Succession Law  – Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act – Will Dispute - Suspicious Circumstances – Proof of Free Disposing Mind – Appeals Dismissed – The appellant, propounding a Will executed by his deceased uncle Maya Singh, was granted decree of ownership of suit land by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court – High Court reversed concurrent findings on grounds of suspicious circumstances, particularly the non-mention of testator’s wife and lack of reasons for her disinheritance – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming that such omissions raised serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the Will and negated proof of free disposing mind of the testator – Appeal dismissed and High Court’s finding upheld [Paras 1, 8, 18-22].

Execution of Will – Standard of Proof – Requirement to Dispel Suspicion – The Court reiterated that when a Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, mere proof of signatures or registration is insufficient – Propounder must dispel doubts to the satisfaction of the court and establish the Will was executed voluntarily by the testator – In this case, suspicious circumstances remained unrefuted, rendering the Will invalid [Paras 11-13].

Inheritance Rights of Spouse – Disinheritance without Justification – Constitutional and Legal Scrutiny – The Court observed that failure to mention a lawful spouse and absence of justification for her exclusion from inheritance in the Will is a significant suspicious factor – Given evidence of harmonious relationship between testator and his wife, unexplained disinheritance suggested possible undue influence by the propounder, vitiating the Will [Paras 19-20].

Concurrent Findings Reversed by High Court – Judicial Conscience Principle Upheld – The Supreme Court endorsed the High Court’s reversal of concurrent findings, holding that courts have a solemn duty to scrutinize Wills in light of equity and fairness, especially when the natural heir is excluded without explanation – Suspicion was not rebutted, and the appeals were dismissed affirming the High Court's decree in favour of the respondent-wife [Paras 18-22].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment declaring the first respondent as the rightful owner and in possession of the suit land – Appeals dismissed with no costs awarded [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Bribery and Conspiracy Allegation – Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification – Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act – Appeal Allowed – The appellant, an Assistant Administrative Officer, was accused of demanding bribe along with a superior officer for claim settlement in an insurance matter – Initially acquitted by the Trial Court, conviction was later reversed by the High Court based on inference from phone calls and trap proceedings – The Supreme Court found serious contradictions in the prosecution’s version, including absence of direct demand proof, inconsistencies in trap procedure, and flawed reliance on circumstantial evidence – Held: Conviction set aside, Trial Court’s acquittal restored due to lack of credible proof of demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal. [Paras 1, 24-39].

Reversal of Acquittal – Standard of Appellate Interference – Double Presumption of Innocence – The Court reaffirmed the legal principle that in appeals against acquittal, the High Court must proceed cautiously and interfere only when Trial Court’s findings are perverse or unreasonable – Held: Trial Court’s view based on evidence inconsistencies was reasonable; High Court erred in reversing acquittal without addressing material gaps – Supreme Court reinstated the presumption of innocence of the appellant [Paras 24, 34-36].

Evidentiary Gaps and Investigative Lapses – Contradictory Evidence Regarding Trap Proceedings – The Court highlighted three critical inconsistencies: unexplained participation of the SP in trap proceedings, inconsistency in seized articles (white shirt appearing moss-coloured), and contradiction in chemical test results on a whisky box without prior application of phenolphthalein – Held: Prosecution failed to maintain evidentiary integrity, rendering conviction unsustainable [Paras 30-33].

Demand and Acceptance Not Established – Application of Neeraj Dutta Doctrine – The Court applied the principle laid down in Neeraj Dutta v. State (2023) on the requirement of clear proof of demand and acceptance in bribery cases – Held: Demand not proved by credible direct or circumstantial evidence, benefit of doubt must flow to the accused [Paras 24-28, 38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment convicting the appellant, restored Trial Court’s acquittal order, and directed refund of fine if deposited – Appellant acquitted of all charges [Para 39].

Criminal Procedure – Service of Notice under Section 35 BNSS – Electronic Mode Not Permissible – Application Dismissed – The State of Haryana sought modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier order to allow electronic service of notices under Section 35 BNSS – Held: Legislative intent is explicit in excluding investigation-related notices from electronic mode under Section 530 BNSS – Non-compliance with such notices may result in arrest, impacting liberty – Electronic service not legally sustainable [Paras 3, 17, 26-27, 43].

