Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – Appeal evaluates whether the chain of circumstantial evidence suffices to convict the appellant for the murders of three individuals – Discusses legal standards and precedents for conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 1-19].

Motive and Conduct – Relevance in Conviction – Considers the appellant’s motive and conduct as relevant factors under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act – While motive was not fully established, the appellant's actions and the discovery of evidence linked to him were significant [Paras 6-7, 18-19].

Sentencing – Death Penalty Criteria – Evaluates whether the case qualifies as a "rarest of rare" case warranting the death penalty – Analyzes circumstances surrounding the crime and the appellant's culpability – High Court’s imposition of the death sentence scrutinized against the principles laid down in precedents such as Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh [Paras 20-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction for three offences of murder upheld – Death sentence commuted to rigorous life imprisonment for each offence, to run consecutively – Appeals allowed on the question of sentence but dismissed regarding conviction [Paras 24-25].

Second FIR – Legal Prohibition – Appeal addresses whether a second FIR can be registered for the same incident and cause of action – Court evaluates the legal precedents and principles related to the prohibition of registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence [Paras 1-13].

Principle of Sameness – Definition and Application – Analyzes the principle of "sameness" in the context of filing FIRs – Examines when multiple FIRs can be considered distinct and separate based on different allegations, accused persons, and investigative requirements [Paras 14-24].

Counter FIRs – Legal Validity – Discusses the validity of counter FIRs and situations where separate FIRs by different complainants are permissible – Explains the conditions under which filing multiple FIRs does not violate the legal prohibition against successive complaints for the same incident [Paras 18-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – FIR lodged by the fourth respondent found to be valid and not a repetition of the same cause of action – Distinct nature of allegations and involvement of different accused persons recognized [Paras 25-26].

Misconduct and Dismissal – Parity in Punishment – Appeal involves the dismissal of the appellant, a police constable, for allegedly accepting a bribe – Argues that the punishment is disproportionate compared to co-delinquents involved in the same incident – Doctrine of equality in disciplinary actions emphasized [Paras 1-7].

Doctrine of Equality – Application to Co-Delinquents – Examines the principle that similarly placed individuals should receive similar treatment – Highlights precedents where disparity in punishment among co-delinquents was addressed to ensure fairness and compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 12-13].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Role of Evidence and Findings – Discusses the findings of the inquiry which established the primary role of another constable in demanding and accepting the bribe – The appellant’s involvement was passive and hence, warranted a reconsideration of the punishment [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Dismissal from service set aside – Appellant to be reinstated and treated on par with co-delinquent Arjun Pathak, including all consequential benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 14].

FERA Violations – Procedural Fairness – Appeals question whether the adjudication order passed after a significant delay without rehearing the parties satisfies the requirement of affording a fair hearing – Examines the impact of delayed pronouncement on procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing [Paras 1-7].

Voluntary Nature of Statements – Retraction and Admissibility – Considers the admissibility of retracted statements and whether they can form the basis of a finding of guilt – Analyzes legal standards for assessing the voluntariness of statements in the context of FERA proceedings [Paras 8-11].

Evidence and Cross-Examination – Principles of Natural Justice – Evaluates whether the refusal to permit cross-examination of certain witnesses producing documents violated principles of natural justice – Discusses the impact of such refusals on the fairness of the adjudicatory process and the requirement to demonstrate prejudice [Paras 16-20].

Penalty – Proportionality and Reduction – Addresses the appellants' contention that the penalties imposed were disproportionate – Reviews the Tribunal's decision to reduce the penalties by 50% and assesses the adequacy of this reduction in light of the nature of the violations [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Penalties upheld as reduced by the Tribunal – Costs imposed on appellants to be deposited in the SCBA Lawyers' Welfare Fund [Paras 22].

Remission and Release – Interpretation of Life Imprisonment – Appeal involves the petitioner's claim for release after serving over 20 years, including remission – Court examines whether life imprisonment can be equated to a term of 20 years under the applicable laws and precedents [Paras 1-11].

Legal Framework – Constitution and Criminal Procedure – Reviews relevant provisions under the Constitution, IPC, CrPC, and the West Bengal Correctional Services Act – Considers the statutory interpretation of life imprisonment and the State's discretion in granting remission [Paras 9-13].

