Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – Conviction based on multiple dying declarations – Court emphasizes the reliability and consistency of dying declarations – If found voluntary, reliable, and made in a fit mental condition, they can be relied upon without corroboration – Court must examine inconsistencies in the light of surrounding facts and circumstances – In case of discrepancies, benefit of doubt goes to the accused [Paras 1-88].

Dying Declarations – Multiple Statements – First two dying declarations recorded on 15.4.2000 consistent, stating the injuries were accidental – Third dying declaration on 28.4.2000 implicates the appellant and is inconsistent with earlier statements – Court finds the third declaration unreliable due to contradictions and improbabilities [Paras 1-18].

Burden of Proof – Court reiterates the need for prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Inconsistencies in dying declarations and lack of corroborative evidence lead to acquittal – Presumption of innocence and parameters for appellate interference in acquittals emphasized [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Sessions Court's judgment acquitting the appellant restored – Appellant’s bail bonds discharged [Para 20].

Contempt of Court – Conviction – Use of unparliamentary language and threats by counsel against a judicial officer inside the courtroom – Court emphasizes the necessity of maintaining the decorum and dignity of judicial proceedings – Administration of justice requires respect from both Bar and Bench – Supreme Court finds the appellant's unconditional apology neither prompt nor genuine, upholds conviction and sentence [Paras 1-13].

Courtroom Decorum – Obligations of Bar and Bench – Court stresses the integral role of both Bar and Bench in administering justice – Any form of deviancy from acceptable conduct undermines the judicial system – Appellant’s behavior considered a serious violation, demonstrating the need for strict adherence to courtroom decorum [Paras 5-10].

Unconditional Apology – Assessment of Genuineness – Court evaluates the timing and sincerity of the appellant’s apology – Determines that a mere formal apology should not be accepted if it lacks genuine contrition and is made only to avoid punishment – Emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender and pay the fine within thirty days, failing which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, to enforce the High Court's order [Para 13].

Administrative Law – Selection Process – Appointment of Director General, All India Radio, and Doordarshan – Court examined the recommendations of the Selection Committee and the role of Prasar Bharati Board – No evidence of preference based on merit in initial recommendations – Subsequent short-listing by circulation and meeting found valid – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-20].

Legal Malice – Allegations of Government Influence – Appellant alleged indirect influence by the Government in the selection process – Court found no material to support allegations – Reiterated that mere procedural suggestions do not amount to legal malice – Legal principles discussed and applied [Paras 14-16].

Board Composition – Validity of Decisions with New Members – Issue raised regarding new Board members not having interviewed candidates – Court held the decision valid as the majority of the original members were involved and the process was not vitiated – Statutory provisions and precedents considered [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Court upheld the decisions of the tribunal and High Court – No merit found in the appellant's contentions – Costs not awarded [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife – Court discusses the principles for convicting based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence – The appellant was "last seen" with the deceased, failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, and exhibited suspicious conduct post-incident [Paras 1-24, 37].

Witness Testimony – Examination of Witnesses – Prosecution not bound to examine all listed witnesses – Court held that the prosecution's failure to examine certain witnesses did not affect the case as those witnesses were available to the defense, and their testimony was not essential to the core issues [Paras 8-17].

Hostile Witnesses – Court held that the testimony of hostile witnesses could still be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution's case – Partial acceptance of hostile witness evidence after careful scrutiny is permissible [Paras 19-20].

Motive and Conduct – Examination of the accused's motive and conduct, including post-incident behavior and possession of the victim's belongings – The presence of motive strengthens the prosecution's case when supported by other evidence [Paras 21-23, 36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Court found the prosecution's case to be coherent and supported by reliable evidence – Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies were deemed non-material [Para 42].

Education – Rights of Disabled Students – Appellant-organization sought mandamus for provisions to introduce a bridge course for visually impaired students in the first year of a four-year undergraduate program – Sought directions for accessible reading materials and teacher training – High Court directed the University to consider suggestions and report by 7th June 2013 – Supreme Court emphasized the need for sensitivity and responsiveness towards visually impaired students, urging the University to address grievances more comprehensively [Paras 1-12].

Statutory Obligations – Persons with Disabilities Act – Sections 30 and 31 – University required to restructure curriculum and provide adequate facilities for visually impaired students – Ensuring compliance with international conventions and constitutional mandates – Court highlighted the importance of suitable modifications in the examination system and curriculum to accommodate visually impaired students [Paras 9-11].

