Right to Life – High Court's Jurisdiction – The High Courts possess wide powers and authority to protect and safeguard constitutional rights within their jurisdiction – Petitioner's action of withdrawing proceedings from the High Court and approaching the Supreme Court is disapproved – Supreme Court directs the High Court to restore the withdrawn writ petition and proceed in accordance with law [Paras 5-6]​​.

Petition Under Article 32 – The petition under Article 32 is refused for being filed improperly after withdrawal of the writ petition from the High Court – The petitioner should have pursued the matter effectively before the High Court, which has the same authority as the Supreme Court in such matters [Paras 3-4]​​.

Allegations and Protection – Although allegations in the writ petition do not appear baseless, the Supreme Court cannot entertain the petition due to procedural impropriety – High Court requested to restore the case and ensure protection if warranted [Paras 6-8]​​.

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the High Court to restore CWP No. 21234/2011 to its original file and proceed in accordance with law – Supreme Court refrains from commenting on the merits of the case [Paras 8]​​.

Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction can be sustained if the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn are fully established, are consistent with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every hypothesis except that of guilt – The chain of evidence must be complete and lead to the conclusion that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 5-6]​​.

Murder and Dowry Death – Sections 302, 304B IPC – The prosecution established that the deceased was ill-treated for dowry, and her death was due to drowning with her hands and legs tied with a saree border – The appellants failed to provide any explanation for the incriminating circumstances, leading to their conviction [Paras 7-14]​​.

Presumption Under Section 106 Evidence Act – When the prosecution proves facts from which a reasonable inference of guilt can be drawn, and the facts are within the special knowledge of the accused, the burden shifts to the accused to provide an explanation – Failure to do so supports the inference of guilt [Paras 19-20]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court and High Court upheld – The prosecution's evidence was consistent and conclusive, proving the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 21]​​.

Criminal Law – Murder and Disposal of Body – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of his wife and disposal of her body. The appellant's absconding did not conclusively prove guilt but added to the circumstantial evidence against him. Recovery of blood-stained items from the appellant's room and car, and the inability to explain incriminating circumstances, supported the conviction [Paras 14, 28-33].

Admissibility of Statements and Recoveries – Section 27 Evidence Act – Statements made by the accused leading to the discovery of incriminating material are admissible. Even if the blood group could not be determined due to disintegration, the presence of human blood supports the prosecution's case [Paras 25, 27, 29-33].

Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – It is obligatory for the accused to provide an explanation for incriminating circumstances during examination under Section 313 CrPC. Failure to explain or providing false answers can complete the chain of circumstantial evidence [Paras 37-38].

Fair Investigation – The appellant alleged unfair investigation and planted evidence. However, the consistent recovery of blood-stained items and the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation affirmed the validity of the investigation [Paras 3-4, 12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant to serve life imprisonment and pay fines as per the trial court's decision. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, with the chain of circumstantial evidence deemed complete and conclusive [Paras 40].

Dismissal of Teacher – Compliance with Statutory Provisions – The appellant school failed to comply with Section 40B of the Bombay Primary Education (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1986, which mandates serving a show-cause notice and obtaining approval from the competent authority before dismissing a teacher. The teacher's dismissal was found to be in contravention of the statutory provisions [Paras 6-7].

Qualifications for Primary School Teachers – The appellant contended that the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification of a Primary Teachers Certificate (PTC) as required under Clause (6) of Schedule F of the Act. However, the respondent argued that his qualifications (B.Sc., B.Ed.) were advertised and accepted at the time of appointment, and similar qualifications were held by other teachers who were not dismissed [Paras 3-4, 19].

Benefit of Own Wrong – The school cannot take advantage of its own mistakes, and the principle "commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet" (no one should profit from their own wrong) applies. The case highlighted that the teacher was being victimized for raising concerns about exploitation [Paras 21-22].

Importance of Elementary Education – The court emphasized the constitutional obligation to provide quality elementary education, recognizing its foundational role in achieving social justice, equality, and democracy. The decision reinforced the necessity of employing qualified teachers to ensure the quality of education [Paras 10-14, 16-17].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court directing reinstatement and back wages for the respondent were upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's contentions and highlighted the procedural violations and issues of discrimination and victimization [Paras 23-24].

Service Law – Appointment – Relaxation of Eligibility Criteria – Relaxation of eligibility criteria for appointment is within the powers of the legislature or executive, not the judiciary. Compassionate appointments must be made strictly as per the rules and eligibility criteria set by the authorities [Paras 8-13]​​.

Compassionate Appointment – The respondent's application for compassionate appointment was initially rejected due to adequate financial status and lack of requisite educational qualifications. Reconsideration was ordered by a higher authority but ultimately rejected as the respondent did not meet the minimum eligibility of having passed the 10th standard [Paras 2-4, 12-14]​​.

Judicial Review – Eligibility Criteria – Fixing eligibility criteria falls within the exclusive domain of the executive or legislature. The judiciary cannot interfere unless the criteria are arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrelevant to the objectives sought to be achieved. Courts should not issue directions to relax eligibility criteria or make appointments that contravene statutory provisions [Paras 7-9]​​.

