Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – The High Court dismissed the appellant’s application to quash the complaint alleging fraudulent replacement of a partnership deed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and the CJM was justified in issuing the process – Reinforced that quashing should not be done to stifle legitimate prosecution [Paras 1-20].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Partnership Deed – Complaint alleged that the original partnership deed was replaced with a forged one to deprive the respondent of benefits – Inquiry reports indicated manipulation in the excise office, implicating the appellant – Supreme Court held the complaint warranted investigation and trial to determine the extent of the appellant’s involvement [Paras 7-10].

Delay in Filing Complaint – The Court found the delay justified as the respondent became aware of the fraud only after obtaining inquiry reports – Highlighted that delay alone is not sufficient ground to quash proceedings if allegations have substance [Paras 16-17].

Legal Precedents – Considered multiple judgments emphasizing the principles for quashing complaints and the necessity to proceed with trial if prima facie case is made out – Reiterated that courts should not delve into the merits of allegations at the initial stage [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Upheld the validity of the complaint and the orders for proceeding with the case – Emphasized the role of trial court to ascertain the truth through evidence [Para 20].

Service Law – Date of Birth – Correction – The respondent sought correction of his date of birth from 2.4.1946 to 2.4.1948 based on his matriculation certificate – Supreme Court upheld the decision of the General Manager and set aside the High Court’s order – Found that the respondent did not produce the matriculation certificate at the time of his appointment and mentioned a different date of birth to gain eligibility [Paras 1-19].

Equitable Jurisdiction – High Court’s Discretion – Emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable – The Court should not extend benefits to those who have taken undue advantage by misrepresenting facts [Paras 16-17].

Regulations Interpretation – Eligibility Criteria – The Court interpreted Regulations 14 and 15 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, noting that at the time of the respondent’s examination in 1969, the minimum age was 21 years – Highlighted that the respondent could not have been eligible if his correct date of birth was considered [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Rejected the respondent’s request for correction of the date of birth in service records [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – House Trespass, Kidnapping, and Murder – Conspiracy – The appellants were accused of abducting and murdering seven family members of the complainant (PW-3) – Supreme Court examined the delay in lodging the FIR, enmity between witnesses and accused, and reliability of witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC [Paras 2-27].

FIR Delay – Explained Delay – The delay of 2 months and 21 days in lodging the FIR was justified due to the complainant's fear of police retribution, given that one of the appellants was a Deputy Superintendent of Police – Court held that the delay did not affect the authenticity of the prosecution’s case [Paras 16-17].

Enmity – Careful Scrutiny – Although there was previous enmity between the complainant and the appellants, the Court held that this required careful scrutiny of witness evidence rather than outright dismissal – The corroborated testimonies of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 were found reliable [Paras 20-21].

Witness Statements – Delayed Recording – The delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 CrPC was justified by the extraordinary circumstances involving police resistance to investigating their own personnel – Court found no contradiction significant enough to discredit the prosecution witnesses [Paras 18-19].

Evidence – Custody and Last Seen Theory – PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 testified that the abducted individuals were last seen in police custody – However, the Court found insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellants murdered the abducted persons, as they were seen in various police stations and no direct evidence linked the appellants to the killings [Paras 22-27].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed – Conviction under Sections 302 read with Section 120B IPC set aside – Convictions under Sections 364 and 452 IPC upheld – Sentences for Section 364 IPC revised to five years rigorous imprisonment for each of the seven abductions, to run consecutively, along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 for each offence [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Mass Murder – Death Sentence – Appellants were convicted for participating in the mass murder of 35 individuals in village Bara, district Gaya, Bihar – Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the role attributed to each appellant – Held that if a person is a mere bystander and no specific role is attributed to him, he may not come under the wide sweep of Section 149 IPC – Emphasized that in cases involving death sentences, the circumstances of the accused are also required to be considered [Paras 1-6, 19].

Evidence – Witness Identification – Prosecution relied on witness testimonies identifying the appellants as participants in the crime – Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of the identification, especially in the absence of Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the delayed recording of witness statements – Held that deficiencies in the investigation raised doubts, particularly for appellant Naresh Paswan who was not identified by key witnesses in the dock [Paras 25-28].

Applicability of TADA – The Court addressed the applicability of TADA provisions, including the necessity of proper notification of the designated area and compliance with Section 20A(1) – Found that procedural lapses and inadequate investigation undermined the prosecution’s case against some appellants [Paras 10-13].

Judicial Discretion – Sentencing – Supreme Court stressed that while upholding convictions under Sections 302 and 149 IPC, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment considering the socio-economic background of the appellants and the prolonged trauma faced during trial – Emphasized the need for a cautious approach in capital punishment cases [Paras 29-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction of Naresh Paswan set aside and he was acquitted – Convictions of Vyas Ram and Bugal Mochi under Sections 302/149 and other charges upheld but their death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment, to mean imprisonment for the rest of their natural lives – Death Reference Case dismissed [Paras 35-35(iii)].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Appeal against dismissal of application for quashing a complaint – Complaint lodged alleging tampering with medical reports and documents in judicial proceedings – High Court dismissed the application, holding that provisions of Sections 195 and 340 CrPC were not applicable – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that if tampering occurs outside the court, Sections 195 and 340 CrPC are not attracted [Paras 1-12].

