Criminal Appeal – Acquittal in a Case of Aiding Suicide – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Dying declaration doubted – Evidence of crucial witnesses unreliable – Prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 1-7]

Dying Declaration – Evaluation of dying declaration’s credibility – Absence of doctor’s endorsement and conflicting evidence raises serious doubts – Reliability compromised, leading to exclusion from consideration for conviction. [Paras 6-7]

Witness Testimony – Non-supportive crucial witnesses and withholding of material witness by the prosecution – Adverse inference drawn against the prosecution for not presenting the sister of the deceased as a witness. [Paras 3, 5]

Evidence and Proof – Requirement for unimpeachable quality of evidence if conviction is based solely on dying declaration – Prosecution’s failure to present convincing evidence results in appellant’s acquittal. [Para 3, 7]

Decision – Appellant acquitted due to prosecution’s inability to establish guilt – Orders against appellant quashed and set aside – Bail bond cancelled as appellant was on bail. [Para 7-9]

Property Dispute – Dispute over title and possession of two blocks of lands located in Thenkasi Taluk, Kadayanallurpet, Tamil Nadu – Petitioners, as legatees of Mohideen Abdul Khadar, claim interest in the said lands against Rahmath Beevi and others. [Para 2]

Title & Tenancy – Mohideen claimed title over the first scheduled property and sought protection of his possession over the second scheduled property under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Rahmath Beevi claimed ownership of the second scheduled property and sought vacant possession of the same. [Para 3-4]

Trial Court’s Decision – Mohideen’s claim over the first scheduled property upheld, but his claim over the second scheduled property dismissed – Rahmath Beevi granted relief of mandatory injunction for removal of Mohideen from certain properties and awarded damages. [Para 5]

Appellate Court’s Decision – Upheld Mohideen’s title over the first scheduled property and set aside the Trial Court’s judgment on the second scheduled property – Judgment in Rahmath Beevi’s suit also set aside. [Para 6]

High Court’s Decision – Confirmed the dimension of the second scheduled property in Rahmath Beevi’s plaint – Held that the notice under Section 106 of the 1882 Act was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act. [Para 7-8]

Locus of Petitioners – Questions raised regarding the petitioners’ locus to maintain the petitions based on a testamentary instrument – Court held against the petitioners on merit without delving into the locus issue. [Para 9]

Decision – Petitions dismissed, and any interim order vacated – No order as to costs. [Para 10-12]

Civil Appeal – Suit for possession and mesne profits – Appellant contests judgment and order of High Court affirming Trial Court’s decree in favor of the respondent – Suit based on unregistered documents – Issue of Hiba (oral gift) raised – Appellant’s contention that unregistered documents do not confer ownership rights supported. [Para 1-10]

Property Ownership – Requirement of compulsory registration for transferring title to immovable property – Reference to sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – No right, title, or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document – Judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) and other relevant judgments cited. [Para 10-13]

Maintaining Suit – Respondent’s argument that the judgment in Suraj Lamps & Industries (supra) is prospective is rejected – Suit could not have been maintained on the basis of unregistered documents – Suit dismissed. [Para 14-15]

Civil Appeal – Review Petitions – Challenge to a common judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020 – Review Petitioners aggrieved by the judgment seek a review – Scope of review discussed. [Para 1-6]

Review Jurisdiction – The power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, subject to applicable laws and rules – Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII CPC govern the procedure for review – Review can be sought not only by parties to the judgment but also by “aggrieved persons.” [Para 7]

Review Criteria – Review is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record – The purpose of a review is not to reargue the case but to correct manifest errors. [Para 8-10]

Coordination Bench – A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength – Subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches by themselves cannot be grounds for review. [Para 20-23]

Scope of Review – The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment – The judgment had considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53 – Review dismissed. [Para 24-27]

Appeals against Acquittal – Grave Offences – Appeals by the complainant and the State against the acquittal of accused by the Rajasthan High Court for grave offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC, while convicting only for lesser offences – The High Court based its decision on perceived discrepancies in witness testimonies and assumption of a sudden altercation – Appeals admitted for consideration by the Supreme Court. [Para 1-2]

