Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Appellant convicted based on testimony alleging harassment and dowry demands – Supreme Court found no direct evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before death – Evidence from mother of deceased deemed hearsay and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5-9].

Evidence Law – Admissibility and Sufficiency – Section 60 Evidence Act requires direct evidence – Testimony from mother of deceased based on hearsay not admissible – No corroborative evidence presented by prosecution – Conviction cannot be sustained on uncorroborated hearsay evidence [Paras 6-7, 9].

Definition and Proof of Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Essential ingredients: unnatural death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death – Prosecution failed to prove harassment soon before death – Conviction under Section 304B IPC not justified [Paras 8-13].

Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Applies only if cruelty or harassment soon before death is proven – Prosecution failed to establish essential ingredients – Presumption of dowry death not applicable [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC set aside – Appellant No. 1 already served sentence, no further direction needed – Appellant No. 2's bail bonds discharged [Paras 15].

Rectification of Instruments – Section 26 of Specific Relief Act – Appeal involved rectification of property settlement deeds due to alleged mistake – High Court held that the rectification deed executed by father and appellant was not binding on respondent as she was not a party to it – Supreme Court affirmed limited application of Section 26, requiring fraud or mutual mistake of parties for rectification [Paras 5-7].

Undue Influence – Section 16 of Contract Act – Allegation of undue influence in signing agreement for property exchange – High Court found document clouded with suspicion and unexplained circumstances – Supreme Court upheld finding of undue influence, noting lack of examination of attesting witnesses and failure to prove contents of agreement [Paras 8-13, 20-24].

Admissibility and Proof of Documents – Admissibility of unregistered document (Ex. A-3) considered – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of proving contents of document despite admissibility – Appellant failed to examine attesting witnesses or scribe of document – No fault found in High Court's conclusion [Paras 14-17, 26].

Onus of Proof – Burden on party alleging undue influence – High Court correctly concluded appellant failed to discharge burden – Contract appeared unconscionable given disproportionate value of exchanged properties [Paras 16-19, 27].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment setting aside trial court decree upheld – Appellant's failure to prove voluntary execution of agreement and existence of undue influence affirmed [Para 28].

Public Employment – Co-terminus Appointments – Respondents appointed as personal staff to Chairman on co-terminus basis – Appointments terminated upon cessation of Chairman’s tenure – Respondents challenged termination, sought regularization based on a resolution passed by Chairman and approved by Lt. Governor – Supreme Court held respondents had no right to continue after Chairman's tenure ended – Absorption and regularization without following proper recruitment procedures violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 2-11, 17-21].

Recruitment Rules – Adherence to Procedures – Appointments not made through Employment Exchange or competitive process – Proposal for absorption not routed through normal administrative channels – Supreme Court emphasized necessity of following established recruitment rules to prevent backdoor entries and maintain equality in public employment [Paras 15-20].

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularities – High Court allowed writ petition at admission stage without giving appellants opportunity to present facts – Division Bench upheld Single Judge’s decision without addressing substantive issues – Supreme Court found High Court erred in ordering implementation of irregular appointments [Paras 16-21].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgments and orders set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Co-terminus employees not entitled to regularization or continuation in service after Chairman’s tenure ended [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly and Murder – Conviction under Sections 148, 302 read with 149, 452, and 325 read with 149 IPC – Incident involving altercation and subsequent assault on the deceased – Appellants armed with lathis and lethal weapons entered deceased's house and inflicted fatal injuries – Prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 2-11].

Evidence – Injured Witness Testimony – Prosecution relied on injured eye-witness (mother of deceased) – Her testimony corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Injuries on deceased and eye-witness consistent with prosecution’s version – Supreme Court affirmed credibility and sufficiency of injured witness’s testimony [Paras 6-8].

Medical Evidence – Post Mortem Report – Medical examination confirmed fatal injuries inflicted by appellants – Injuries sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Testimony of Dr. S.P. Jain supported prosecution’s case [Paras 9-11].

Sentence and Leniency – Appellants sought reduction in sentence citing age and period already served – Supreme Court rejected plea for leniency – Noted that minimum sentence for conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be reduced – Appellant No. 2 allowed to seek remission from government based on age [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by trial court and High Court upheld – Appellants' plea for sentence reduction rejected [Para 13].

Representing Advocates:

Lakhan Sing Chauhan and Anil Shrivastav for the Appellant

Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent

Defamation – Role of Editor – Appeal against High Court quashing prosecution of Editor of "Sandesh" newspaper – Appellant alleged defamatory news published under instructions of Editor and Resident Editor – High Court quashed prosecution citing lack of specific allegations against Editor – Supreme Court held complaint contained sufficient averments implicating Editor – Presumption under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act applicable – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 12-24].

