Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Conviction Based on Presumptions under Sections 304B IPC and 113B Evidence Act -

1. Conviction for Dowry Death and Cruelty - Section 304B IPC and 498A IPC - Held: The prosecution successfully proved the case against the appellant. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death in connection with the demand for dowry. The evidence showed a consistent pattern of cruelty and harassment by the appellant towards the deceased, leading to her unnatural death within 94 days of marriage​​. [Paras 10-15, 20-22]

2. Interpretation of 'Soon Before' - Held: The term 'soon before' as used in Sections 304B IPC and 113B of the Evidence Act is a relative term and must be understood in the context of the circumstances of each case. The cruelty and harassment suffered by the deceased from the date of her marriage till her death were considered to be 'soon before' her death​​. [Paras 13-15]

3. Demand for Dowry - Applicability of Section 304B IPC - Analysis: The demand for Rs. 60,000 by the appellant was directly related to the dowry demands. Despite the defense's argument that the amount was for business purposes, the court found that it was an extension of the dowry demand made before and after the marriage​​. [Paras 16-20]

4. Rejection of Defense of Depression and Suicide - Held: The court rejected the appellant’s defense that the deceased committed suicide due to depression following a terminated pregnancy. The medical evidence did not support the claim of depression, and there was no proof that the deceased was told she would never conceive again​​. [Paras 21]

5. Reliance on Family Witnesses - Held: In cases of bride burning or dowry death, it is often difficult to obtain independent witnesses. The testimony of family members of the deceased, who are typically the only available witnesses, is crucial and must be given due weight​​. [Paras 25]

Decision:

Dismissal of Appeal - The appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC were upheld. The appellant was directed to surrender to the concerned court as his bail bonds were cancelled​​. [Paras 26]

Service Law - Pension Scheme - Opting after Retirement - Appeal against High Court Order - The appeal challenges the decision of the High Court allowing a retired employee to opt for the pension scheme years after retirement. The Supreme Court held that the employer (Calcutta Port Trust) is not obligated to individually inform retired employees about every opportunity to opt for a pension scheme through newspapers or other mass media. It found that the respondent, being a senior officer, would reasonably be aware of the pension scheme and options provided during his service. [Paras 1-24]

Employer's Duty of Communication - Analysis - Held - The court emphasized that employers must adopt reasonable methods to inform retirees of such schemes but are not mandated to use newspapers for every communication. The court acknowledged that personal communication or displaying notices within the organization could suffice if it can be shown that the information was reasonably accessible. [Para 20-23]

Decision - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Single Judge's order, rejecting the respondent's claim for pension option post-retirement. The appeal was allowed. However, due to the specific facts of the case, the appellants were directed to allow the respondent to exercise his option under the circular dated 19.2.1986 within two months. This decision was not to be considered a precedent for other pending cases. [Para 24]

Labour Law – Employment Status – Contract Labour – Industrial Disputes Act – The issue of whether workers engaged in statutory canteens are employees of the principal employer (Air India) – Application of the 'control and supervision' test to determine employment status.

Contract Labour – Sham Contracts – Statutory Canteens – Held, employment of contract workers in statutory canteens is a sham – Air India, as the principal employer, retains control and supervision over the workers – Workers engaged through a contractor (HCI) must be deemed employees of Air India – Orders passed by CGIT in favour of regularisation of workers upheld. [Paras 40-75]

Piercing the Corporate Veil – Employment Relationships – Deemed Employment – Statutory Obligations – Supreme Court justifies lifting the corporate veil to determine the true employer-employee relationship in the case of statutory canteens – Finds that the relationship is not genuinely contractual but rather one of direct employment with Air India. [Paras 67-74]

Decision – Regularisation of Canteen Workers – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment and reinstates the CGIT's award, directing Air India to regularise the canteen workers as permanent employees. The appeal was allowed. Emphasises compliance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution regarding reservations in regularisation. [Paras 73-75]

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Reduction by High Court – Appeal for enhancement – Appellant, an advocate, sustained grievous injuries resulting in 50% whole body disability – Tribunal awarded Rs. 887,300 including Rs. 617,500 for loss of income due to disability – High Court reduced compensation under this head to Rs. 150,000 – Supreme Court holds High Court erred in reduction – Appellant entitled to Rs. 1,287,300 with interest. [Paras 1-14]

Determination of Just Compensation – Application of Multiplier – Functional Disability – Supreme Court applies a multiplier of 16 in place of 13 for calculating loss of income – Functional disability considered at 70% due to appellant’s profession as an advocate requiring sharpness and physical ability – High Court’s reduction set aside, compensation enhanced by Rs. 400,000 for loss of income due to disability. [Paras 10-13]

Decision – Enhancement of Compensation – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s judgment – Tribunal’s award modified by adding Rs. 400,000 towards loss of income due to disability – Total compensation of Rs. 1,287,300 awarded with interest at 6% p.a. from date of petition till payment – Appeals allowed to the extent of enhancement. [Paras 13-14]

Dowry Death – Presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act – Conviction under Section 304B of IPC – Appeal against High Court judgment – High Court reversed trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellant based on dowry harassment and proximate cause of death within seven years of marriage.

Criminal Law – Evidence – Dowry Demand and Harassment – Contradictions and Minor Discrepancies – Minor inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies do not undermine the prosecution's case when the overall evidence supports the charge – Conviction justified when dowry harassment is established shortly before the death.

