Assessment of Stamp Duty – Court’s Role and Registrar’s Authority: The Court held that an instrument must be valued based on the market value at the time of its execution. The Civil Judge’s directive for the Sheristadar to assess stamp duty based on suit valuation was erroneous, as it did not meet the statutory requirements for registration valuation under the Indian Stamp Act and the West Bengal Rules. The registering authority is not compelled to follow the court's suit valuation for registration purposes​​.

Market Value – Definition and Application: The market value for stamp duty purposes is defined as the price the property would fetch in the open market at the time of the instrument's execution. This value may differ from the suit valuation used for jurisdiction and court fee purposes. The procedures for assessing stamp duty and registering an instrument are distinct, requiring adherence to specific statutory provisions and rules​​.

Registrar's Objection – Validity: The Additional District Sub-Registrar's objection to the decree's registration due to improper valuation was valid. The Registrar's role includes ensuring the correct assessment of stamp duty based on the market value, not merely following the court's suit valuation mechanically​​.

Court's Directive – Re-assessment Required: The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s orders and directed a re-assessment of the stamp duty for registration. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Siliguri was instructed to reconsider the matter, involving the registering authority in the process to ensure a correct and lawful assessment of stamp duty​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court of Calcutta and the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri were set aside. The case was remanded to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Siliguri, for a fresh assessment of stamp duty for the purpose of registration, to be completed within three months​​.

Mercy Petition – Delay as Ground for Commutation: The Supreme Court examined whether the delay of 12 years in deciding the appellant's mercy petition was grounds for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court held that such a delay, without reasonable explanation, constituted sufficient grounds for commutation. It noted that the delay caused unnecessary mental agony to the appellant and violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 20-24].

Review of Executive Clemency – Judicial Intervention: The Court clarified that while the power of the President and Governors to grant clemency is subject to judicial review, the scope of such review is limited. It can interfere if the decision was made without proper application of mind, based on extraneous considerations, or was arbitrary. In this case, the inordinate delay and lack of transparency in processing the appellant's petition warranted judicial intervention [Paras 16-17].

Previous Judgments on Delay – Precedents: The Court referenced its previous rulings in cases such as Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat, Sher Singh vs. State of Punjab, and Daya Singh vs. Union of India, which established that undue delay in execution of the death sentence could be grounds for commutation. The principles from these cases were applied to determine that the appellant's prolonged wait constituted cruel and inhuman treatment [Paras 18-19].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court and commuted the death sentence of the appellant to life imprisonment due to the unexplained 12-year delay in the disposal of his mercy petition [Para 24].

Tenancy – Eviction – Sections 14(3)(c) and 14(4) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act 1987 – Availability of building plans duly sanctioned by local authorities is not an ingredient of Section 14(3)(c) and could not be a condition precedent to entitlement of landlord for eviction of tenant – Once High Court maintained order of eviction passed by Controller, tenants were obliged to give vacant possession of building to landlord and could only ask for reasonable time to deliver vacant possession of building to landlord – Direction of High Court that order of eviction could only be executed on revised plan of building being approved was clearly contrary to provisions of Section 14(4) and proviso thereto – Impugned directions set aside [Paras 1-14].

Procedure under Section 14(4) of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act – Requirement for reasonable time for tenants to vacate – High Court's addition of requirement for revised sanctioned plan as a precondition for eviction found contrary to statute – Appeals allowed, directions modified to remove requirement for revised plan [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Orders by High Court modified to grant three months to vacate without condition of revised plan – Tenants granted liberty to apply for re-entry under amended provisions of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act [Para 12].

Execution of Decree – Civil Procedure Code, Order 21 Rules 5 and 6, Section 47 – Appellant faced significant challenges in executing a decree for partition passed in her favor – High Court erred in confirming Executing Court’s order which was based on contradictory reports – Supreme Court emphasizes that delays in execution deny justice to the decree-holder – Order set aside, directing prompt execution of decree based on initial local commissioner’s report and sketch [Paras 1-14].

