Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellant convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Trial court and High Court found the appellant guilty based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-18].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s explanations were found insufficient [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Discretion under Article 142 – Supreme Court declined to exercise discretion under Article 142 to reduce the sentence – Noted that reducing the sentence would contradict the legislative intent of imposing minimum sentences for corruption offenses – Emphasized the need for stringent measures to curb corruption [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the minimum sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court – Declined to reduce the sentence despite mitigating factors [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted for rape – Trial court and High Court heavily relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court found material contradictions and embellishments in prosecutrix’s testimony – Noted failure to consider defense evidence properly – Conviction set aside due to benefit of doubt [Paras 1-25].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Supreme Court noted significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, including discrepancies between her statements to police and in court – Highlighted the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony in criminal cases [Paras 7-15].

Medical Evidence – Limited Support – Medical evidence indicated the possibility of rape but was inconclusive – Supreme Court emphasized that medical evidence must corroborate the prosecutrix’s testimony to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9-10].

Defense Evidence – Ignored by Lower Courts – Supreme Court criticized the trial court and High Court for ignoring the defense’s evidence and arguments – Emphasized that all evidence must be considered to ensure a fair trial [Paras 6, 12-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to the appellant – Directed that bail bonds be discharged [Paras 24-25].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellants convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Concurrent findings by trial court and High Court based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming the demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-15].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellants’ explanations were found insufficient [Paras 8-9].

Necessity of Shadow Witness – Supreme Court noted that while the presence of a shadow witness is desirable, its absence does not vitiate the trap proceedings – Emphasized the reliability of witness testimonies and absence of contradictions [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions upheld – However, considering the long duration since the incident and the appellants’ severe ailments, Supreme Court reduced the sentence to one year [Para 15].

Service Law – Retrospective Seniority and Consequential Benefits – Appellants sought benefits similar to those granted to similarly placed candidates – Tribunal and High Court denied relief due to delay and laches – Supreme Court upheld the decisions, noting the appellants' delayed approach and the principle that seniority claims must be made promptly [Paras 1-31].

Doctrine of Parity – Appellants argued for parity with peers granted retrospective benefits – Supreme Court emphasized that claims must be raised timely and cannot be based on others' outcomes without similar legal actions – Delay and laches were significant factors against the appellants [Paras 17-23].

Necessary Parties – Absence of similarly placed candidates from the proceedings – Supreme Court noted that affected parties must be impleaded to ensure fair adjudication – Non-impleadment of peers who were granted benefits hindered the appellants' claim [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' claims for retrospective seniority and benefits – Emphasized timely pursuit of claims and the necessity of including affected parties in the proceedings [Para 31].

Contract Law – Liability of Guarantor – Appellants' predecessor stood guarantor for a loan – Liability of guarantor co-extensive with that of principal debtor – Guarantor’s heirs liable for unpaid amount – Sections 128 and 146 of the Indian Contract Act explained and applied [Paras 5-7].

Auction Sale – Legality and Procedure – Property sold to recover unpaid loan – Supreme Court emphasized the need for proper valuation and fixing of reserve price – Sale of part of the property should suffice to meet the demand – Found material irregularity in auction process where whole property was sold for an amount exceeding the debt [Paras 13-19].

Confirmation of Sale – Setting Aside Auction – Auction sale cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error or fraud is demonstrated – Confirmed sale can be challenged if it causes substantial injury or involves misrepresentation [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld auction due to lack of fundamental procedural errors and delay in raising objections – Allowed appellants to seek recovery of excess amount if not already paid by auctioning authority [Paras 24-30].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment rejected as family received terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs – Supreme Court held that appointment on compassionate grounds must adhere to the scheme's terms, which consider the family's financial condition including terminal benefits [Paras 1-16].

Legal Framework – Applicability of Scheme – Office of Comptroller and Auditor General’s Circular stipulates limits on terminal benefits for compassionate appointment eligibility – For Group 'C' posts, if benefits exceed Rs. 3 lakhs, the dependent is ineligible [Para 13].

