evidence and corroboration in its analysis.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, leading to the setting aside of part of the decree that demanded the return of gold ornaments. The cross-objection was dismissed, and costs were assigned to the respective parties. The court directed the issuance of a decree and the prompt transmission of a copy of the judgment along with the lower court's record.

Termination of Probationer’s Employment – Determination of Stigmatic Termination – Principles for analyzing whether a termination order is punitive or stigmatic – Assessment of probationer’s performance and suitability for the post – Language and content of termination letter – Need for prior full-scale formal enquiry, finding of guilt, and allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct – Differentiating between unsuitability and misconduct as the basis for termination. [Para 15]

Application of Principles – Review of previous judgments – Emphasis on language imputing something beyond mere unsuitability for the job – Consideration of background and circumstances – Enquiry into probationer’s performance – Distinction between foundation and motive for termination – Circumstances where preliminary enquiry not proceeded further. [Para 16-21]

Parameters for Non-Stigmatic Termination – Factors indicating termination not punitive – Role of language in termination letter – Evaluation of probationer’s performance – Opportunity to improve – Role of employer’s satisfaction – No explicit imputation of misconduct in termination. [Para 21.1-21.5]

Impact of Communications in Termination – Consideration of communications preceding termination – Use of intemperate language – Evaluation of unsatisfactory performance – Efforts to assist probationer’s improvement – Role of employer’s communication and probationer’s response. [Para 21.6-21.10]

Examination of Enquiries – Role of enquiries in termination – Enquiry into misconduct – Differentiating between misconduct and unsuitability – Influence of enquiry outcomes on termination’s nature – Determination of genuine motive behind termination. [Para 21.13-21.16]

Decision – Termination based on unsatisfactory performance and suitability – Lack of explicit imputation of misconduct – No stigmatic language used – Termination not punitive or stigmatic – Writ petition dismissed. [Para 25-28]

1. Criminal Writ Petition – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct – Jurisdiction invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the petitioner – Challenge to the FIR on grounds of false allegations, suppression of material facts, and delay in filing – Detailed analysis of the events and evidence – Submission that improvements and suppression of facts present in the FIR – ICC constituted by the company to investigate allegations, exonerating petitioner – Earlier complaint lodged with the police station, not entertained – Delay of three months in lodging the FIR – Supreme Court’s stance on lodging FIR promptly to obtain accurate information – Mala fide intention apparent – Application of categories for quashing cases as illustrated by the Supreme Court – Abuse of process of law – Quashing of FIR in the interest of justice. [Paras 1, 7-13]

Criminal Appeal – Application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal of application to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Aggrieved petitioner challenging the order – Examination of evidence and legal aspects warranted further consideration – Special leave granted for review. [Para 1]

Prima Facie Evidence – Importance of admissible evidence to summon an additional accused – Court's discretion to proceed against an individual based on substantial, corroborated evidence – Need to uphold the principle of justice while considering an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Para 10]

Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Scope and limitations of the court's powers – Emphasis on evidence collected during trial or inquiry to summon an additional accused – Discretionary power to be exercised judiciously, ensuring that justice is upheld and innocent parties are not harmed. [Para 11]

Evidence Standard – Evaluation of petitioner's deposition – Significance of quality and admissibility of evidence – Highlighting that "hear say" evidence is inadmissible – Absence of admissible evidence against respondent No.2 for summoning her as an additional accused. [Para 13]

Conclusion – Court's decision to dismiss the petition upheld – No admissible evidence available to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused – Principles of justice upheld by refusing to proceed without substantial, corroborated evidence. [Para 14]

Statutory Remedy – Municipal Taxation - Challenge to Assessment Order – Availability of Statutory Appeal – Petitioner challenges assessment and demand orders related to the levy of Local Body Tax (LBT) – Court emphasizes the legislative scheme of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act and the availability of a statutory remedy through appeal under Section 406 of the Act – Observes that the grounds raised by the petitioner are primarily related to assessment orders and can be effectively addressed through the statutory appeal process. [Para 17]

Purpose of Statutory Appeal – Avoiding Bypass of Appellate Remedy - Court notes that challenging assessment orders via an en bloc writ petition would render the statutory appeal provision redundant and defeat the legislative intent – Refers to earlier decisions highlighting that the appropriate remedy for challenging property tax bills is through the statutory appeal process – Dismisses the contention that a common cause among multiple members warrants an exception from pursuing the statutory remedy. [Para 18]

Challenging Vires of Statutory Provision – Foundation and Cause of Action - Court addresses the contention to challenge the vires of Section 152D of the MMC Act – Observes that merely challenging the validity of a provision does not automatically require entertaining a petition without a strong foundation and a cause of action – Keeps the challenge to the vires open for the petitioner to assert when necessary. [Para 20]

