Unlawful Assembly – Section 141 IPC: The expression "other offence" in Section 141 'third' IPC includes all offenses punishable under the IPC, not limited to minor offenses like mischief or criminal trespass. This interpretation aligns with Section 40(1) IPC, which defines "offense" as any act punishable under the IPC [Paras 36-46].

Credibility of Injured Witnesses – High Weight: Injured witnesses' testimonies hold significant weight and cannot be discarded solely because of their relationship with the deceased. The evidence of injured eye-witnesses is reliable when corroborated by medical evidence and other circumstances [Paras 24-25].

Delay in FIR Reporting – No Prejudice: The delay in forwarding the express report to the Magistrate did not vitiate the prosecution case. The delay must be shown to have caused prejudice to the accused, which was not established in this case [Paras 16-20].

Communal Tension – Not Proven: The argument of prevailing communal tension as a defense was unsupported by substantial evidence. The suggestion of communal tension was found to be a desperate attempt to deflect from the established facts of the case [Paras 21-23].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The convictions and sentences under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 147, and 148 IPC were upheld. The Court found no merit in the arguments regarding the delay in FIR reporting, credibility of witnesses, and the alleged communal tension [Paras 47].

Criminal Procedure – Section 389 CrPC – Suspension of Sentence and Bail: The petitioners' applications for suspension of conviction and sentence, as well as interim bail, are pending before the Delhi High Court. The main concern is whether the broadcast of a dramatized version of the case would prejudice their pending appeal [Paras 7, 8].

Freedom of Speech vs. Fair Trial: The Court considered whether the proposed broadcast would create a biased environment affecting the petitioners' right to a fair trial. It was argued that since the trial had concluded and the judgment was in the public domain, no further bias could arise from the broadcast [Paras 11-16].

Safeguarding Interests – Restrictions on Broadcast: The Court imposed restrictions on the broadcast, ensuring no direct similarity between the characters in the show and the petitioners, thus protecting their identity to some extent while allowing the broadcast to proceed [Paras 17].

Decision: The SLP was dismissed. The Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision to set aside the Single Judge’s order restraining the broadcast, with specific instructions to safeguard the petitioners' identities in the dramatized show [Para 18].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Authority of State Pollution Control Board: The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) had the authority to allocate and re-allocate areas for waste management facilities under the 2008 Hazardous Waste Management Rules. The Court upheld the Board's jurisdiction to determine operational areas for such facilities, rejecting the petitioner's contention that the Board's power was limited to monitoring and supervising waste management activities [Paras 1-6].

High Court's Decision – No Error in Dismissal of Writ Petition: The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, which challenged the re-allocation of territorial jurisdictions for hazardous waste management. The Court found no error in the High Court's order, emphasizing that the petitioner's arguments lacked merit and failed to establish the MPCB's lack of authority [Paras 12-13].

Challenge to Orders – Scope and Limitations: The petitioner did not challenge the relevant orders of the MPCB dated December 11, 2008, and March 9, 2009, or the appellate authority's order dated January 29, 2011. The Court highlighted that the petitioner's failure to contest these orders at earlier stages weakened their case [Paras 13-14].

Decision: The special leave petitions were dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the validity of the MPCB's territorial allocations for hazardous waste management and finding no reason to interfere with the established jurisdiction and authority of the Board [Para 14].

FDI Policy – Validity and Authority: The Court upheld the validity of the FDI policy, noting that it is within the competence of the Central Government to formulate such policies. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) is empowered to make policy pronouncements on FDI under the Allocation of Business Rules 1961. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulates foreign investment in India in accordance with the Government's policy [Paras 16-17].

State Government Discretion – Implementation of Policy: The impugned FDI policy is an enabling policy, allowing State Governments and Union Territories to decide whether to implement it based on local conditions. This flexibility ensures that local factors are considered in the application of the policy [Para 13].

Constitutional and Legal Scrutiny – Scope of Judicial Review: The Court reiterated that it does not interfere with government policies unless they are unconstitutional, contrary to statutory provisions, arbitrary, irrational, or an abuse of power. The Court found no such vices in the impugned FDI policy, which aims to enhance economic growth, market access, and employment potential [Paras 15-17].

Economic Rationale – Benefits of FDI in Multi-Brand Retail: The policy aims to benefit consumers by providing a greater choice of affordable products, removing intermediaries to facilitate better market access for producers, and generating employment. Studies by the World Bank and the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) support the positive impact of organized retail on the economy and farmers [Paras 10-12].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the government's authority and rationale in formulating the FDI policy [Para 17].

Simultaneous Proceedings – Civil and Criminal Cases: The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no hard and fast rule for staying civil proceedings pending the outcome of related criminal cases. The possibility of conflicting decisions in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The primary factor is whether proceeding with both cases simultaneously would cause embarrassment to the accused [Paras 8-9].

Precedence of Criminal Proceedings: As per the precedent in M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras, criminal proceedings should generally be given precedence over civil suits to ensure swift justice. However, this is not an invariable rule and must be assessed based on the specifics of each case [Paras 8-9].