Case Law – Terminal Benefits Consideration – Supreme Court distinguished between relevant precedents, emphasizing adherence to specific scheme terms over general principles regarding terminal benefits in compassionate appointments [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal orders directing reconsideration of the application – Confirmed rejection of respondent’s application based on the scheme's criteria [Para 16].

Civil Law – Decree Obtained by Fraud – Appellant claimed that the decree in question was obtained through fraud – The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to properly scrutinize the circumstances under which the decree was passed, highlighting procedural lapses and lack of proper examination of evidence – Emphasized that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law [Paras 1-26].

Family Settlement – Validity and Bona Fides – The Court scrutinized the so-called family settlement, determining it to be non-bona fide – The settlement was deemed illogical as it purported to divest the appellant of her entire property without any consideration – The Court highlighted the necessity of a genuine family arrangement for it to be considered valid [Paras 13-18].

Procedural Irregularities – Examination of Parties – The Court noted that the written statement was filed, and statements were recorded on the same day the suit was instituted, raising serious doubts about the procedural propriety – Cited the requirement of ascertaining allegations in pleadings during the first hearing as per Order X Rule 1 CPC, which was not adhered to [Paras 12-13].

Fraud in Legal Proceedings – The Court underscored the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that a decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any stage, even in collateral proceedings – Referred to multiple precedents affirming that judgments and decrees based on fraud are nullities [Paras 19-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the High Court and the lower courts set aside – Decree dated 27.11.1973 declared null and void – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC for the dowry death of his wife – High Court overturned trial court's acquittal – Supreme Court reversed High Court's decision, citing insufficient evidence of dowry demand and material inconsistencies in witness testimonies – The prosecution failed to establish a clear nexus between the demand for money and the marriage, rendering the dowry demand unproven [Paras 1-16].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – Reliability questioned due to significant discrepancies – Key witness testimonies (PW.1, PW.2, PW.3) regarding dowry demand not corroborated by their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC – Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overlooking these inconsistencies and for not properly assessing the credibility of the witnesses [Paras 6-12].

Medical Evidence – Forensic Analysis – Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report contradicted the prosecution's claim of death by poison ingestion – No common metallic poison detected in the collected ashes and bones – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering forensic evidence, which supported the defense’s claim of natural death [Paras 14-16].

Section 304-B IPC – Application and Scope – Court analyzed the application of Section 304-B IPC and found it inapplicable due to lack of substantive evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment immediately before death – Highlighted the necessity of proving all elements of Section 304-B beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges due to benefit of doubt and lack of conclusive evidence – Supreme Court stressed the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Appellant initially acquitted by trial court for rape and murder of a minor girl – High Court reversed acquittal, convicting appellant under Sections 302 and 376 IPC based on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and forensic reports – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of separating credible evidence from minor discrepancies [Paras 1-27].

Last Seen Evidence – Reliability – High Court relied on testimonies placing the appellant as last seen with the victim – Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in defense witnesses and affirmed that proximity in time between the appellant being last seen with the victim and the discovery of the crime was critical [Paras 15-17].

Forensic Evidence – Support for Conviction – Post-mortem and forensic reports corroborated the prosecution’s case of sexual assault and murder – Blood and semen found on recovered items linked to the appellant – Supreme Court stressed the significance of scientific evidence in confirming the appellant’s involvement [Paras 6-18].

Hostile Witnesses – Evaluating Testimony – Supreme Court reiterated that the testimony of hostile witnesses should not be entirely disregarded – Relevant and credible portions of their statements can still be considered, aligning with previous rulings on the admissibility of such evidence [Paras 18-19].

Minor Discrepancies – Impact on Verdict – Supreme Court cautioned against giving undue importance to minor discrepancies which do not undermine the core prosecution case – Emphasized the duty of courts to extract truth despite minor contradictions in witness testimonies [Paras 20-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentences for both charges affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s acquittal, citing comprehensive re-evaluation of evidence and legal principles [Paras 27].