Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Inconsistencies and Reliability of Witnesses – Appellants convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and acquitted under Section 201 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act – Prosecution relied on eyewitnesses whose statements were inconsistent with each other and with medical evidence – Medical evidence showed no firearm injuries despite witnesses alleging shots fired – Supreme Court found major inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the prosecution’s case, questioning the reliability of the witnesses [Paras 1-17].

Judicial Review – Impact of Deficient Investigation – Investigating agency failed to produce crucial Sanha Entry and did not send seized articles to Forensic Science Laboratory – Incompetent investigation led to suppression of initial police report and crucial evidence – Supreme Court held that lapses in investigation, when affecting the core of the prosecution’s case, warrant acquittal [Paras 10, 17-19].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside due to major inconsistencies in witness testimonies and unreliable prosecution evidence – Directed the release of appellants unless required in any other case [Para 19].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Supreme Court Order – The appellant filed a contempt petition in the Bombay High Court against the State of Maharashtra for not complying with the Supreme Court’s order to pay 11% interest on a refunded amount – The High Court dismissed the petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction to enforce a Supreme Court order and such issues should be addressed by the Supreme Court itself – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, confirming that only the Supreme Court can entertain contempt petitions for its orders [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction and Authority – Enforcement of Supreme Court Orders – Supreme Court emphasized that orders and directions issued by it must be enforced through appropriate proceedings before the Supreme Court – The appellant wrongly approached the High Court and should seek remedies directly from the Supreme Court [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s decision – Appellant given liberty to approach the Supreme Court for initiating appropriate proceedings for compliance with the original order [Paras 6-7].

Civil Procedure – Review and Appeal – Appellant filed an SLP against the High Court’s dismissal of a review petition but did not challenge the original judgment – Supreme Court analyzed maintainability of the SLP in light of prior rulings – Held that dismissal of a review petition without altering the original order does not merge the review order with the original order, and thus, the appeal must be against the original order [Paras 1-4].

Doctrine of Merger – Applicability – Supreme Court discussed circumstances under which orders in review petitions may lead to merger with original orders – Confirmed that dismissal of review petitions, which do not alter the original order, does not invoke the merger doctrine – Appellant should have challenged the original High Court order within the prescribed time [Paras 3-4].

Decision – SLP dismissed – Supreme Court found that without challenging the main order, the SLP challenging the review petition dismissal alone is not maintainable – Reaffirmed principles from prior judgments including DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [Para 4].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Acquired Land – Once land is acquired and mandatory requirements are complied with, it vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances – The fact that some land remains unutilized does not entitle the authority to propose de-requisitioning the land – The Supreme Court upheld the legality of the State’s refusal to de-requisition the land, emphasizing that such land must be used for public purposes or disposed of via public auction, not returned to original owners [Paras 16-18].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limitations – High Court directed the MDA to press its resolution for de-requisitioning if the land was not needed, based on internal correspondences and the resolution dated 17.09.1997 – Supreme Court held that such directions were unwarranted as the land had vested in the State and substantial development had occurred – The High Court’s orders were set aside for misapplying the principles of land acquisition law [Paras 7-18].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the State’s decision not to de-requisition the land, finding no merit in the appeals against the High Court’s orders – Directions to MDA to press resolution were unwarranted [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – High Court re-appreciated evidence, reversing trial court's acquittal of appellants – Witness testimonies found consistent and credible despite minor contradictions – High Court held that minor discrepancies do not affect the core prosecution case and relationship of witnesses to victims does not affect credibility [Paras 13-19].

Delay in FIR and Witness Statements – High Court justified delay in filing FIR and recording witness statements due to extraordinary circumstances of 1984 riots – Delay attributed to chaos, fear, and breakdown of law and order – Court held such delays do not necessarily reduce evidentiary value [Paras 12-13].

Corpus Delicti in Murder Cases – Supreme Court upheld that non-recovery of dead bodies does not negate murder charges – Testimonies and circumstances can suffice to prove murder even without physical remains, especially in mass violence cases like 1984 riots [Paras 14-21].

Judicial Review – Acquittal Reversal – Supreme Court reiterated principles for appellate courts reviewing acquittals – Appellate courts can re-evaluate evidence and reach different conclusions if original findings are found perverse or unreasonable [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction of appellants – Found High Court correctly appreciated evidence and justifiably reversed trial court’s acquittal [Paras 24-25].

Criminal Procedure – Second FIR – The Supreme Court examined whether a second FIR for the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was permissible when the allegations formed part of the same conspiracy and transaction as the earlier FIR concerning the killings of Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi – The Court reiterated that a second FIR for the same or connected offences arising out of the same transaction is impermissible and violates Article 21 of the Constitution – The Court held that the second FIR and subsequent charge sheet should be treated as a supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR [Paras 6-32].