Forgery – Documents Produced in Court – Allegation of forgery of medical reports used in court – Supreme Court noted that forgery must occur while documents are in custodia legis for Sections 195 and 340 CrPC to apply – Court reiterated that forgery committed outside court before submission is not protected by Section 195 CrPC [Paras 7-12].

Precedents – Application of Law – Cited cases include M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, and Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh Thr. Lrs – Court applied principles from these cases to conclude the High Court’s decision was correct and no interference was warranted [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision affirmed – Complaint not quashed – Supreme Court confirmed that tampering alleged to have occurred outside court does not invoke protections under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC [Para 12].

Education Law – UGC's Authority to Set Qualifying Criteria – Appeals against High Court ruling that UGC lacked competence to fix aggregate marks as final qualifying criteria after candidates obtained minimum marks in NET examination – Supreme Court upheld UGC’s authority under UGC Act to determine and maintain standards of education, including setting qualifying criteria for NET – Decision to set aggregate percentage as qualifying criteria before declaration of results deemed within UGC’s powers [Paras 1-30].

Statutory Interpretation – Role of UGC – Examination of UGC Act, Regulations, and powers – Court affirmed UGC’s duty to maintain standards in higher education, including setting criteria for eligibility of lectureship and JRF – Notification for NET examination clearly indicated requirement for final qualifying criteria – No arbitrary or discriminatory action found in UGC’s decision-making process [Paras 20-29].

Judicial Review – Academic Decisions – Limited scope for judicial review in academic matters – Court reiterated principle of non-interference in decisions of expert academic bodies unless clear statutory violation – UGC’s criteria for NET upheld as rational and necessary for maintaining educational standards [Para 29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – UGC’s criteria for NET upheld as valid and within statutory authority [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted for rape under Section 376 IPC – Allegation that sexual intercourse was initially non-consensual and subsequent acts were based on false promise of marriage – Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and circumstances, including delay in lodging FIR and lack of independent corroboration – Conviction based solely on prosecutrix’s testimony found unsafe [Paras 1-20].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Examination of consent under Section 375 IPC and its validity when obtained under promise of marriage – Court held that mere promise to marry does not constitute misconception of fact unless proven that promise was false from inception – Reference to Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar and other precedents [Paras 12-14].

Evidentiary Standards – Testimony of Prosecutrix – While prosecutrix's testimony commands respect, court emphasized need for corroboration in presence of doubtful circumstances – Lack of injuries, delay in filing complaint, and behavior of prosecutrix’s family considered – Court reiterated principles from Ramdas v. State of Maharashtra and similar cases [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 376 IPC set aside – Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Death Penalty – Appeals against confirmation of death sentence for offences under Sections 120B, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, 326, 429, 436, and 452 IPC – Examination of statutory requirements for "special reasons" under Section 354(3) CrPC – Supreme Court upheld death sentence, affirming that reasons recorded by lower courts satisfied statutory mandate – Consideration of brutality, premeditation, and impact on society as criteria for rarest of rare cases [Paras 1-50].

Sentencing – Special Reasons for Death Penalty – Detailed scrutiny of legislative mandate under Section 354(3) CrPC requiring "special reasons" for death penalty – Court emphasized necessity of recording specific reasons in judgment – Reference to landmark cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab for principles of sentencing in capital cases [Paras 29-50].

Evidentiary Standards – Balancing Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances – Court evaluated both aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding appropriateness of death penalty – Highlighted that procedural compliance alone not sufficient; substantive reasoning essential – Examination of evidence on record including testimonies, motive, and manner of crime [Paras 46-52].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Death sentence upheld – Supreme Court found lower courts' reasoning adequate and aligned with statutory and judicially evolved principles for imposing death penalty [Para 52].

Criminal Law – Detention in Borstal School – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder at the age of 19 years 8 months – Contention that appellant should have been detained in Borstal School under Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act – Supreme Court examined applicability of Borstal Schools Act and Juvenile Justice Act – Found that appellant was not entitled to Borstal School detention as he was over 21 years old at the time of conviction and thus not an 'adolescent offender' under the Act [Paras 1-6].

Statutory Interpretation – Adolescent Offender – Court clarified definition of 'adolescent offender' under Section 2(1) of Borstal Schools Act and distinction from 'juvenile' under Juvenile Justice Act – Appellant over 21 years old at time of conviction, hence Borstal School detention not applicable – Emphasized need for legislative amendment to align age definitions with current juvenile laws [Para 2].

Procedural Requirements – Consideration of Reports – Discussion on procedural requirements under Section 8 of Borstal Schools Act – Court noted absence of consideration by lower courts but found no relief available retrospectively under Juvenile Justice Act for appellant – Held no procedural impropriety in sentencing to regular imprisonment given appellant’s age at conviction [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Application for bail dismissed – Supreme Court upheld life imprisonment sentence, rejecting plea for Borstal School detention due to age criteria not being met under Tamil Nadu Borstal Schools Act [Para 6].