Evidence Handling – Chain of Custody – The allegation of tampering with evidence rejected – Court upholds chemical analysis confirming poisoning despite minor procedural lapses – Emphasizes pragmatic approach in dowry death cases.

Delay in Filing FIR – FIR and Special Report – Timely lodging of FIR and reasonable delay in reaching the Magistrate does not vitiate the prosecution's case – Prompt FIR reinforces credibility.

Decision – Conviction Upheld – Supreme Court upholds High Court's conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC – Trial court's acquittal termed perverse – Appellant directed to surrender.

Criminal Law - Mandatory Registration of FIR - Interpretation of Section 154 of CrPC - Constitution Bench

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence. The police officer does not have the liberty to conduct a preliminary inquiry to test the veracity of the information before registering the FIR. The term "information" under Section 154 is not qualified by the words "reasonable" or "credible," unlike other sections in the CrPC, indicating that the police officer is duty-bound to register an FIR based on the information received. [Paras 1-25]

Mandatory Nature of FIR Registration - Safeguards Against Misuse - Article 21 of the Constitution

The Court emphasized that the mandate of registering an FIR should not be reduced to a mechanical act. However, safeguards are in place, and if the information does not reveal a cognizable offence, the police officer can take recourse to appropriate legal procedures post-registration. The Court acknowledged that immediate FIR registration could prevent the manipulation of the complaint process and safeguard the victim’s rights. At the same time, it recognized the potential misuse of this process, underlining the balance between the rights of the complainant and the accused. [Para 24-25]

Decision - Guidelines for Preliminary Inquiry

The Court issued guidelines outlining the circumstances under which a preliminary inquiry may be conducted, such as matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases, and cases where there is a delay in initiating criminal proceedings. The scope of the preliminary inquiry is limited to ascertaining whether the information reveals any cognizable offence and must be completed within seven days. The appeals were decided in favor of the appellants, affirming the mandatory nature of FIR registration while establishing the scope and limitations of preliminary inquiries. [Paras 26-27]

Service Law - Promotion - Merit-Based Evaluation - Interpretation of Rules and Government Orders

The Supreme Court held that promotions to the post of Director of Medical Health in Uttarakhand must be based solely on merit as stipulated in the U.P. Medical Health (Group A) Service Rules, 1990 and the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Criteria for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2004. The evaluation must follow the criteria outlined in the Government Order dated 16.4.2003, which emphasizes the importance of ACRs over the last 10 years, categorizing candidates into 'excellent,' 'good,' and 'unsuitable'​​ .

Evaluation Criteria - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Government Order Compliance

The Court found that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) incorrectly categorized candidates into 'very good' instead of 'excellent,' contrary to the Government Order dated 16.4.2003. The private respondent, who had predominantly 'excellent' ACRs, was unjustly placed in the same category as the appellant, who had a mix of 'excellent,' 'very good,' and 'good' ACRs. This misclassification led to an improper assessment of merit​​ .

Decision - Setting Aside Promotion - No Recovery of Excess Salary

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's promotion due to the DPC's failure to adhere to the prescribed evaluation criteria. However, the Court ruled that no recovery of the excess salary paid to the appellant during her tenure as Director was warranted, given the absence of misrepresentation or fraud on her part. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to costs of Rs. 15,000 to be paid by the Government​​ .

Service Law - Pay Protection - Interpretation of Government Memorandum - Retrospective Effect

The Supreme Court held that the appellant, who joined Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) on 23.9.1987, is entitled to pay protection as per the Government Memorandum dated 7th August 1989 from the effective date of 1st August 1989. The Memorandum grants pay protection to candidates recruited from Public Sector Undertakings or Autonomous Bodies who are appointed as direct recruits through proper selection. It was clarified that while the appellant would not get pay protection prior to 1st August 1989, his pay must be protected from that date onwards to ensure he is not disadvantaged compared to his juniors​​.

Application of Office Memorandum - Discrimination - Right to Equality

The Court recognized the appellant's claim of discrimination based on the fact that other teachers who joined before 1st August 1989 were granted pay protection. The respondents' failure to apply the Memorandum consistently constituted a violation of the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The respondents were directed to correct the appellant's service record and provide consequential benefits​​.

Decision - Partial Allowance of Appeal - Correction of Service Record

The appeal was partially allowed, directing the respondents to protect the appellant's pay as of 1st August 1989 and to update his service record accordingly. The respondents were given three months to implement this correction. No order as to costs was made​​.

Criminal Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - Hostile Witnesses

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based on the dying declaration of the deceased, Gowramma, who implicated her husband, Anjanappa, as the perpetrator. The declaration was recorded by PW-5 HC Ramachari and endorsed by PW-4 Dr. Parthasarathy, confirming Gowramma was in a fit state to make the statement. Despite the parents of the deceased turning hostile and testifying in favor of the accused, the Court found their testimony unreliable and concluded they were likely influenced or intimidated by the appellant. The credibility of the dying declaration was further supported by consistent medical and police evidence​​.

Witness Protection - Judicial Concern

The Court highlighted the urgent need for a witness protection program, emphasizing that the absence of such measures often leads to witnesses turning hostile, as seen in this case. The Court referenced the observations made in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat regarding the critical role of witnesses in the justice system and the necessity of protecting them to prevent miscarriages of justice​​.

Decision - Conviction Upheld - Appeal Dismissed

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court's leniency in sentencing the appellant to six years of rigorous imprisonment, given the severity of the crime. The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the conviction under Section 304 Part II was unsustainable due to a lack of explicit reasoning, noting that the High Court had provided adequate justification for its decision​​.