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility Assessment – Critical evaluation of key eyewitnesses, particularly the testimony of Rami (PW-2), an injured witness and wife of the deceased – High Court discredited her testimony due to minor discrepancies between her statements under Section 161 Cr.PC and in her examination-in-chief – Supreme Court emphasizes the credibility and significance of an injured eyewitness testimony in unraveling the truth. [Para 7, 19-21, 27]

Medical Evidence – Corroboration of Eyewitness Testimony – Medical evidence confirming the brutal assault on the deceased and PW-2, substantiating the claims of the eyewitnesses about the violent attack – The High Court’s oversight in not giving due consideration to the medical evidence highlighted. [Para 12-13, 10]

Defence Witnesses – Evaluation of Credibility – Scrutiny of defence witnesses, particularly DW-4, whose credibility was under question due to past misconduct – The High Court’s error in giving undue weightage to dubious defence evidence, thereby skewing the assessment of the incident. [Para 24]

Legal Interpretation – Sections 302 & 307 IPC – High Court’s erroneous interpretation of the incident as a sudden clash devoid of premeditation, leading to wrongful acquittal under Sections 302 & 307 IPC – Supreme Court’s corrective interpretation, recognizing the gravity of the assault but granting a limited benefit of doubt to the accused due to minor discrepancies in PW-2's testimony. [Para 28-30]

Conviction Modification – Sections 304 part I & 308 IPC – Supreme Court’s modification of the convictions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide, respecting the gravity of the incident while considering minor discrepancies in witness testimony – Sentencing the accused to rigorous imprisonment, thereby delivering a balanced judgment. [Para 31]

Order for Surrender and Sentence Execution – Directive for the remaining accused to surrender for the execution of the sentence, with adjustments for the period already served – Abatement of the case against the deceased accused, Jethnath, and discharge of bail bonds if any. [Para 32]

Conviction Appeal – Rape under Section 376 IPC – Appellant convicted for rape by Trial Court, upheld by High Court – Challenging both the validity of the conviction and the determination of the prosecutrix’s age crucial for the case – Appeal before Supreme Court for adjudication. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Allegation of rape on minor prosecutrix by appellant – Initial settlement attempt through marriage proposal, failed leading to filing of FIR – Prosecution brought forward school register, medical examination report and testimonies to establish the case. [Para 2-3]

Age Discrepancy – Conflict between school register and medical examination regarding prosecutrix’s age – Critical to ascertain whether consent for sexual intercourse could be considered – Lack of solid evidence and failure to conduct bone ossification test leaves age undetermined. [Para 4, 8-9]

Testimony of Prosecutrix – Delay in reporting the incident, improbabilities in narrative, and initial willingness for marriage settlement casts doubt on the credibility of the rape allegation – Sole testimony of prosecutrix requires cautious examination, especially when conflicting with other evidences. [Para 5-6]

Medical Examination – Medical report indicating no force used, and well-developed secondary sex characteristics – medical evidence not conclusively determining the age of the prosecutrix – Failure to conduct further tests to ascertain age leaves crucial gaps in prosecution’s case. [Para 7, 9]

Consensual Act Vs Rape – Uncertainty around prosecutrix’s age and circumstances suggesting possibility of consensual act – Absence of clear evidence establishing non-consensual sexual intercourse – Prosecution’s failure to prove beyond doubt the age and the non-consensual nature of act. [Para 10-11]

Decision – Supreme Court finds prosecution’s evidence inadequate in establishing the age of prosecutrix and the non-consensual act – Acquittal of appellant from charges of Section 376 IPC – Appeal allowed, previous judgments set aside, bail bonds of appellant discharged. [Para 12]

Civil Appeal – Rejection of Plaint – Examination of Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) concerning the legality of partial plaint rejection – High Court’s erroneous application on both counts; misapplication of principles governing Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and impermissible partial rejection of the plaint. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside, and application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC dismissed restoring the suit concerning properties mentioned under Schedule A of the Plaint. [Para 2, 10, 12]