Electronic Communication – BNSS Provisions – Scope Delineated – Legislative Intent Respected – Court held that BNSS expressly permits electronic communication for limited procedures like service of summons with Court seal, communication to witnesses, production of documents, and filing of police reports – Investigative notices affecting liberty require stricter compliance and personal service [Paras 15, 20, 40-42].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Protection in Investigative Stage – Court interpreted Section 35(3)-(6) of BNSS as substantively protecting individual liberty – As arrest can follow non-compliance with notice, mode of service must be stringent – Personal service mandated to safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 24-26, 29].

Judicial vs Executive Acts – Summons vs Investigative Notice – Procedural Distinction – Summons issued by Court under Sections 63/71 BNSS differ from notice under Section 35 issued by Investigating Agency – Judicial summons can use electronic communication under strict format – Executive notices impacting liberty cannot [Paras 31-39].

Decision – No Modification of Previous Order – Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier ruling requiring Standing Orders directing personal service of notice under Section 35 BNSS – Application by State of Haryana dismissed – Prior judgment upheld [Para 44].

Service Law - Family Pension – Death in Harness of Substitute Railway Employee – Completion of One Year’s Service – Pension Entitlement Recognized – Appeal Allowed – The Appellant, widow of a substitute railway employee who died after 9 years and 8 months of service, was denied family pension by Railway Authorities citing non-regularisation and less than 10 years of service – Supreme Court held that under Rule 75(2)(a) read with Rule 18(3) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, family pension is payable to the family of a temporary railway servant who dies after completing one year of continuous service – Observed that the deceased had obtained temporary status and was eligible for family pension on par with temporary employees – Held: Denial of family pension unsustainable, appeal allowed [Paras 1-12].

Qualifying Service for Family Pension – 10-Year Minimum Tenure Not Applicable for Temporary Status – Clarification Issued – Supreme Court clarified that the 10-year qualifying service rule is applicable for superannuation pension, but in the case of death in harness after one year of service, family pension cannot be denied to dependents – Held: Disqualification based on the three-month shortfall from ten years violates the beneficial scheme of pension rules, purpose being to protect the deceased’s dependents [Paras 10-11].

Relief under Article 142 – Award of Ex-Gratia Compensation – Supreme Court invoked powers under Article 142 to award additional ex-gratia amount of ₹5,00,000 to the appellant in view of prolonged litigation and hardship faced by the widow after death of breadwinner – Directed payment of arrears of pension along with regular monthly pension within four months [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court Set Aside – Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal and Patna High Court, directed immediate disbursal of pension benefits to the appellant along with ₹5 lakh ex-gratia compensation [Paras 14-15].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302 of the IPC - Conviction Based on Ocular and Medical Evidence – Multiple Murders Committed Due to Suspicion of Infidelity – Conviction Upheld - The appellant was convicted of murdering five family members, including three minor children, his wife, and sister-in-law, with a chopper based on clear eyewitness testimonies, voluntary confession, and medical evidence – Courts below correctly found the accused guilty of premeditated, barbaric murder without any sudden provocation – Supreme Court upheld the conviction as there was no perversity or misreading of evidence [Paras 1-10].

Death Sentence – Application of ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine – Consideration of Reformative Possibility – Death Sentence Commuted to Life Imprisonment – Though the crime was heinous, the Court found mitigating circumstances in the accused’s background – Reports revealed absence of prior criminal antecedents, good conduct in jail, participation in literacy programmes, psychological struggles, and potential for reformation – Applying the principle of giving benefit of doubt in sentencing, death penalty was substituted with life imprisonment without remission till the natural end of life [Paras 11-17].

Sentencing Guidelines – Compliance with Manoj v. State of M.P. – Requirement for Comprehensive Background Analysis – The Court emphasized adherence to sentencing principles laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, requiring socio-psychological, medical, and behavioural assessments before awarding capital punishment – Held: High Court inadequately appreciated these reports while confirming the death sentence, warranting interference on the sentencing aspect [Paras 11-17].