Presumption under Press and Registration of Books Act – Section 7 – Editor’s name printed in newspaper implies responsibility for content – Rebuttable presumption sufficient for prosecution to proceed – High Court erred in ignoring statutory presumption and quashing complaint [Paras 15-18].

Power to Quash Proceedings – High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Supreme Court emphasized allegations in complaint must be assumed true at initial stage – Detailed examination of evidence reserved for trial – High Court’s premature quashing of complaint based on factual assumptions improper [Paras 12-24].

Distinction between Editor and Other Roles – Chief Editor, Resident Editor, and other roles not covered by statutory presumption – Specific allegations required for prosecution – Present case involves statutory presumption against named Editor [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order quashing prosecution set aside – Trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with law [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Law – Validity of Section 32A NDPS Act – Petitioner's challenge to the denial of remission benefits under Section 32A – Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 32A, noting that remission does not reduce the sentence but merely wipes out part of the sentence not served – Rejected the argument that Section 32A imposed a heavier penalty retroactively [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 20(1) – Ex Post Facto Laws – Supreme Court held that Section 32A does not increase the penalty for offenses committed prior to its enactment but only affects executive remission powers – No violation of Article 20(1) as it does not alter the punishment prescribed by law at the time of the offense [Paras 9-10].

Constitutional Law – Articles 14 and 21 – Equal Protection and Right to Life – The court referred to Dadu @ Tulsidas vs. State of Maharashtra, confirming that different treatment of NDPS convicts in terms of remission is not arbitrary or discriminatory, and does not violate the right to life [Paras 2-3].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Section 32A of the NDPS Act does not violate Articles 14, 20(1), or 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court found no merit in the arguments against the provision [Para 10].

Land Reforms – Compensation – Appellant was entitled to interest on the compensation amount for land vested with the State from the date of vesting (1st March 1974) until payment – The Karnataka High Court held the appellant was entitled to interest from 1st March 1984 – Supreme Court held interest was due from the date of vesting – Appellant awarded interest at 5% per annum from 1st March 1974 [Paras 1-24].

Interest on Compensation – Circular Clarification – Supreme Court clarified that the State Government's circular dated 24.11.1986, which specified calculation of interest from 1st March 1974, was applicable – Circular's examples were deemed confusing but the clarification prevailed – Appellant entitled to interest at 5% per annum on compensation amount for delayed payment [Paras 18-21].

Legal Principle – Compensation and Interest – Applied general legal principles that compensation for land acquisition should include interest from the date of possession – Cited past decisions emphasizing entitlement to interest when possession is taken before compensation payment [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Appellant entitled to interest at 5% per annum from 1st March 1974 on compensation amount until payment – Karnataka High Court's orders set aside – Respondents directed to pay interest within three months [Para 24].

Judicial Service – Seniority – Fast Track Courts – Supreme Court held that service rendered in Fast Track Courts by way of ad hoc promotion cannot be counted for seniority in the regular cadre of Senior Branch Superior Judicial Service – Appointment in Fast Track Courts was governed by separate rules (2001 Rules) and not by the 1963 Rules – Regularization of service in the Senior Branch cannot be backdated to include ad hoc service in Fast Track Courts [Paras 1-52].

Service Jurisprudence – Ad Hoc Appointment – The Court emphasized that ad hoc appointments made under a special scheme (2001 Rules) do not confer the same rights as appointments made under regular service rules (1963 Rules) – Ad hoc service cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of seniority [Paras 31-51].

Legal Principle – Seniority and Regularization – Clarified that for an officer to be considered a member of the service and to claim seniority, the appointment must be made to a post in the service in a substantive capacity and not on an ad hoc basis – Regular service rules must be followed for determining seniority [Paras 40-41, 47-48].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – The writ Petitioner’s service in the Fast Track Courts cannot be counted towards his seniority in the Senior Branch cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service – The High Court's decision to the contrary was set aside – The Appellants were given seniority over the Respondent [Para 52].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC – Held that the actions of the appellants, in holding the deceased while another stabbed him, demonstrated a common intention to commit murder – Mere presence and assistance in holding the deceased justified the inference of shared common intention [Paras 16-20].

Evidence – Witness Credibility – Eyewitnesses, including the deceased's family members, were found credible despite minor inconsistencies – Their testimonies were consistent with the sequence of events and the medical evidence – The Court rejected the defense's claim of non-visibility from the house's interior [Paras 12-14].

Legal Principle – Section 34 IPC – Emphasized that the principle of joint liability under Section 34 IPC does not require each participant to commit the criminal act but to share the common intention – Participation in the crime with knowledge of the intention suffices for liability [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC were upheld – The appellants' involvement in holding the deceased facilitated the fatal stabbing, demonstrating a shared common intention to kill [Para 21].