Financial Condition and Educational Qualifications – The respondent did not meet the financial hardship requirement or the educational qualification for the post of Peon (Class IV). Compassionate appointment requires strict adherence to the set eligibility criteria to ensure fairness and adherence to constitutional provisions of equality [Paras 10-11]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – High Court's direction to consider the respondent's application for compassionate appointment without regard to the amended rules was set aside. The court emphasized the need to adhere to established eligibility criteria and rules for compassionate appointments [Paras 14-16]​​.

Dowry Death – Conviction Under Section 304B IPC – The death of the deceased occurred within seven months of marriage due to consumption of poison in her matrimonial home. Evidence established a consistent pattern of cruelty and harassment for dowry demands by the appellant and his family. The conviction and sentence under Sections 304B and 498A IPC were affirmed, demonstrating the live and proximate link between the cruelty and the death [Paras 8-15]​​.

Presumption Under Section 113B Evidence Act – The prosecution established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment soon before her death. The court relied on the mandatory presumption of dowry death under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, requiring the accused to disprove the presumption, which they failed to do [Para 7]​​.

Evidence of Witnesses – Testimonies from the deceased’s family members consistently supported the claims of dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that the evidence of close relatives is crucial in cases of matrimonial death, and the absence of outsider testimony does not diminish the credibility of the prosecution's case [Paras 9-13]​​.

Sentence – Minimum Punishment – The court noted that Section 304B IPC prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment. Given the established facts and the statutory mandate, the court refused to reduce the sentence despite the appellant's young age and other mitigating factors [Para 17]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court and High Court upheld. The evidence supported the charges under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, and the statutory minimum sentence of seven years was affirmed [Paras 18]​​.

Constitutional Law – Right to Information – The provisions under Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding the eligibility criteria for the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners are challenged for being vague and not specifying any qualifications, which allegedly leads to arbitrariness and lack of judicial expertise in these roles [Paras 5-6]​​.

Legislative Competence and Judicial Review – The Act of 2005 falls within the legislative competence of the Indian Parliament and does not inherently violate the constitutional provisions. The Court emphasized the principle of presumption of constitutionality in favor of legislation and the judiciary's reluctance to declare laws unconstitutional unless they are found to be grossly violative of constitutional mandates [Paras 45-47]​​.

Eligibility Criteria – Persons of Eminence – Sections 12(5) and 15(5) prescribe that Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners should be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in specified fields. The Court interpreted this to imply that knowledge and experience in these fields would typically presuppose certain basic qualifications, ensuring the appointments are not arbitrary [Paras 42-48]​​.

Disqualification Criteria – Sections 12(6) and 15(6) specify disqualifications, such as holding any office of profit, being a member of a political party, or carrying on any business. The Court noted the vagueness and potential arbitrariness of these provisions but chose to read them down, interpreting them as applicable post-appointment to avoid rendering them unconstitutional [Paras 49-53]​​.

Judicial Interpretation and Reading Down – The Court preferred to interpret and read down the provisions of the Act to maintain their constitutionality. It emphasized the need for practical implementation and clarified that the disqualifications under Sections 12(6) and 15(6) should apply only post-appointment, ensuring the selected individuals cease any disqualifying activities upon their appointment [Paras 53-54]​​.

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with directions to interpret the provisions of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in a manner that ensures their constitutionality. Disqualifications under Sections 12(6) and 15(6) to be applied post-appointment, and necessary qualifications implied under Sections 12(5) and 15(5) to ensure appointments are not arbitrary or discriminatory [Paras 58-60]​​.

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – The Court emphasized that the determination of juvenility must be conducted in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. The inquiry should rely on documents such as matriculation certificates, school records, and birth certificates. Medical opinions should be considered only if these documents are unavailable [Paras 26-27]​​.

Scope of Inquiry – Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules – The Court reiterated that the inquiry under Rule 12 is not an investigation or trial under the Criminal Procedure Code but a specific inquiry under the Juvenile Justice Act. The evidence considered should be primarily documentary, and oral testimony should be limited to exceptional cases [Paras 27-28]​​.

Presumption of Age – Section 49 of the Act – The age determined by the inquiry conducted as per Rule 12 should be considered conclusive. This presumption ensures that the juvenile's age is accurately and fairly determined without unnecessary delays or complications [Paras 35-36]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The Court set aside the orders of the lower courts which dismissed the appellant's claim of juvenility. The Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to determine the appropriate sentence considering the appellant's age and the time already served. The appellant was found to be a juvenile at the time of the offense [Paras 47-48]​​.

Revisional and Inherent Jurisdiction – The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited and should be exercised only on questions of law or perverse findings. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly and with caution to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice [Paras 8-15]​​.

Quashing of Charges – The High Court quashed the charge under Section 306 IPC on the grounds that the ingredients of the offense were not made out based on the suicide note and witness statements. The Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges, the Court is not to meticulously judge the veracity of the evidence but to see if there is a strong suspicion that the accused committed the offense [Paras 10-11]​​.

Presumption of Guilt – For framing charges under Section 228 CrPC, a tentative view that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offense is sufficient. The standard is not as high as required for conviction and the material on record should be examined to see if it can sustain the charge [Paras 11-12]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The order of the High Court quashing the charge under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed with the trial for offenses under Sections 306 read with 107 and 448 IPC, based on the presumption of guilt at the stage of framing charges [Paras 28]​​.