Final Decision – Conviction Upheld, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till natural death while affirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC for multiple murders [Paras 17].

Electricity Act - Electricity Tariff – Scope of Note 3 of Regulation 55 – Contractual Obligation to Supply Free Power Beyond 13% Not Affected – Appeal Allowed – The appellant State challenged the High Court’s order that modified the agreed contractual free power supply from 18% to 13% in alignment with CERC Regulations, 2019 – The Supreme Court held that Note 3 of Regulation 55 of the 2019 Tariff Regulations only caps the extent of free power for purposes of tariff calculation recoverable from distribution licensees and beneficiaries – The cap does not restrain or extinguish the contractual obligation to supply free power beyond 13%, which forms part of negotiated consideration for resource allocation – Held: Contractual obligation to supply 18% free power continues unaffected by the 13% cap applicable for tariff computation [Paras 1-24].

Tariff Regulation – Limited Purpose of CERC Regulations – Contractual Free Power Obligations Not Regulated – The Court clarified that CERC Regulations govern tariff computation between generating companies and beneficiaries and cannot be relied upon to alter royalty-based free power obligations agreed with the State Government – Held: The free power clause forms part of the project allotment consideration and remains enforceable as such – The regulatory cap applies only to tariff pass-through and does not rewrite resource contracts [Paras 15-21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Not Maintainable to Modify Concluded Contracts Governed by Sectoral Regulation – The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a writ petition seeking to rewrite contractual terms based on tariff regulations – Disputes on tariff are within the exclusive domain of CERC and APTEL – Held: Constitutional Courts must refrain from entertaining parallel remedies when specialized statutory frameworks are available and operative [Paras 26-39].

Role of Sectoral Regulator – Judicial Deference to CERC in Tariff Matters – The Court reaffirmed the established principle that tariff-related determinations, including interpretations of applicable regulations, fall squarely within the regulatory domain of expert bodies like CERC and appellate bodies like APTEL – High Courts should not interfere where regulatory mechanisms exist and have not been duly exhausted – Writ petitions circumventing these remedies are impermissible [Paras 26-39].

Status of State Government – Not a Deemed Licensee – The Court observed that the High Court wrongly assumed the appellant State to be a deemed licensee and a regulated entity under the Electricity Act – Held: Supply of free power as royalty does not make the State a licensee as it involves no trading, transmission, or distribution activity – Obligations arising from sovereign contracts of natural resource allocation are distinct from regulated market relationships under the Electricity Act [Paras 35-38].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s judgment quashing part of the Implementation Agreement set aside – Contractual right of the State to receive 18% free power upheld – The High Court erred in modifying a sovereign contract through writ jurisdiction – Writ petition held not maintainable and dismissed [Paras 40-41].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 308, 325, 323 of the IPC - Standard of Proof – Conviction Set Aside – Section 302 IPC – Death Sentence Reversed – The Court allowed the appeals against concurrent conviction and death sentence for murder of four family members including two minor children – Held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt – Major contradictions in testimonies of key prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW17 rendered their evidence wholly unreliable – Material inconsistencies on presence at scene of crime, weapon used, and number of accused persons involved – Benefit of doubt extended to accused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1-32].

Evidence Act – Eyewitness Testimony – Contradictions in Depositions – Material Discrepancies Fatal to Prosecution Case – The Court found that depositions of PW1 and PW2 were full of contradictions regarding their presence at the scene, alarm raised, and timeline of events – Presence of PW1 at scene held improbable – Presence of PW2 found doubtful due to inconsistent narrations and absence in FIR – Statement of injured child witness PW17 clarified he was asleep and did not witness the crime – Held: prosecution version collapsed in absence of credible eyewitness evidence [Paras 25-35].

Evidence Act – Section 27 – Recovery of Weapon and Clothes – No Forensic Linkage – Investigative Lapses – The alleged recovery of blood-stained clothes and gandasi made after two months of the incident found untrustworthy in absence of independent witnesses and proper forensic corroboration – Chemical report only confirmed human blood, without linking it to the deceased – Courts below erred in accepting such evidence without formal exhibition of forensic report – Held: recovery evidence inadmissible for sustaining conviction [Paras 36-38].