Civil Court Decisions Binding on Criminal Courts: The Court reiterated that decisions of civil courts are binding on criminal courts, but the converse is not true. This principle underscores the autonomy of civil proceedings from the outcomes of related criminal cases [Para 10].

Case Specifics – No Embarrassment to Defendants: In the present case, the defendants had already filed their written statements, and issues had been framed based on the pleadings. Therefore, there was no likelihood of embarrassment or prejudice to the defense in the criminal proceedings if the civil suit proceeded concurrently [Para 20].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order staying the civil suit proceedings. The civil suit was permitted to proceed independently of the criminal case [Para 21].

Murder – Section 302 IPC – Acquittal by High Court: The High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused due to the absence of eye-witnesses and reliance on uncorroborated dying declarations, which contained material contradictions and discrepancies. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the need for corroboration and consistency in dying declarations to form a reliable basis for conviction [Paras 6, 9, 14, 21-22].

Evidentiary Value of Dying Declarations – Section 32(1) Evidence Act: The Court reiterated that the reliability of dying declarations depends on their voluntariness, consistency, and the mental fitness of the declarant at the time of making the statement. Multiple dying declarations must be consistent in material particulars to be considered reliable. In this case, the discrepancies between the declarations rendered them unreliable without corroboration [Para 18].

Legal Principles – Precedents: The judgment referenced multiple precedents, including M.S. Sheriff vs. State of Madras, K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police, and others, to underline the principle that criminal proceedings take precedence over civil suits and the importance of consistency in multiple dying declarations [Paras 8-10, 14-20].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution's case was based on uncorroborated and inconsistent dying declarations [Para 22].

Ground of Parity – Dismissal of Special Leave Petitions: The Court highlighted the principle of parity, stating that allowing a fresh batch of special leave petitions on the same order that was previously challenged and dismissed would result in unjust discrimination. The earlier dismissal of similar petitions by the Supreme Court meant that maintaining consistency required dismissing the current petitions as well [Paras 4-6].

Financial Implications – UGC Grant: The State of Rajasthan had accepted 80% of the grant from the University Grants Commission (UGC) for the Career Advancement Scheme, leaving only 20% to be borne by the State. The Court noted that it was not open for the State to avoid this financial liability after having accepted the UGC grant, especially when its plea had already been rejected [Para 5].

Non-maintainability of Petition: One of the petitions (S.L.P.(C)..CC No. 9440 of 2013) was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner’s counsel, who acknowledged that it was not maintainable since the petitioner had not moved the High Court before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the Single Bench [Paras 7-8].

Decision: The special leave petitions were dismissed as they lacked merit and allowing them would result in unjust discrimination against a similar set of teachers affected by the same order. The principle of parity necessitated this dismissal [Paras 6, 8].

Murder Conviction – Reliance on Witness Testimony: The mere fact that prosecution witnesses (PWs) are interested parties, being relatives, does not automatically render their evidence unreliable if it is otherwise trustworthy. The medical evidence consistent with the prosecution's case further corroborated their testimonies. The High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellant based on credible witness evidence and consistent medical reports [Paras 6, 7, 9, 11].

High Court's Reversal of Acquittal: The High Court found the trial court's acquittal unreasonable and perverse. It re-appreciated the evidence, including medical reports, and concluded that the trial court had erred in its judgment. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that an appellate court is entitled to reassess evidence if the trial court's view is found to be unreasonable [Paras 10, 11].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Prosecution Case: The medical evidence provided by PW6, Dr. K.K. Khanna, supported the prosecution's version of events. The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as a gunshot wound, consistent with the witness testimonies about the attack [Para 9].

Precedents on Interested Witnesses: The Court cited several precedents, including Brathi alias Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Punjab, State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. S. Mohan Singh, and Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, to emphasize that the credibility of interested witnesses should be assessed based on the overall trustworthiness of their evidence, not merely their relationship to the deceased [Para 8].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to convict the appellant, finding the prosecution's evidence credible and consistent with medical reports, thus overriding the trial court's acquittal [Para 11].

Prescribing Cut-off Marks – Legality: The Office Memorandum (OM) dated 7th January 2008, which was adopted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) on 16th April 2008, introduced cut-off marks of 33% in each written examination paper. The Court held that Rule 11 of the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Combined Civil Service Examination Rules 2001 does not mandate the Commission to fix and disclose minimum qualifying marks either in the advertisement or before conducting the examination. The Commission is empowered to fix such marks at its discretion after the examinations [Paras 14, 29].

Retrospective Application – Not Justified: The introduction of new criteria after the examination process had started was contested. The High Court had found that applying the OM retrospectively was not permissible. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that the Commission's power to fix minimum qualifying marks at any stage of the examination process was within its discretion under Rule 11 [Para 23].

Shortlisting Candidates – Requirement: The Commission is required to have some criteria for shortlisting candidates for interviews. Fixing minimum qualifying marks ensures that only suitable candidates proceed to the interview stage. The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the Commission's action of prescribing 33% as the minimum qualifying marks for all subjects [Paras 28-30].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the OM dated 7th January 2008 and its subsequent adoption by the APPSC, allowing the Commission to fix minimum qualifying marks during the recruitment process [Para 31].