Judicial Precedents – Constitution Bench Decisions – Analyzes key judgments, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Others and other relevant cases – Confirms the position that life imprisonment implies imprisonment for the convict's natural life unless remission is granted by the appropriate authority [Paras 10-15].

State Sentence Review Board – Procedural Compliance – Discusses the role of the Sentence Review Board in recommending premature release – Considers the Board's assessment of the petitioner and the rationale for denying his release [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Contempt petition dismissed – No violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier order found – Petitioner not entitled to premature release without a remission order from the appropriate government authority [Paras 16-19].

Remand and Bail – Section 167(2) CrPC – Appeal examines whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail when the charge-sheet is filed within the statutory period but cognizance is delayed due to the absence of prosecution sanction – Discusses the statutory interpretation of remand and the conditions under which an accused can claim bail [Paras 1-19].

Indefeasible Right to Bail – Filing of Charge-Sheet – Analyzes the "indefeasible right" of the accused to bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within the statutory period – Clarifies that this right ceases once the charge-sheet is filed within the stipulated time, even if sanction for prosecution is pending [Paras 9-19].

Judicial Precedents – Relevant Case Law – References key judgments including Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through C.B.I. Bombay and Matabar Parida Vs. State of Orissa – Confirms that statutory bail is linked to the completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet, not the taking of cognizance [Paras 10-19].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Petitioner not entitled to statutory bail as the charge-sheet was filed within the statutory period – Remand orders held valid despite the absence of prosecution sanction at the time of filing [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Procedure – Adverse Remarks – Appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the adverse remarks and strictures passed against him by the High Court – High Court had forwarded its judgment to the Chief Justice for consideration of disciplinary proceedings – Supreme Court noted that adverse remarks cannot be made without giving an opportunity to the concerned officer to explain their conduct – Supreme Court expunged the remarks, stating they were neither justified nor called for, and emphasized the need for careful consideration before passing strictures against judicial officers [Paras 1-14].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Court reiterated the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice before making adverse remarks or initiating disciplinary proceedings – Highlighted that judges often work under pressure and their decisions are subject to appeals and revisions – Remarks and strictures should be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the decision of the case [Paras 6-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Adverse remarks and strictures passed by the High Court against the Appellant were set aside – Supreme Court emphasized that harsh or disparaging remarks should not be made unless essential for the decision [Para 14].

Administrative Law – Preparation and Publication of Panel – Appellant challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Headmaster based on an alleged selection panel – Supreme Court noted that no panel was prepared or published as required under the West Bengal School Service Commission Regulations – Held that preparation and publication of a panel is essential for transparency and probity – No vested right is created by the inclusion of a name in an unpublished or non-existent panel [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Discretionary Powers – Court emphasized that discretionary powers under Article 226 must be exercised judiciously and equitably – High Court's direction to appoint Respondent on basis of non-existent panel was erroneous – Decision of Single Judge dismissing the writ petition upheld [Paras 6-17].

Employment Law – Right to Appointment – Inclusion in a Select List – Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – Select list only indicates eligibility for appointment and can be scrapped for valid reasons – Appointments must adhere to statutory rules and constitutional mandates [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order directing appointment of Respondent set aside – Respondent allowed to continue as Headmaster till fresh selection is made – Entitled to monetary benefits for period of service – No equity or weightage in future selection process [Para 19].

Administrative Law – Preparation and Publication of Panel – Appellant challenged the appointment of the Respondent as Headmaster based on an alleged selection panel – Supreme Court noted that no panel was prepared or published as required under the West Bengal School Service Commission Regulations – Held that preparation and publication of a panel is essential for transparency and probity – No vested right is created by the inclusion of a name in an unpublished or non-existent panel [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Discretionary Powers – Court emphasized that discretionary powers under Article 226 must be exercised judiciously and equitably – High Court's direction to appoint Respondent on basis of non-existent panel was erroneous – Decision of Single Judge dismissing the writ petition upheld [Paras 6-17].

Employment Law – Right to Appointment – Inclusion in a Select List – Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment – Select list only indicates eligibility for appointment and can be scrapped for valid reasons – Appointments must adhere to statutory rules and constitutional mandates [Paras 13-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's order directing appointment of Respondent set aside – Respondent allowed to continue as Headmaster till fresh selection is made – Entitled to monetary benefits for period of service – No equity or weightage in future selection process [Para 19].