International Conventions – United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – India’s commitment to providing appropriate measures for disabled students, including training of teachers and use of alternative communication modes – Court referred to Article 24 of the Convention to underline the necessity of specialized educational techniques and materials [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal Disposed – Directed the appellant-organization to submit a representation with detailed grievances and suggestions to the Empowered Committee within three days – Committee to address the issues within a week – Court refrained from staying the introduction of the four-year undergraduate program [Para 12-13].

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers of High Court – Exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 CrPC – High Court directed refund of amount deposited by the respondent's deceased husband, considering it was made to avoid arrest – Court held that inherent powers cannot be invoked for administrative actions; appropriate remedy is through writ jurisdiction [Paras 11-20].

Deposit of Money – Voluntary vs. Conditional Deposit – Distinction between money deposited voluntarily to avoid arrest and money deposited as a condition of bail – Court clarified that the latter can be directed to be refunded upon acquittal, but the former requires a different legal approach [Para 20].

Judicial Review – Appropriate Forum – Administrative actions by governmental agencies to be challenged through writ petitions, not under inherent powers of High Court – Court emphasized the necessity of following proper legal channels for such disputes [Paras 20-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order set aside – Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the High Court by way of a writ petition – All contentions regarding liability and entitlement for refund to be addressed in writ jurisdiction [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence – Murder and Theft – Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment sentence for murder, and three years for theft, based on reliable witness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of stolen items – Minor contradictions in witness statements deemed insignificant and not undermining overall credibility [Paras 1-20].

Witness Credibility – Minor Contradictions – Court emphasized that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the testimony if it remains consistent and credible overall – Witnesses' statements were scrutinized, and minor discrepancies were found not to affect the core of the prosecution's case [Paras 11-15].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Explained and Justified – Court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the circumstances, including the initial registration under Section 174 CrPC and subsequent identification of the deceased – Delay did not indicate fabrication of evidence [Paras 9-10].

Sole Testimony – Conviction – Court reiterated that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a witness if found reliable and corroborated by other evidence – PW-6's testimony was deemed trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of stolen items [Paras 16-19].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Testimony of PW-6 corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of stolen items, found reliable and credible – Minor contradictions and delay in lodging FIR not affecting the overall case [Para 20].

Narcotics Law – Authority to Search and Seize – Compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act – Court examined whether a temporary in-charge SHO (Station House Officer) could legally conduct search and seizure operations under the NDPS Act – The officer had received reliable information and conducted the operations as per procedural requirements – High Court's strict interpretation of the term "posted" as SHO was found erroneous – The officer in temporary charge was deemed competent to conduct the operations [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Literal vs. Pragmatic Approach – Court emphasized a pragmatic approach to interpreting statutory provisions – Strict literal interpretation may defeat legislative intent and practical enforcement – Constitution Bench precedent in Karnail Singh applied to justify substantial compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act [Para 12].

Conviction and Sentence – Restoration by Supreme Court – High Court's judgment of acquittal set aside – Trial court's conviction and sentence restored – Directions issued for the respondent's arrest to serve the remaining sentence [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's judgment of acquittal set aside – Trial court's judgment of conviction and sentence restored – Directions for arrest and serving remaining sentence [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witnesses are available – Court emphasized that the absence of an explanation from the accused for incriminating circumstances, or providing a false explanation, becomes an additional link in the chain of evidence to establish guilt – The appellant's behavior and absconding from the scene reinforced the inference of guilt [Paras 6-19].

Medical Evidence – Hyoid Bone Fracture – Court examined medical testimony and established jurisprudence regarding the fracture of the hyoid bone in cases of strangulation versus hanging – Absence of hyoid bone fracture does not necessarily indicate suicide over homicide – Consistent judicial interpretation favors considering overall circumstances and evidence [Paras 12-14].

Last Seen Theory – Burden on Accused – Court reiterated that when the accused is last seen with the deceased, it becomes incumbent on the accused to explain the circumstances leading to the victim's death – Failure to provide a plausible explanation strengthens the prosecution's case [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Court found the appellant had adequate motive, failed to explain the incriminating circumstances, and the evidence supported the conclusion of guilt – No reason to interfere with the lower courts' judgments [Para 20].