Execution Delays – Judicial Observations – Recognizes the longstanding issue of execution delays as highlighted by Privy Council and reiterated in subsequent Supreme Court judgments – Affirms that procedural laws should not be used to thwart execution of decrees – Calls for efficiency in executing decrees to uphold justice [Paras 2-17].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – Impugned orders by High Court and Executing Court set aside – Directed Executing Court to expedite execution based on original local commissioner’s report – No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Pension – Eligibility – Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Employees Pension Regulations 1989, Clause 3(1) – Employees did not deposit employer's share of CPF with interest within stipulated time – No right to claim pensionary benefits without compliance – Orders by Single Judge and Division Bench set aside as not in consonance with conditions prescribed in Regulations [Paras 1-7].

Regulations Compliance – Failure to comply with conditions for pension under the Regulations – Employees retired before regulations came into force but did not refund employer's share of CPF with interest – High Court's direction to grant pension benefits by deducting CPF amount incorrect [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – No order as to costs [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Murder – Intention to cause death with knowledge that death will probably be caused is crucial for concluding murder – Accused intended to cause bodily harm knowing it could likely result in death – The incident occurred suddenly without premeditation – Modified conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 1-22].

Witness Testimony – Credibility – Relatives of the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2, and another witness, PW-3, were reliable despite minor exaggerations – Non-examination of one eyewitness not fatal as other testimonies sufficiently established the prosecution's case [Paras 6-10].

Section 304 Part II IPC – Conviction – Appellants had knowledge that their actions could likely cause death, but lacked premeditated intent to kill – Sentence modified from life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC to ten years' imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC – Sentence reduced to ten years' imprisonment [Para 22].

Juvenile Justice – Rape – Minor victim – Appellant aged between 16 and 18 at the time of the offence – Entitlement to the benefits under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 wrongly denied by the High Court – Conviction upheld, but appellant ordered to be released from custody considering age and circumstances [Paras 1-21].

Plea of Juvenility – Appellant’s age at the time of the offence was above 16 but below 18 – High Court incorrectly denied benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act based on outdated legal precedent – Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, directing release due to passage of time and appellant’s current life circumstances [Paras 8-20].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 376 IPC upheld – Sentence set aside – Appellant to be released from custody unless required in another case [Paras 20-21].

Murder – IPC Sections 302/148 – High Court correctly applied legal principle that non-mention of names of a few accused in the inquest report is of no consequence – FIR not anti-dated or fabricated – Eyewitness testimonies, including those of relatives of the deceased, corroborated by autopsy evidence – High Court’s reversal of trial court’s acquittal upheld – Life imprisonment affirmed [Paras 1-15].

Inquest Report – Not required to include details of accused or witnesses – Scope limited to ascertaining cause of death – FIR delay in submission to Magistrate not indicative of fabrication – High Court rightly dismissed objections regarding the FIR’s timing [Paras 10-12].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Testimonies of relatives and independent witnesses supported the prosecution's case – Absence of serious contradictions or lacunae in cross-examination – Relatives' evidence valid and credible when found reliable by the court [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld [Para 15].

Private Defence – IPC Section 100 – Right to defend person and property is permissible but cannot exceed necessary harm or turn vindictive – Must act as a shield to avert attack, not to retaliate – Excessive harm beyond necessary defence is not justified [Paras 10-11].

Conviction and Sentencing – IPC Sections 304, 304(2) – High Court modified conviction from Section 304 to Section 304(2) and reduced the sentence – Evidence showed the appellants caused fatal injuries with knowledge likely to cause death but not intending to kill – Conviction and sentence upheld on review [Paras 7, 12-14].

Evidence and Injuries – Detailed examination of injuries sustained by deceased and witnesses corroborated the prosecution's case – High Court affirmed conviction based on cumulative effect of injuries leading to death [Paras 3-4, 11-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment for Section 304(2) IPC upheld – Appellants to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 13-14].