Disposition – Directions for Appellate Process - Court permits the petitioner to avail the remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 406 of the MMC Act to challenge the assessment orders – Instructs the petitioner to file the appeal within four weeks and directs that the appeals be adjudicated on their merits by the appellate authority – Keeps open the challenge to the vires of Section 152D for the petitioner to assert when needed. [Para 21]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail and direction to surrender before the Court for regular bail – Appellant aggrieved by the High Court’s order – Peculiar nature of the impugned order warranted further consideration – Special leave granted. [Para 1]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail – Emphasis on granting bail ordinarily, with caution in serious cases involving offences carrying long sentences or special offences. [Para 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest not mandatory in every case – Arrest to be made only when essential for custodial investigation, preventing further offences, or avoiding tampering with evidence or witnesses – Courts to consider Section 41A of the CrPC in this regard. [Para 10]

Land Dispute – Validity of Registered Sale Deed – Ownership Dispute – Certification of Mutation Entry – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Detailed analysis of facts and legal issues surrounding a dispute over land ownership and the validity of a registered Sale Deed – Court emphasizes the clarity in description of the conveyed land in the Sale Deed – Mutation entry and division of survey No. 233 – Previous Civil Suit No. 238 of 2000 – Court’s examination of the basis and circumstances of mutation entry No. 1802 – Writ Petition No. 9127 of 2005 – Court’s observations on the limited scope of the dispute – Setting aside of the Additional Commissioner’s order – Importance of clear description in registered instruments – Court’s emphasis on seeking remedies before the Civil Court – Upholding substantive justice over technicalities – Petition allowed, impugned order quashed, and mutation entry No. 8744 restored – Parties given option to seek remedies in the Civil Court – All parties’ contentions kept open for consideration in future proceedings. [Para 16-31]

Criminal Appeal – Murder – Appellants challenging their conviction under Sections 302, 323, 504, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Analysis of ocular account – Principles for appreciating ocular evidence – Consistency of witness statements – Medical evidence corroborating ocular account – Recovery of weapons – Application of Section 149 of IPC – Conviction upheld for some appellants while acquittal for others – Appeal dismissed. [Para 23-37]

Witness Testimonies – Ocular Account – Examination of PW3 Vilas, PW4 Shubham, and PW5 Arun – Consistency in narrating the occurrence – Role of each accused distinctly brought on record – Deceased’s visit to the house of accused, subsequent altercation, and assault established – Presence of accused members confirmed by multiple witnesses – Reliability of ocular account established. [Para 25-26]

Role of Accused – Identification of roles attributed to appellants – Appellant accused no.3 Rushi implicated in stabbing with knife – Intent of murderous assault confirmed – Appellant accused no.1 Rama attributed with using sword, but injury at ankle not indicative of intent to commit murder – Role of each accused assessed based on evidence – Acquittal of accused no.2 Digambar due to lack of evidence – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.3 Rushi, others for Section 323 of IPC. [Para 27-34]

Principles for Appreciating Ocular Evidence – Supreme Court guidelines for assessing witness testimony – Ring of truth in evidence – Scrutiny of deficiencies and infirmities – Weight attached to trial court’s evaluation – Minor discrepancies not leading to rejection of evidence – Consideration of witness’s mental faculties and powers of observation – Impact of overawing or nervousness – Evaluation of former inconsistent statements – Reliability of ocular evidence affirmed. [Para 25]

Objections – Challenge to the FIR and recovery of weapons – Failure to name accused in initial FIR – Elderly witness’s perspective and trauma – Incomplete FIR not discrediting overall evidence – Scrutiny of recovery process – Doubts about sword recovery – Confirmation of knife recovery through Investigating Officer – Scientific evidence linking weapons to deceased – Rejection of objections. [Para 30-32]

Section 149 IPC – Doubts about invoking Section 149 – Lack of evidence for an unlawful assembly – Sequence of events and witness accounts – Appellant’s individual actions not necessarily forming an unlawful assembly – Charge under Section 149 not established – Conviction based on individual roles upheld. [Para 33]

Conclusion – Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.3 Rushi for murder – Acquittal of appellant accused no.2 Digambar – Conviction upheld for appellant accused no.1 Rama, accused no.4 Jyoti, and accused no.5 Rani under Section 323 of IPC – Trial court’s judgment maintained. [Para 35-37]

Eviction - Concealment of Facts - Revision Petition - Petitioner challenged eviction order citing non-ownership by respondent - Held, Petitioner concealed filing and withdrawal of SLP before Apex Court - Petitioner's unclean hands disentitled him from relief - Revision Petition dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000 for non-disclosure of material facts [Paras 12, 13].

Judicial Conduct - Analysis - Held, Litigants must fully disclose all relevant facts - Concealment to gain advantage amounts to misleading the court - Petitioner's failure to disclose SLP withdrawal and judgment regarding ownership deemed intentional deception [Para 13].

Decision - Dismissal and Exemplary Costs - Court dismisses the revision petition, imposing exemplary costs for abuse of judicial process and intentional concealment of material facts, to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Committee [Para 14].