Constitutional Law – Equality Before Law – Petitioner, a permanent resident of Delhi, challenged the eligibility criteria for postgraduate medical courses in Uttarakhand, which favored domiciles and those admitted through Uttarakhand State PMT – Supreme Court found the criteria discriminatory and violative of Article 14 – Ordered a fresh Information Bulletin to be issued and admissions to be redone [Paras 1-16].

Admissions Policy – Institutional Preference – Court reiterated that while institutional preference is permissible, it should not violate equality principles – Cited previous rulings affirming that residential or domicile-based preferences for postgraduate courses contravene Article 14 [Paras 10-15].

Precedents – Relevant Case Law – Reaffirmed principles from Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others and Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others, emphasizing merit over residential preferences for higher education admissions [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of the Eligibility Criteria in the Information Bulletin quashed – Admissions based on these criteria declared void – Fresh admissions to be conducted by end of August 2013 [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – The deceased, Sudesh, made two dying declarations (Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-10) implicating the respondent, Santosh Savita, in pouring kerosene and setting her on fire – Supreme Court found these declarations credible and corroborated by both direct and circumstantial evidence – High Court's reliance on inconsistent statements and disregard for the dying declarations deemed erroneous [Paras 13-16].

Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Dying declarations recorded by the ASI and a doctor considered valid despite the absence of a Magistrate – Court emphasized the relevance of dying declarations under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act when supported by other evidence [Paras 16-19].

Criminal Responsibility – Intention and Knowledge – While the respondent's actions led to Sudesh's death, the Court found insufficient evidence of an intent to kill – Conviction altered to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) due to reckless actions likely to cause death [Paras 20-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to six years of imprisonment already undergone and a fine of Rs. 2000, with a default clause of two months' additional imprisonment [Paras 22-23].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Murder – Appellant Bakhshish Singh conspired with Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh to murder Gurcharan Singh, Chairman of "Khandi Friends Educational Trust" – High Court affirmed convictions and life sentences of all accused under Sections 302 and 120B IPC – Supreme Court upheld the judgments, finding sufficient evidence of conspiracy and motive [Paras 1-37].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Kulwinder Kaur (PW 1), wife of the deceased, witnessed the attack and identified Satbir Singh and Rachhpal Singh as the assailants – Court found her testimony reliable despite minor inconsistencies, noting her close observation during the traumatic event [Paras 19-21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Corroboration – Recovery of blood-stained dagger, scooter, and clothing at the instance of the accused corroborated the eyewitness testimony – Court dismissed contentions regarding discrepancies and emphasized the consistency of core prosecution evidence [Paras 22-31].

Motive – Hostility and Control of Trust – Prosecution established Bakhshish Singh’s motive rooted in animosity and desire to control the trust – Evidence showed Bakhshish Singh's threats and his absence from India on the day of the crime as part of the conspiracy [Paras 32-34].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgments upheld – Convictions and life sentences under Sections 302 and 120B IPC affirmed – Bakhshish Singh directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence [Paras 36-37].

Civil Procedure – Transfer of Proceedings – Appellant-wife sought transfer of divorce proceedings from Hyderabad to Kakinada citing difficulty in managing travel and work – High Court dismissed the petition considering the appellant's employment status – Supreme Court found High Court’s reasoning unsustainable, noting the impact on the appellant's professional duties and the inequity of expecting her to bear the inconvenience while contesting the divorce [Paras 1-6].

Employment and Travel – Practical Implications – Supreme Court highlighted the adverse effects on the appellant’s job due to frequent travel and the need for leave to attend court hearings – Emphasized that the respondent-husband's convenience should not outweigh the professional and personal hardships faced by the appellant [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Discretion – Equitable Relief – Court emphasized the need for a practical and balanced approach in considering transfer petitions, ensuring that one party is not unduly disadvantaged [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Divorce proceeding (O.P. No. 1256 of 2011) transferred from Family Court, Hyderabad to Family Court, Kakinada [Para 6].

Service Law – Time-Bound Promotion – Appellant received a time-bound promotion in 1998, which was canceled in 2009 on grounds of non-fulfillment of the required promotional examination – Single Judge set aside the cancellation, noting the promotion was not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation – Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s decision – Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s order, emphasizing no fault on the part of the appellant [Paras 1-11].