Legal Principles – Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Thorough examination of the principles pertaining to the rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, as enumerated in recent precedents – The court’s duty to scrutinize the plaint for disclosure of a cause of action, strict adherence to conditions, and the mandatory nature of the provision highlighted. [Para 6-7]

Property Dispute – Joint Family Property – Dispute concerning the true ownership and possession of joint family properties amidst allegations of nominal sale deeds, reconveyance practices, and requests for partition – Examination of averments in the plaint disclosing a cause of action concerning joint family properties, erroneous pre-judgment of facts by the High Court. [Para 8-10]

Precedential Analysis – Reference to prior judgments clarifying the impermissibility of partial plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11, CPC – Emphasis on the principle that a plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, but not in part, as upheld in previous Supreme Court decisions. [Para 11-12]

Direction for Expeditious Trial – Due to the long pendency since the institution of the suit in 2005, the Trial Court is urged to expedite the trial process and dispose of the suit promptly. [Para 14]

Civil Appeal – Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen as Village Development Officers – Appeal against High Court’s rejection of appellants’ claims for recruitment due to non-fulfillment of Ex-Servicemen status and essential qualification at the time of application – Appellants argued issuance of appointment letters and later release from Armed Forces as a valid claim for Ex-Servicemen status – Essential qualification of C.C.C. Certificate argued as met through equivalent qualifications. [Para 3-7]

Ex-Servicemen Eligibility – State argues appellants’ ineligibility as Ex-Servicemen on cut-off date of application based on continued employment in Armed Forces – Lack of C.C.C. Certificate on advertisement date further contended as grave misconduct – Mention of prospective release dates in certificates not accepted as proof of Ex-Servicemen status on essential date. [Para 8-12]

Judicial Analysis – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s judgment on basis of established law regarding eligibility cut-off on last date of application submission – Arguments of prospective Ex-Servicemen status and equivalent qualifications rejected – Reference to precedents emphasizing eligibility assessment as per advertisement’s terms unless extended by recruiting authority. [Para 14-18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit with Impugned Judgment upheld – No recovery of payments for period worked as Village Development Officers – Emphasis on adherence to recruitment advertisement’s eligibility criteria and cut-off dates. [Para 19-21]

Civil Appeal – Execution Proceedings under Order XXI of the CPC – Appeal by landlord against the delay and abuse of process in execution proceedings by the tenants – Historical delay in execution of decrees highlighted – Initial eviction decree obtained on the grounds of non-payment of rent, with decree holder entitled to execute the decree as per order dated 12.02.2013 – Challenge by judgment debtors of the order dated 12.02.2013, almost four years later, rejected by executing court but allowed in revision, leading to further appeal. [Para 1-3]

Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limitation – Section 47 mandates all questions relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree to be determined by the executing court, without going behind the decree – Executing court’s jurisdiction is limited, not allowing a re-examination of the validity of the order allowing the execution of the decree unless such order is without jurisdiction. [Para 4-5]

Delay in Execution – Concern of the Court – Reiteration of the Supreme Court’s concern over inordinate delays in execution proceedings – Reference to case law (Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Others) condemning abuse of process in execution, with directions for expedited execution provided. [Para 6]

Specific Case Facts – Res Judicata – Application of principles of res judicata in execution proceedings – Initial order (12.02.2013) allowing execution was never challenged, establishing finality – Attempt by judgment debtors to challenge this order on 19.01.2017, rejected by executing court on grounds of maintainability, but allowed in revision – Further appeal to Bombay High Court, raising res judicata, but High Court refrained from addressing the issue due to its non-raising in earlier stages. [Para 7-9]

Decision – Setting Aside Lower Courts’ Orders – Supreme Court finding error in High Court’s non-interference and appellate court’s allowance of revision against executing court’s order – Orders of appellate court and High Court set aside, upholding the order of the executing court dated 28.09.2017 – Direction to executing court to complete execution expeditiously within a stipulated timeframe of six months. [Para 8]