Confessional Statement – Admissibility – Appellant challenged conviction based on confessional statement to police – Supreme Court reiterated that only admissible portion relating to recovery of deceased’s body is valid – Confession leading to discovery of fact within special knowledge of accused is admissible under Section 8 and 27 of the Evidence Act [Paras 10-15].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence upheld – Supreme Court found chain of circumstances complete without any disruption – Evidence included recovery of the body, corroboration of witnesses, and medical reports confirming cause of death [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence for murder affirmed – Supreme Court found no merit in discrepancies pointed out by defense – No grounds to interfere with High Court’s judgment commuting death sentence to life imprisonment [Para 18].

Rape – Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 376(1) IPC – Based on eyewitness testimony and medical evidence confirming sexual assault – Supreme Court upheld conviction finding no merit in the appeal – Delay in recording the witness statement justified due to rural and illiterate background of witnesses [Paras 8-9].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – PW-5, a cousin of the deceased and eyewitness, provided consistent testimony despite lengthy cross-examination – Testimony corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Supreme Court found testimony credible and sufficient to uphold conviction [Paras 5-7].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Postmortem report confirmed rape – Forensic evidence showed presence of sperm and human blood on deceased’s clothes – Supported prosecution’s case and contradicted defense’s claims [Paras 3-7].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment affirmed – Appellant to be taken into custody to serve remaining sentence [Para 10].

Excise Duty – Assessment – Dispute on whether higher duty applies based on higher count of yarn produced – Tribunal dismissed appeal relying on earlier judgments – Supreme Court analyzed legal principles and factual findings, emphasizing the need for representative sampling to establish excise duty [Paras 3-15].

Sampling and Evidence – Relevance of Test Reports – Department’s reliance on test reports and registers not fully representative of entire production period – Supreme Court highlighted need for periodic sampling to accurately reflect production counts – Referred to established principles under Section 114 of Evidence Act for drawing presumptions from facts [Paras 14-15].

Presumption in Law – Illustration (d) of Section 114 – Supreme Court noted the principle that a state of things shown to exist is presumed to continue within usual period unless proven otherwise – Applied to manufacturing processes for excise duty determination [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s decision upheld – Due to insufficient representative sampling and small disputed amount, Supreme Court chose not to interfere – Emphasized practical approach in tax assessments [Paras 16-17].

Negotiable Instruments – Cheque Bounce – Respondent issued four cheques to the appellant which were dishonored – Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act – Magistrate convicted respondent, finding no merit in defense of prior stop-payment notice as cheques were issued after the notice [Paras 4-5].

Presumption of Debt – Section 139 NI Act – High Court reversed lower courts' decisions, relying on Krishna Janardhan Bhat case – Supreme Court held presumption under Section 139 includes existence of legally enforceable debt – Defense of prior notice not tenable since cheques were issued afterward [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court referred to Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, which clarified presumption under Section 139 – Burden on accused to disprove allegations once prima facie case is made by complainant – High Court’s reliance on Krishna Janardhan Bhat case held incorrect post Rangappa clarification [Para 9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s acquittal set aside – Conviction by Magistrate and modified sentence by Additional Sessions Judge restored – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal – Suit filed by appellant society for an injunction against interference in the administration and enjoyment of a Mosque and madrassa – Initially decreed by the Wakf Tribunal – High Court reversed the decision, citing jurisdictional limitations as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramesh Gobindram case – Supreme Court held High Court's interpretation erroneous – Affirmed Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 83 of the Wakf Act – Orders of the High Court set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration on merits [Paras 1-7].

Wakf Property Disputes – Jurisdictional Scope – High Court erred in limiting the Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction based on misinterpretation of Supreme Court precedent – Supreme Court clarified that the Wakf Tribunal is competent to address disputes related to administration and management of wakf properties, not just eviction matters – Emphasized the nature of relief sought (management and enjoyment) falls within the Tribunal’s purview [Paras 3-5, 7].

Previous Rulings – High Court relied on Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through LRs. v. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, which dealt with eviction matters outside the Tribunal's scope – Supreme Court distinguished this case, reaffirming Tribunal’s jurisdiction for administrative and managerial disputes of wakf properties as per Wakf Act – Referenced subsequent clarification in Board of Wakf West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum, affirming Tribunal’s broader jurisdictional remit [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Wakf Tribunal’s decree upheld – High Court to reassess the case on merits – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping, Rape, and Criminal Intimidation – Appellant convicted for kidnapping, raping, and intimidating a minor girl – Trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years (Section 363 IPC), seven years (Section 376 IPC), and one year (Section 506 IPC) – High Court affirmed convictions for Sections 363 and 376 IPC, but set aside the conviction for Section 506 IPC – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the validity of age determination through school records and the corroborative medical evidence [Paras 1-19].