Evidence Act – Section 106 – Reverse Burden of Proof – Not Applicable – The Court held that Section 106 Evidence Act could not be applied to infer guilt from unexplained injuries on the accused – Held that adverse inference under Section 106 requires prior establishment of foundational facts connecting the accused to the crime, which was absent in this case – Injuries on accused alone cannot replace prosecution’s burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 39-40].

Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Inapplicability – Death Sentence Set Aside – The Court held that in absence of trustworthy eyewitness accounts, independent corroboration and reliable circumstantial evidence, the death sentence imposed on the appellant was wholly unwarranted – Case did not qualify as “rarest of rare” – Conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant directed to be released after more than eleven years of incarceration [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgments of Trial Court and High Court set aside – Conviction and death sentence under Sections 302, 308, and 325 IPC quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Para 44].

Criminal Law - Sections 302, 376AB, 377, 201 of the of the IPC - Rape and Murder of Minor – Last Seen, Recovery of Dead Body, and DNA Evidence – Conviction Upheld – The appellant was convicted for the brutal rape, unnatural sexual assault, and murder of a 10-year-old girl – Conviction based on last seen evidence by child witnesses, recovery of deceased’s body from appellant’s hut, and DNA report conclusively matching the appellant’s semen with biological samples – Supreme Court held that concurrent findings by Trial Court and High Court were based on reliable ocular, medical, and scientific evidence, and upheld conviction under Sections 302, 376AB, 377 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act [Paras 1-13].

Death Sentence – Sentencing without Proper Mitigation Inquiry Impermissible – Death Penalty Commuted – Though crime was heinous, the Supreme Court held that courts below failed to appreciate mitigating circumstances – Reports under directions of Supreme Court highlighted absence of prior criminal record, good behaviour in jail, socio-economic backwardness, and potential for reformation – Court applied principles from Bachan Singh and Manoj cases, holding that sentencing must not focus solely on crime’s brutality – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment without remission till natural death [Paras 14-22].

Sentencing Guidelines – Adherence to Principles in Manoj Judgment – Comprehensive Inquiry Mandatory – Supreme Court reiterated sentencing procedure laid down in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, mandating socio-economic, psychological, and behavioural analysis before awarding capital punishment – Courts below failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of such factors, warranting interference in sentence [Paras 15-21].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Death Sentence Commuted – Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal by commuting death sentence to life imprisonment without remission till the remainder of natural life, while confirming conviction on all counts [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law - Section 319 CrPC – Power to Summon Additional Accused – FIR Naming but Non-Charge-Sheeting – Summoning Restored – The complainant’s appeal arose from the High Court quashing the Trial Court’s summoning of Respondent No.2 under Section 319 CrPC – The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was correct in summoning Respondent No.2, whose presence was consistently noted in the FIR and supported by statements of eyewitnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 – Held: The High Court erred by applying the standard required at the conclusion of trial rather than the correct standard applicable under Section 319 CrPC, which requires more than a prima facie case but less than evidence for conviction – Summoning order restored [Paras 2-26].

Section 319 CrPC – Standard for Invoking Power – Deposition in Examination-in-Chief Sufficient – No Mini Trial Required – The Court reiterated that statements made in examination-in-chief before the court constitute valid evidence sufficient for invoking Section 319 CrPC – Cross-examination is not a prerequisite, and a mini-trial at this stage is impermissible – Held: The degree of satisfaction must be more stringent than framing charges but less than conviction – Trial courts must rely on courtroom evidence, not on police case diaries or statements under Section 161 CrPC [Paras 6-15].

FIR Named Accused – Role Reaffirmed in Court Depositions – Summoning Justified – The judgment clarified that even if a person is excluded from the charge sheet, their naming in the FIR and clear deposition by witnesses during trial implicating them with specific roles justifies their summoning under Section 319 CrPC – Held: High Court erred in discarding credible in-court testimony and relying on extraneous materials like affidavits before police [Paras 16-25].

Final Decision – Summoning Upheld – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the summoning order passed by the Trial Court – Directed the trial to conclude within 18 months while ensuring cooperation of parties and avoidance of delays [Paras 26-28].