Constitutional Law – Fundamental Rights – The filing of a second FIR and a fresh charge sheet by the CBI was challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Constitution – The Supreme Court upheld the challenge, ruling that such actions infringed the appellant's fundamental rights and directed that the second FIR be quashed, with the charge sheet filed as a supplementary to the first FIR [Paras 33-42].

Judicial Review – Permissibility of Multiple FIRs – The Court discussed the legal principles governing the filing of multiple FIRs for the same transaction – Citing precedents, the Court emphasized that multiple FIRs for the same occurrence or transaction are not permissible under the law – The decision reaffirms the legal position that a single comprehensive investigation should be conducted, and multiple FIRs lead to a violation of due process [Paras 32-42].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Second FIR quashed – Supreme Court directed that the charge sheet filed in the second FIR be treated as a supplementary charge sheet to the first FIR – The actions of the CBI in filing a second FIR were held to be violative of the appellant’s fundamental rights under the Constitution [Paras 43-45].

Narcotics Law – Search and Seizure – Appellant convicted for possessing 3.5 kgs of opium under Section 18 of the NDPS Act – Prosecution supported by evidence from police witnesses – Sole independent witness declared hostile but did not deny signing the seizure list – FSL report confirmed the sample was intact and sealed correctly – Court held conscious possession of contraband was presumed under Section 54 of NDPS Act and no contrary evidence was presented by the appellant – Search conducted by DSP resulted in recovery from the appellant’s tin – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-14].

Procedural Compliance – Section 50 NDPS Act – Appellant contended the investigation was defective and not in accordance with Section 50 – Court found compliance with mandatory provisions, recovery was made by DSP on the scene – No prejudice due to delay in sending samples to FSL as the seal was intact – Weight discrepancy accounted for by inclusion of container in FSL report [Paras 4-12].

Sentencing – Minimum Imprisonment for Commercial Quantity – Appellant sentenced to 10 years RI and fine of Rs. 1 lakh – Court noted commercial quantity mandates minimum 10-year sentence under Section 18(b) of NDPS Act – No provision in the Act allows for reduction of sentence for special or adequate reasons – Appeal for sentence reduction rejected [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s and trial court’s decisions, finding no infirmity in the prosecution’s case or procedural compliance – Conviction and sentence confirmed [Para 14].

Consumer Protection – Medical Negligence and Unfair Trade Practice – Respondent falsely advertised and administered allopathic medicines as Ayurvedic treatments to appellant’s child, resulting in deterioration of the child's condition – NCDRC awarded Rs. 5 lakhs, directing Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be paid to the appellant and Rs. 2.5 lakhs to be deposited in Consumer Legal Aid account – Supreme Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 15 lakhs, payable entirely to the appellant – Respondent found guilty of deceptive practices and negligence [Paras 14-16].

Professional Misconduct – Authority to Prescribe Allopathic Medicines – Respondent claimed entitlement under U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 to prescribe allopathic medicines – Court found no registration with the Medical Council or enrollment in State Medical Register – Letter dated 24th February 2003, relied upon by respondent, was not applicable retrospectively to the period of treatment (1994-1997) – National Commission erred in accepting respondent’s claim without proper registration proof [Paras 12-14].

Quantum of Compensation – Justification and Enhancement – Supreme Court criticized NCDRC for deducting part of the compensation for Consumer Legal Aid without clear reasons – Full compensation awarded to appellant considering physical and mental injury suffered due to respondent’s malpractice – Compensation enhanced to ensure just relief to the appellant [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Enhanced compensation to Rs. 15 lakhs payable to the appellant within three months – No separate order as to costs [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Common Intention and Constructive Liability – Appellant convicted of accepting illegal gratification along with another accused – High Court upheld conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC – Supreme Court reviewed evidence, establishing that both accused shared common intention and were present during the bribery transaction – Appellant’s role in demanding and accepting bribe affirmed by corroborative testimonies and circumstantial evidence [Paras 8-16].

Legal Principles – Application of Section 34 IPC – To attract Section 34 IPC, prosecution must prove that the act was done by more than one person with shared common intention – Common intention can develop at the crime scene and does not require each accused to perform a separate act – Evidence showed appellant’s active participation and presence, justifying application of Section 34 IPC [Paras 9-15].

Presumption and Burden of Proof – Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Prosecution established prima facie case with direct evidence of bribery and possession of tainted money – Burden shifted to appellant to disprove the allegations, which was not satisfactorily done – Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act upheld [Paras 5-7, 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and High Court, concluding no error in convicting the appellant – Sentence reduction by High Court maintained – Appellant’s conviction and sentence upheld [Para 16].