Age Determination – Reliability of School Records – Prosecutrix’s age determined as below 18 years based on school records, supported by testimonies of school officials – Rejected the appellant’s challenge based on medical opinion suggesting an age range of 17 to 25 years – Court referenced Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice Rules, prioritizing documentary evidence over medical opinion for age determination [Paras 8-12].

Evidence of Sexual Assault – Corroboration by Medical and Chemical Analysis Reports – Detailed testimony of the prosecutrix corroborated by medical examination and chemical analysis – Semen stains on prosecutrix's clothes matched appellant’s blood group – Court found no contradictions in the prosecutrix’s testimony, supporting the conviction for rape [Paras 13-16].

Constitutional Rights – Violation of Article 21 – Reinforced that rape is a violation of fundamental rights under Article 21, highlighting the need for stern punishment – Referenced precedent establishing rape as an offense against human dignity and societal norms, warranting severe legal consequences [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions and sentences for Sections 363 and 376 IPC upheld – Appellant's bail bond canceled, ordered to serve remaining sentence [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of his daughter-in-law by setting her on fire – Trial court and High Court relied on the dying declaration of the deceased, which indicated that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld, with the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default of which an additional three months of rigorous imprisonment [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Dying Declaration – The dying declaration recorded by Dr. Nirmal Kumar Gupta was accepted as valid secondary evidence after the original document was lost – Court permitted the use of a carbon copy, supported by witness testimony, under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act – Emphasized that a dying declaration can be recorded by any person and does not require a specific format [Paras 5-10].

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence – Secondary evidence allowed when the original is lost or destroyed – Court validated the process followed by the trial court in admitting secondary evidence of the dying declaration – Referenced multiple precedents to support the admissibility and probative value of such evidence [Paras 10-11].

Mental and Physical State for Dying Declaration – Confirmed that even a person with 100% burn injuries can be in a fit mental and physical condition to make a statement – Relied on medical testimony to affirm the validity of the dying declaration [Para 12].

Burden of Proof – Highlighted the appellant's inability to explain the circumstances of the deceased’s injuries, which occurred within the household – Affirmed the principle that such matters fall within the special knowledge of the appellant, necessitating a satisfactory explanation [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of the daughter-in-law affirmed – Court found no merit in the appellant’s defense and upheld the lower courts' findings [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Possession of Narcotics – Appellants convicted for possession of 410 kg of poppy husk – Trial court and High Court relied on testimony of police officials and physical evidence – Conviction under Section 15 of the NDPS Act upheld with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each [Paras 1-30].

Evidence Law – Admissibility of Testimony and Evidence – Emphasized that the credibility of police witnesses should not be dismissed solely because they are police officers – Highlighted that failure to involve independent witnesses does not automatically discredit police testimony if corroborated by other evidence – Referenced Section 114 of the Evidence Act presuming regularity of official acts [Paras 5-11, 25-29].

Burden of Proof – Conscious Possession – Explained the statutory presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, placing the burden on the accused to prove lack of knowledge or control over the contraband – Referenced Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which requires the accused to explain facts within their special knowledge [Paras 13-16].

Procedure – Compliance with Section 313 CrPC – Addressed the requirement to put all incriminating evidence to the accused during their examination – Noted that failure to do so does not necessarily vitiate the trial unless material prejudice is shown – Reiterated that such objections must be raised at the earliest opportunity [Paras 20-24].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence for possession of narcotic drugs upheld – Court found no merit in the appellants’ arguments regarding non-examination of independent witnesses, conscious possession, or procedural defects in the trial [Para 30].

Criminal Procedure – Powers of Magistrate and Sessions Judge – Magistrate's role after committing a case to the Court of Session – Held that Magistrate can disagree with the police report and summon persons mentioned in column 2 of the charge-sheet to stand trial along with those named in the charge-sheet – Session Judge can issue summons under Section 193 CrPC upon commitment without waiting for Section 319 stage [Paras 4-31].

Interpretation of Sections 193 and 209 CrPC – Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction upon commitment – Session Judge can take cognizance of offences and summon additional accused based on the materials available on record – Magistrate need not wait for fresh evidence under Section 319 CrPC [Paras 26-28].

Cognizance of Offences – Clarified that cognizance can only be taken once, either by the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge – On commitment, the Sessions Judge can take cognizance of offences based on the police report and proceed to issue summons [Para 27].

Procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – Emphasized the necessity for the Magistrate to follow the due process while issuing summons based on a protest petition – Ensured that actions taken without adhering to Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC are not in violation of Article 21 [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Decision in Kishun Singh's case (1993) 2 SCC 16 affirmed, validating the power of the Sessions Judge to take cognizance and summon additional accused upon commitment – Matter remitted to the Three-Judge Bench to dispose of pending appeals in line with this judgment [Paras 30-32].