Conspiracy – Bomb Blasts – Role of Accused: The Supreme Court examined the roles of the appellants in the 1993 Bombay Bomb Blasts, emphasizing their participation in a criminal conspiracy aimed at committing terrorist acts. The Court upheld the convictions, noting the appellants' involvement in meetings, transportation, and storage of explosives, and aiding the primary conspirators [Paras 3-40].

Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Corroboration: The Court discussed the admissibility of confessional statements made by co-accused under TADA, highlighting the corroboration by independent evidence, including recoveries and eyewitness testimonies. The Court found the confessions reliable and supported by material evidence [Paras 5-10, 16-18].

Harboring Terrorists – Facilitation of Terrorist Acts: The appellants were found guilty of harboring terrorists and facilitating terrorist activities by allowing the use of their properties and vehicles for planning and executing the bomb blasts. The evidence included recovery of explosives from the appellants' premises and their presence at key meetings [Paras 7-9, 19-24].

Departure and Arrest – Evidence of Guilt: The Court noted that the appellants' departure from India before the blasts and their subsequent arrest with Pakistani passports were significant indicators of their involvement in the conspiracy. The possession of false identity documents further implicated them [Paras 20-25].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences imposed by the Designated Court under TADA, finding the evidence against the appellants overwhelming and their participation in the conspiracy proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals filed by the State for enhancement of sentences were also dismissed [Paras 30-38].

Confession and Recovery – Admissibility and Reliability: The Supreme Court upheld the admissibility and reliability of confessional statements and the recovery of contraband items. The Court emphasized the proper recording of confessions and corroborative evidence from recovery operations, dismissing the appellants' arguments challenging the legality of recoveries and the credibility of panch witnesses [Paras 6-25].

Possession of Contraband – Conscious Possession: The Court examined the concept of "conscious possession" concerning the recovery of AK-56 rifles and other contraband items. It held that the appellant's failure to explain the source of his knowledge about the contraband indicated conscious possession. The Court found that the appellant's arguments regarding the absence of a key and the non-examination of certain witnesses were insufficient to negate possession [Paras 16-20].

Role of Panch Witnesses – Independent Corroboration: The Court found that the evidence provided by panch witnesses, corroborated by contemporaneous panchnamas, was credible and trustworthy. The appellants' claims of panch witnesses being stock witnesses were rejected. The Court held that minor discrepancies did not undermine the overall reliability of the prosecution's case [Paras 10-11, 21-24].

Conspiracy – Participation and Knowledge: The Court dealt with the charges of conspiracy, highlighting the role of each appellant in furthering the conspiracy. The involvement of the appellants in various conspiratorial meetings, handling and transportation of contraband, and harboring co-conspirators were key factors in upholding the convictions. The Court noted that the lack of explicit knowledge about the specific nature of contraband did not absolve the appellants from conspiracy charges [Paras 26-40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the life sentences imposed by the Designated Court under TADA, finding the evidence against the appellants overwhelming and their participation in the conspiracy proven beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals filed by the State for enhancement of sentences were also dismissed [Paras 41-50].

Criminal Law – Possession of Arms and Explosives – Appellant Ibrahim Musa Chauhan @ Baba Chauhan was convicted under TADA and related acts for possession and distribution of arms and ammunition, including AK-56 rifles and hand grenades – Confessions and witness testimonies corroborated involvement – Supreme Court upheld conviction [Paras 1-22].

Confessions – Admissibility and Voluntariness – Confessions recorded under TADA were challenged as being coerced – Court held confessions were recorded following statutory requirements and were voluntary – Confessions of co-accused supported prosecution's case [Paras 6-14, 30-35].

Recovery of Weapons – Legality – Weapons were recovered based on appellant’s disclosure – Recovery from public and concealed places deemed valid – Court reiterated principles of recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act [Paras 11-13, 28-29].

Section 5 TADA – Conscious Possession – Court discussed 'conscious possession' under Section 5 TADA – Possession of arms in a notified area presumed to be for terrorist activity unless proven otherwise – Appellants failed to rebut presumption [Paras 19-20, 40-44].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences affirmed – Supreme Court found no merit in appeals, upheld lower court’s decision [Para 45].

Freedom Fighters' Pension – Entitlement Date – Respondent’s husband, an ex-INA member, claimed pension under the 1980 Scheme based on secondary evidence after initial rejection – High Court directed pension from application date (1973), which was challenged – Supreme Court held the entitlement should begin from the date of the order granting pension, not the application date, as the claim was allowed on the benefit of doubt and secondary evidence [Paras 1-16].

Entitlement Based on Secondary Evidence – High Court directed benefits from the application date despite the claim being allowed on secondary evidence – Supreme Court emphasized that in cases where claims are accepted on secondary evidence or benefit of doubt, pension should start from the order date, not the application date [Paras 9-14].

