Criminal Law - Double Murder Conviction - Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of challenge to conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appellant convicted for murdering mother and elder brother – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Supreme Court reviews evidence and finds consistent chain of events pointing to guilt – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-13]

Circumstantial Evidence - Establishing Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Analysis – Supreme Court reaffirms principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Highlights importance of motive, consistent chain of events, and incriminating circumstances – Reviews testimony of key witnesses, recovery of items, and appellant’s conduct – Finds prosecution’s case proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 6-12]

Decision – Conviction and Sentence Upheld – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court’s affirmation of trial court’s conviction and life sentence – Emphasizes thorough judicial examination of evidence and consistency of circumstantial evidence leading to conviction – Appeal dismissed with no merit. [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Civil Nature of Dispute – Appeal challenging High Court’s quashing of criminal proceedings against respondents – Accused allegedly colluded with bank officials to fraudulently withdraw funds using cheques without sufficient balance – High Court quashed proceedings on grounds of civil nature of dispute and availability of alternative remedies – Supreme Court finds High Court erred in interfering with criminal proceedings – Emphasizes need for sparing use of Section 482 CrPC – Appeal allowed. [Paras 1-15]

Fraud and Criminal Proceedings - Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Analysis – Supreme Court highlights distinct nature of criminal liability in cases involving fraud against financial institutions – Asserts that settlement of monetary claims does not negate criminal culpability – Cites established legal principles that criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely due to existence of civil remedies – Reinforces judicial caution in using inherent powers to quash proceedings. [Paras 6-12]

Decision – Reinstatement of Criminal Proceedings – Court allows appeal, sets aside High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings – Directs trial court to expeditiously conclude trial without being influenced by observations in current order – Affirms importance of addressing fraud allegations through proper judicial process – Appeal allowed with directions for timely trial. [Paras 13-15]

Civil Procedure - Consent Decree and Appeal – Appeal challenging High Court’s affirmation of consent decree not being assailable – Trial court recorded compromise decree after due enquiry under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC – Appellants contended compromise was not lawful – High Court affirmed trial court’s findings and held appeal barred under Section 96(3) CPC – Supreme Court examines lawfulness of compromise and procedural fairness – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Compromise Decree - Judicial Scrutiny and Maintainability – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principle that a compromise decree, if contested, requires judicial enquiry – Confirms that decrees passed on valid compromises after due enquiry are not appealable under Section 96(3) CPC – Reviews trial and appellate courts’ thorough examination of evidence and finds no procedural impropriety – Affirms High Court’s decision of non-maintainability of appeal. [Paras 6-18]

Decision – Affirmation of Consent Decree – Court dismisses appeal, upholds High Court’s judgment – Confirms valid compromise was duly acted upon and accepted by trial court – Reiterates principles for consent decrees and limitations on appeal – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. [Paras 18-19]

Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Disposal and Judicial Application – Appeal challenging High Court’s judgment in RFA – Appellant contends High Court failed to consider evidence and trial court’s findings as required under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – High Court did not frame points for determination or provide reasons for its decision – Supreme Court finds appeal disposition unsatisfactory and lacking expected considerations from first appellate court – Appeal allowed, case remanded for fresh disposal. [Paras 1-11]

Order 41 Rule 31 CPC - Requirements for Appellate Judgments – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterates principles for disposing of RFAs – Highlights necessity of framing points for determination, providing reasoned decisions, and addressing trial court findings – Emphasizes valuable right of parties in first appeal requiring comprehensive judicial scrutiny – Affirms principles from previous judgments supporting thorough appellate review. [Paras 6-8]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Disposal of RFA – Court allows appeal, sets aside High Court’s judgment – Remands case to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC – Directs early disposal within six months – Emphasizes judicial duty to provide detailed appellate review and reasoned judgments – Appeal disposed of with directions. [Paras 9-11]

Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Acquittal to Conviction – Appeal against High Court’s conversion of acquittal to conviction under Section 324 IPC – Appellant originally acquitted by trial court – High Court found trial court’s reasoning perverse and contrary to evidence, convicted appellant – Supreme Court finds High Court exceeded revisional jurisdiction under Section 401(3) CrPC – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. [Paras 1-13]

Revisional Powers - Limitation on Conversion of Acquittal – Analysis – Supreme Court emphasizes limits of High Court’s revisional jurisdiction – Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits conversion of acquittal into conviction – High Court can only order retrial in cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice – Supreme Court affirms revisional jurisdiction should correct manifest errors without directly convicting. [Paras 7-11]

Decision – Setting Aside of Conviction and No Retrial Ordered – Court allows appeal, sets aside High Court’s order of conviction – Declines to order retrial due to nature of offense and passage of time – Emphasizes need for judicial adherence to procedural limits in revisional jurisdiction – Appeal allowed, conviction set aside with no retrial. [Paras 11-13]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life and Dignity – Article 21 – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Investigation by NHRC – Petitioners, volunteers of Aam Aadmi Party, alleged police atrocities during a protest, resulting in serious injuries. Supreme Court directs an independent investigation by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) citing prima facie evidence of police excesses and violation of the right to live with dignity under Article 21. [Paras 1-20]

