Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Appellants accused of conspiring and attempting to murder Complainant (PW1) – Incident arising from a dispute over land between PW1 and Accused No.1 – Attack in PW1's grocery shop by appellants and other accused – Injuries sustained by PW1 and PW2 (PW1's mother) deemed simple by doctor (PW13). [Paras 3-6]

Evidence and Intent – Contradictions in prosecution's case regarding intent to murder – Appellants armed with knives, but no severe or repeated blows inflicted – Injuries found simple in nature, not indicating an intent to kill. [Paras 6, 9-10]

Legal Interpretation – Application of Section 307 IPC – Supreme Court's analysis referring to cases like State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem and Jage Ram v State of Haryana – Intention inferred from nature of injuries and circumstances – Simple injuries not conclusive for intent to murder under Section 307 IPC. [Paras 9-10]

Conviction Modified – Supreme Court's intervention – Conviction under Section 307 IPC deemed unsustainable – Conviction modified to Sections 323 and 324 IPC for causing simple injuries – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants discharged from bail bonds. [Paras 11-12]

Appeal of Pavnesh Kumar against Medical Unfitness Declaration – BSF declared Kumar medically unfit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE 2018-19 – Challenged in Delhi High Court, which upheld the BSF's decision – Kumar then appealed to Supreme Court. [Paras 1-5]

Medical Fitness for Promotion – Kumar initially declared medically fit as a constable, later declared unfit for Sub-Inspector post – Underwent surgery but still declared unfit in review – BSF's decision based on detailed medical examination specific to Sub-Inspector post, not general fitness. [Paras 6-12]

Distinction in Promotion Standards – Appointment through LDCE considered accelerated promotion, not equivalent to normal promotion – Specific medical standards for LDCE required, separate from general medical fitness for current position. [Paras 13-16]

Supreme Court's Decision – Found no merit in the appeal – Confirmed that Kumar was never declared medically fit for Sub-Inspector post through LDCE process – Upheld High Court's judgment and BSF's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs. [Paras 17-18]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court – FIR lodged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 – Allegation of promise to marry and breach thereof leading to a sexual relationship – Appellant granted interim protection by the Supreme Court – Chargesheet filed – Case for regular bail made out – Appellant directed to surrender within six weeks for applying for regular bail. [Para 1-10]

Personal Liberty – Importance of personal liberty in the context of granting bail – Interim protection granted to the appellant – Emphasis on ensuring the continuation of liberty until the bail application is heard. [Para 9]

Decision: The Supreme Court disposes of the appeal, directing the appellant to apply for regular bail within six weeks after surrendering. Interim protection is to continue until the bail application is moved. [Para 10]

Factual Allegations – Alleged house trespass and looting by appellants (husband and wife), resulting in FIR under Sections 448, 454, and 380 IPC. Accusations involve locking a tenant's shop, looting various items including wheat, sale money, and a two-wheeler. [Para 3]

Appellants' Submissions – Challenging FIR’s legitimacy, asserting property ownership, and highlighting discrepancies in R2’s tenancy claim. Foregrounding a court’s order recognizing forged documents submitted by R2, including a tenancy agreement with an anachronistic currency symbol (₹), introduced in 2010, but claimed to be from 2005. Arguing FIR was intended to frustrate appellants from enjoying their property rights. [Paras 4-10]

Legal Scrutiny of Charges – Comprehensive examination of the evidence and allegations. Recognition of the ₹ symbol’s introduction in 2010 as undermining R2’s tenancy claim, casting doubt on his possession of the property. Analysis of the legal framework for discharge in criminal cases, referencing pertinent case laws. [Paras 14-23]

Decision – Appeal allowed, appellants discharged due to lack of strong suspicion against them. Emphasis on preventing unwarranted criminal prosecution and unnecessary trials. The High Court’s judgment and trial court’s order set aside. Observations on the role of High Courts in protecting individuals from vexatious litigation. [Paras 24]

Teacher Qualification – Diploma in Elementary Education – Validity of 18 Months Diploma from NIOS for Assistant Teacher Post in Uttarakhand – High Court Verdict Set Aside – Supreme Court Rules that 18 Months Diploma is Not Equivalent to 2 Years Diploma Prescribed by NCTE. [Para 4.1-4.15, 29, 32, 41]

Recognition of D.El.Ed. through ODL - Challenge to High Court's approval of 18-month D.El.Ed. by NIOS for Assistant Teacher posts. High Court found it equivalent to 2-year regular D.El.Ed. programs. [Paras 2, 15, 29, 41]

NCTE's Role and Notifications - NCTE's authority under RTE Act to prescribe minimum qualifications for teachers. Clarifications regarding the specific intent of the 18-month ODL program for in-service teachers. [Paras 4.2, 4.3, 27, 29]

Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Inconsistency Between Statutory Rules and Administrative Instructions – Supreme Court Clarifies Government Cannot Supersede Statutory Rules by Administrative Instructions – 18 Months Diploma by NIOS Not in Line with Uttarakhand’s 2012 Service Rules. [Para 34, 35, 38]

Equalization of Qualifications – High Court’s Error in Equating 18 Months and 2 Years Diplomas – Supreme Court Emphasizes the Role of Expert Bodies in Determining Equivalence – NCTE’s Role in Prescribing Minimum Qualifications Upheld. [Para 40-42]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court's Order Quashing Uttarakhand Government's Refusal to Recognize 18 Months Diploma from NIOS Overturned – Original Writ Petitions Dismissed. [Para 43]