Precedents and Consistency in Pension Awards – Supreme Court referred to previous cases emphasizing consistency and rationale in awarding pensions from the order date in cases relying on secondary evidence or benefit of doubt [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders by the High Court set aside – Pension entitlement starts from the order date granting pension [Para 16].

Hindu Succession – Life Interest and Absolute Ownership – Appellant claimed absolute ownership of property based on Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, arguing that life interest granted by will converted into absolute title – Court held that Section 14(2) carves out an exception to Section 14(1) for properties acquired by will, gift, or other instruments specifying a restricted estate – Life interest under the will does not convert to absolute ownership upon the Act's commencement [Paras 1-14].

Interpretation of Wills – Intention of Testator – Court emphasized that all clauses of a will must be read together to determine the testator's intention – Later clauses limiting the estate to life interest take precedence over earlier clauses suggesting absolute ownership [Paras 12-13].

Destitution Argument – Not Considered – Appellant argued that as a destitute, she should gain absolute title – Court noted no factual foundation for destitution claim was laid before lower courts – Argument dismissed as irrelevant to the case at hand [Para 14].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld, rejecting the claim of absolute ownership under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Appellant's legal heirs filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 and Order IX Rule 9 CPC for condoning delay and setting aside ex-parte decree – High Court dismissed applications citing lack of satisfactory reasons for delay and prior knowledge of litigation – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision [Paras 1-22].

Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC – Exemption from Substituting Legal Representatives – Trial court proceeded ex-parte against deceased Defendant under Order XXII Rule 4(4) CPC – Legal representatives argued non-implementation of exemption order – Supreme Court held trial court consciously exempted Plaintiff from substituting legal representatives, satisfying procedural requirements [Paras 23-27].

Condonation of Delay – Knowledge of Pending Litigation – Legal heirs claimed ignorance of litigation involving the deceased – High Court found heirs had knowledge based on earlier litigation records – Supreme Court affirmed no sufficient cause for condoning delay [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's orders affirmed – No merit found in appeals challenging the procedural conduct and delay condonation rulings [Para 27].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appellants challenged conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC, arguing acquittal of co-accused reduces the number below the statutory requirement for an "unlawful assembly" – Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 302 IPC using Section 34 IPC, emphasizing the common intention of the accused to commit the murder [Paras 4-13].

Section 149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Acquittal of co-accused reduced number of participants below five, challenging application of Section 149 IPC – Court concluded conviction could be sustained under Section 34 IPC based on common intention, despite reduction in number of accused [Paras 4-13].

Evidence Evaluation – Witness Credibility – Appellants questioned reliability of witnesses citing discrepancies – Supreme Court found minor discrepancies non-material, relying on consistent core testimony and timely lodging of FIR to uphold findings of lower courts [Paras 14-15].

FIR and Investigation – FIR validity and investigative lapses questioned – Court confirmed FIR was filed promptly, minor investigative lapses not sufficient to discard prosecution case supported by direct evidence [Paras 15-16].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Applicable – Appellants argued for reduction of charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Court found attack premeditated and excessive, with multiple severe injuries indicating intent to kill, thus not falling under Exception 4 [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions and sentences affirmed – Supreme Court found no merit in arguments challenging procedural and substantive findings of lower courts [Para 19].

Juvenile Justice – Application of the 2000 Act – Second appellant claimed juvenility based on birth certificate showing age below 18 at the time of the offence – Supreme Court referred to Sections 7A and 20 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, as amended, and the ruling in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan – Court set aside conviction of second appellant and remitted the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal as per the Act [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Sole testimony of PW-13, supported by PW-6 and corroborated by material evidence, established guilt of first appellant – Discrepancies in witness testimonies deemed non-material and insufficient to discredit evidence – Supreme Court upheld conviction of first appellant under Section 302 IPC [Paras 11-13].

Motive – Not Essential with Direct Evidence – Absence of motive was argued but found irrelevant due to direct and reliable eyewitness accounts corroborated by material evidence [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal of the first appellant dismissed, conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed – Appeal of the second appellant allowed, conviction set aside, case remitted to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal within four months [Para 14].

Civil Procedure – Decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Appellant failed to file written statement under impression that entire amount had been paid – Trial court decreed suit without examining issues or considering whether facts needed proof – Supreme Court held such decrees must reflect reasoning and ensure satisfaction that no fact needs proof despite deemed admission by Defendant [Paras 4-6].

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC – Discretionary Relief – Court emphasized discretion and caution in passing decrees when Defendant fails to file written statement – Judgment must contain reasoning and reflect understanding of facts and controversy resolved [Para 6].

Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Applicability – Not addressed directly; focus on trial court’s failure to adhere to established legal propositions for passing decrees under Order VIII Rule 10 [Para 9].

Decision – Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2003 set aside – Case remanded to trial court for fresh decision – Appellant permitted to file written statement within three weeks – Trial to be concluded expeditiously [Para 10].