Administrative Law – Non-Retroactive Application – Court highlighted that the appellant passed the required examination in 2007, two years before the cancellation of his promotion – Reiterated principles from earlier judgments restricting recovery or cancellation of benefits unless obtained through fraudulent means [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability – Relied on Bihar State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Bijay Bahadur and Anr. and Purshottam Lal Das and Others v. State of Bihar and Others – Distinguished from Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Others due to lack of mutual mistake or fault on the appellant's part [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s order reinstating the appellant’s promotion upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Appellant convicted for firing a shot that killed Bharat Mondal – High Court upheld conviction based on testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1), brother of the deceased – Supreme Court found inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of corroboration from other witnesses [Paras 1-13].

Eyewitness Credibility – Discrepancies in Testimony – Testimony of Avik Mondal (PW-1) not corroborated by another brother, Badal Mondal (PW-3), whose evidence was found unreliable – Court emphasized the need for credible and corroborated eyewitness testimony in serious criminal cases [Paras 8-10].

Lack of Recovery and Forensic Evidence – No recovery of weapon or ballistic evidence linking the appellant to the crime – Absence of physical evidence weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 11-12].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Court noted that the trial and High Court acquitted 13 out of 14 accused – Similar evidence used against all accused should have led to appellant's acquittal as well [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 13].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Fair Trial – Appeal disposed of without hearing appellant’s counsel – Supreme Court reiterated that a criminal case should not be decided in the absence of the accused’s counsel – If counsel is absent, the court must appoint an amicus curiae to defend the accused to ensure a fair trial [Paras 6-7].

Duty of Appellate Court – Evaluation of Evidence – Emphasized the appellate court’s duty to independently evaluate the evidence to determine the reliability and whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt – High Court failed to analyze the evidence adequately [Paras 7-8].

Remand for Fresh Hearing – Inadequate Consideration by High Court – Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits, ensuring the appellant is given a fair opportunity to be heard [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal on merits – Appellant granted bail pending appeal, subject to conditions imposed by Special Judge [Paras 9-12].

Extradition and Principle of Speciality – The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellant could be tried for additional charges beyond those for which he was extradited – Portugal's courts found such charges violated the Principle of Speciality – India and Portugal differ on this interpretation [Paras 1-7].

Diplomatic and Judicial Comity – Recognizing the importance of maintaining international relations and cooperation against global terrorism, the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of additional charges deemed in violation of the extradition terms by Portuguese courts – Emphasized the need for judicial and diplomatic harmony [Paras 8-14].

Modification of Previous Judgment – Supreme Court modified its earlier judgment to permit the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to withdraw certain additional charges – Acknowledged ongoing diplomatic efforts between India and Portugal regarding the extradition issues [Paras 11-16].

Continuation of Trial – Despite the withdrawal of specific charges, the trial for the remaining charges to proceed – Supreme Court vacated the stay order and directed the continuation of the trial process [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – CBI permitted to withdraw additional charges – Stay on trial vacated – Trial to continue for remaining charges – Diplomatic efforts to be pursued for resolving extradition issues [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The appellants were convicted for murder and other offenses based on the principle of common intention – Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient to infer common intention for murder for all appellants except Kamal Kumar, who inflicted fatal injuries [Paras 1-9].

Eyewitness Testimony – Injured eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-4, and PW-5) consistently narrated the sequence of events, corroborated by medical evidence – Court relied on their testimonies to establish the assault and the roles of the accused [Paras 4-5].

Section 34 IPC – Vicarious Liability – Court reiterated the need for clear evidence of a prearranged plan or meeting of minds to invoke Section 34 IPC – Found such evidence lacking for appellants Raghbir Chand, Varinder Kumar, and Vijay Kumar concerning the murder charge [Paras 8-9].

Conviction Modification – Kamal Kumar's act of inflicting multiple knife blows on the deceased’s abdomen was found intentional and beyond the scope of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld for Kamal Kumar, while others’ convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were set aside but upheld under Sections 324 and 323 IPC [Paras 9-13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction of appellants Raghbir Chand, Varinder Kumar, and Vijay Kumar under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC set aside – Convictions under Sections 324 and 323 IPC maintained – Kamal Kumar’s conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed – Other sentences for Kamal Kumar also maintained [Paras 12-13].