FIR Quashing Request – Appellants sought quashing of FIR for offences under IPC and EC Act – High Court dismissed petition – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Allegations of adulterating fuel with hydrocarbons, appearing as petrol and diesel – Appellants arrested, samples collected, but no conclusive report on nature of seized liquid. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Supreme Court’s Analysis – Critically evaluated evidence in charge sheet and FIR – Observed absence of expert report on nature of seized liquid, crucial to establishing the prosecution's case – Noted inordinate delay in obtaining expert report, undermining the prosecution's foundation – Recognized reliance on BPCL Quality Assurance Laboratory report confirming sample conformity, which prosecution did not counter – Acknowledged an adverse inference against the respondent due to failure in producing the report – Concluded that continuation of prosecution without substantial evidence would be an abuse of the legal process. [Paras 7-8]

Decision – Supreme Court allows appeal – Impugned judgment and FIR No. 727 dated 14th October 2021, along with the charge sheet, quashed – Prosecution against appellants discontinued due to lack of conclusive evidence and procedural lapses. [Paras 9-10]

Insurance Claim Dispute – Fire incident at insured warehouse led to a claim of Rs. 6,57,55,155/- with 9% interest – NCDRC's partial allowance of the claim contested in the Supreme Court – Issues revolved around the cause of the fire, whether the location was covered under the insurance policy, and interpretations of policy terms. [Paras 2-5, 14-17, 30-41, 48-50, 56-59]

Fire Cause – Multiple Investigative Reports – Discrepancies in reports regarding the fire's cause – Majority reports indicated electrical short-circuit, while a few pointed towards negligence due to welding work – Supreme Court favored the majority view of electrical short-circuit, dismissing the notion of insured's negligence. [Paras 38-41, 48-50]

Policy Coverage Affirmed – Analysis of policy documents, agreements, and communications from various authorities confirmed that the fire-affected area was covered under the insurance policy, contrary to the appellant's claim. [Paras 34-35]

Clause 3(a) of Insurance Policy – The repair work on the warehouse roof, intended to prevent water leakage, did not constitute an 'alteration' that increased the risk of fire – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's view that the repair work was not in violation of policy conditions. [Paras 36-37]

Surveyor's Report and its Value – The surveyor's report, although a prerequisite for claim settlement, is not absolute and may be challenged with other evidence – Supreme Court found the surveyor's report inconclusive and sided with other evidence indicating electrical short-circuit as the fire cause. [Paras 42-47]

Customs Duty and Unjust Enrichment – The argument that compensating for customs duty would lead to unjust enrichment was rejected – Supreme Court directed that the customs duty component of the claim be paid directly to the Customs Department. [Paras 51-55, 58]

Final Decision – The appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. was dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's order in favor of the respondent, M/s. Mudit Roadways – The decision affirmed the insurance claim, with the parties bearing their own costs. [Para 59]

Factual Background and Lower Court's Decision – Nababuddin, along with two co-accused, convicted for possessing 205 kg of poppy straw under Section 15 of NDPS Act – Conviction based on possession of railway receipt and confirmed by High Court. [Para 1]

Prosecution's Case – Accused deemed in conscious possession due to holding railway receipt for parcels containing poppy straw – Contraband intercepted at railway station, and accused arrested following a police operation. [Paras 2, 5]

Appellant's Defense – Nababuddin claimed he was a rickshaw puller and had no involvement with the parcels – Alleged procedural flaws in trial, including insufficient examination under Section 313 of CrPC. [Paras 3, 7-8]

Supreme Court's Detailed Consideration:

Evaluation of Evidence and Witness Testimonies – The court scrutinized testimonies of key witnesses, notably the station supervisor and police officials, finding inconsistencies in attributing possession of the railway receipt to Nababuddin. [Paras 5-6]

Critical Analysis of Section 313 CrPC Examination – Identified a significant procedural lapse; key accusations against Nababuddin were not put forth during his examination under Section 313 of CrPC, violating principles of fair trial and defense rights. [Paras 7-10]

Legal Precedents and Principles – Referenced the judgment of Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), emphasizing the mandatory nature of putting each material circumstance to the accused distinctly and specifically under Section 313 of CrPC. [Para 11]

Impact of Procedural Irregularities – Acknowledged that not putting material circumstances to the accused caused serious prejudice to Nababuddin's defense, leading to the conclusion that these omissions were materially and legally significant. [Paras 12-13]

Final Decision – Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Nababuddin due to noted procedural irregularities in the trial process, leading to his acquittal after serving five and a half years of incarceration. [Paras 13-15]

Murder Conviction Upheld – Involvement in Fatal Shooting: Conviction of appellant Nanhe under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Saddam Hussain and injury to Mahendra in a market area incident on 30.05.2007. Appellant's appeal against the High Court's affirmation of trial court’s conviction and sentencing is considered. [Paras 2-4, 26]

Intent in Murder – Doctrine of Transfer of Malice: Application of Section 301 IPC and the doctrine of transfer of malice. Even though the appellant's intended target was Mahendra, the accidental killing of Saddam Hussain was held under the same criminal liability due to transferred intent. [Paras 10, 12-16]

Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility: Examination of the appellant's state of intoxication. Section 86 IPC considered, determining that voluntary intoxication not rendering the appellant incapable of understanding his actions does not mitigate the offence to a lower degree under Section 304 IPC. [Paras 17-25]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal: The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, finding no illegality in the High Court's judgment. The appellant is advised to apply for remission as per the state's policy. [Para 27]