Criminal Law – Excessive Use of Force by Police – Independent Investigation – Petitioners claimed police used excessive force during a protest demanding registration of an FIR for an alleged rape case. The Court found prima facie evidence supporting the claim and directed NHRC to investigate the incident independently, considering the police's potential bias. [Paras 5-18]

Police Conduct – Failure to Provide FIR Copy – Procedural Lapses – The petitioners contended that the police refused to provide a copy of the FIR to the victim's husband, escalating the protest. The Court observed that providing the FIR copy could have mitigated the conflict, indicating procedural lapses by the police. [Paras 4-6]

Decision – Independent Investigation and NHRC Inquiry – The Supreme Court directed the investigation of the FIR concerning the protestors to be conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and ordered NHRC to investigate the allegations of police brutality against the petitioners, ensuring accountability and adherence to fundamental rights. The appeal by the petitioners is allowed to the extent specified, providing for an impartial investigation and addressing the grievances raised. [Paras 20-21]

Custodial Death - Circumstantial Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 106 of Evidence Act - Conviction of police officers for custodial death based on circumstantial evidence. Supreme Court reiterates principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra regarding proof through circumstantial evidence. Held, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the deceased was last seen in their custody. [Paras 20-25]

Wrongful Confinement and Grievous Hurt - Evidence of Custodial Violence - Deceased found with multiple injuries not recorded at the time of arrest, indicating custodial violence. Trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of direct evidence and discrepancies in injury reports. High Court convicted based on the circumstantial evidence of injuries occurring while in police custody. Supreme Court finds the High Court’s reliance on circumstantial evidence justifiable. [Paras 22-24]

Murder or Culpable Homicide - Conviction and Sentencing - High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 IPC by Supreme Court due to lack of intent to cause death. Held, custodial violence resulting in death amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine. [Paras 28-30]

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of A2 and A3, acquitting them of all charges. However, the conviction of A1 was modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000, with a default sentence of six months imprisonment​​.

Municipal Law - Requirement of License for Catering Services - Definition of Eating House - Interpretation of 'Eating House' and 'Catering Establishment' - Held: The term 'eating house' as defined under Section 3(ff) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, includes premises where food is prepared and supplied for consumption for profit or gain, including members of a club who are considered part of the public. The term 'gain' is interpreted broadly to encompass any advantage or benefit, not limited to pecuniary profit​​. [Paras 18-21]

Licensing Requirements under Section 394 - Held: The Bombay High Court’s interpretation exempting the club from obtaining a license was incorrect. Catering facilities, even if ancillary to the main sporting activities, must comply with public health and safety regulations. The requirement to obtain a license ensures adherence to standards critical for food safety and public health​​. [Paras 10-17, 27]

Broader Interpretation of 'Catering Establishment' - Analysis: The term 'catering establishment' encompasses any place where food is provided, irrespective of public access or profit motive. The legal precedents reinforce that even cooperative canteens or non-profit setups fall under this definition​​. [Paras 22-26]

Decision: Quashing of Bombay High Court's Order - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court's order. The respondents (Willingdon Sports Club) are required to obtain a license under Section 394(1)(e) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed with costs​​. [Paras 27-30]

Civil Procedure - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Adverse Possession -

1. Eviction Suit - Failure to Prove Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Held: In a suit for eviction under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the relationship of landlord and tenant is a sine qua non. The failure to establish this relationship means the suit cannot proceed on the basis of title alone. The High Court was correct in distinguishing between a suit for eviction based on landlord-tenant relationship and a suit for possession based on title​​. [Paras 14, 18-22]

2. General Title and Adverse Possession - Application in Special Enactments - Analysis: The principles of general title and adverse possession as stated in Bhagwati Prasad and Biswanath Agarwalla apply differently under special enactments like the Accommodation Control Act. These principles allow for alternative relief under general civil law but not under special enactments where the relationship of landlord and tenant must be proven. The High Court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision regarding adverse possession when the jurisdiction was limited to landlord-tenant disputes​​. [Paras 16-23]

3. Arresting Adverse Possession by Filing Suit - Legal Implications - Held: The filing of an eviction suit under a special enactment arrests the period of adverse possession. The Plaintiff’s right to possession remains intact if the suit is filed within the limitation period, preventing the Defendant from perfecting the title by adverse possession during the pendency of the suit. This principle ensures that a litigant’s right to reclaim property is not lost due to prolonged legal proceedings​​. [Paras 25-34]

Decision:

Liberty to File Fresh Suit for Title and Recovery of Possession - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s affirmation of the trial court’s decision on adverse possession. The Plaintiff is granted liberty to file a fresh suit for title and recovery of possession within two months. The time for adverse possession is arrested during the pendency of the suit, ensuring the Plaintiff’s rights are not extinguished​​. [Paras 24-36]