Extra-Judicial Killings – Allegations – Petitioners alleged 1528 extra-judicial killings in Manipur from May 1979 to May 2012 – Plea for investigation into unlawful executions – Supreme Court considered the need for thorough inquiry into specific cases [Paras 1-4].

Constitutional Protections – Article 21 and Article 32 – Court emphasized the importance of protecting the right to life and personal liberty – Rejected the State's plea to defer the examination to NHRC – Supreme Court to examine the matter directly [Paras 4-5].

Insurgency Context – State’s Response – Acknowledged the grave threat of insurgency in Manipur – Detailed the loss of lives among security forces – Emphasized the need for lawful actions even in conflict situations – Cited earlier judgments cautioning against "administrative liquidation" [Paras 6-11].

Commission of Inquiry – Formation – Supreme Court formed a three-member commission to investigate selected cases of alleged extra-judicial killings – Commission to also review the role of state police and security forces in Manipur [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Petition to be further investigated – Commission to submit a report within twelve weeks – Full cooperation and support directed from Central and State Governments [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Appellants convicted for murder after High Court reversed trial court’s acquittal – Examination of High Court’s power to overturn acquittal – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding the evidence sufficient for conviction [Paras 4-21].

Scope of Appellate Review – Reappreciation of Evidence – High Court’s duty to reassess evidence in appeals against acquittal – Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s thorough review and reliance on key testimonies and medical evidence [Paras 4-9].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability – Testimonies of PWs 1, 4, and 5 corroborated each other and aligned with medical evidence – Court rejected trial court’s dismissal based on witness relationship and minor inconsistencies [Paras 12-15].

Medical Evidence – Post-Mortem Report – Injuries described in the post-mortem report consistent with eyewitness accounts – Court dismissed objections based on undigested food particles and timing discrepancies [Paras 16-17].

Delay in FIR Registration – Explained – Court found no undue delay in FIR registration or its dispatch to the Magistrate – Police Constable’s explanation deemed credible [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Dying Declarations – Appellants convicted for murder and cruelty based on four dying declarations – Court upheld the conviction, finding the declarations consistent and credible – Dying declarations supported by medical evidence and testimonies of relatives [Paras 4-17].

Evidentiary Value – Dying Declarations – Section 32(1) of Evidence Act – Statements made by the deceased about the cause of death admissible – Declarations made by the deceased certified by doctors as conscious and fit to give statements – Court emphasized the reliability of dying declarations [Paras 12-13].

Consistency and Corroboration – Multiple Statements – Deceased consistently implicated mother-in-law and sisters-in-law in all declarations – Minor variations did not undermine the main allegations – Oral evidence and medical reports corroborated the dying declarations [Paras 7-10, 14-17].

Deterrent Punishment – Societal Impact – Court highlighted the need for stringent punishment in cases of bride burning and cruelty to women – Emphasized the importance of deterrent measures to address increasing crimes against women [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence upheld [Para 19].

Representing Advocates:

Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Rajshree Dubey, Naresh Kumar, and Sunil Kumar Verma for the Appellant

Aprajita Singh, Asha Gopalan Nair, and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent.

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty – Appellant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty based on evidence of harassment and physical assault – High Court reversed acquittal by trial court – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the evidence credible and consistent [Paras 4-15].

Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act – Applicability – Presumption of abetment of suicide by husband when suicide occurs within seven years of marriage and wife subjected to cruelty – Appellant failed to rebut this presumption [Paras 6, 15].

Evidence and Corroboration – Medical and Witness Testimonies – Medical evidence confirmed physical injuries consistent with assault – Witnesses, including parents and friends, corroborated the deceased's account of harassment – Court emphasized the credibility of these testimonies despite the delay in FIR [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Sensitivity – Remarks on Domestic Violence – Court criticized trial judge’s insensitivity to domestic violence – Emphasized the need for judicial sensitivity towards women's issues and the impact of domestic violence [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Bail – Appellant involved in unauthorized transportation and possession of explosive substances – Bail denied based on prima facie evidence of serious offences – Supreme Court affirmed High Court's order denying bail [Paras 15-16].

Prima Facie Evidence – Serious Offences – Investigations revealed appellant's involvement in transporting and using unauthorized explosives – Evidence included statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, call records, and financial transactions [Paras 11-14].

Judicial Discretion – Bail in Serious Offences – Court emphasized the need for judicial caution in granting bail in cases involving national security and public safety – Observed the severity of consequences if bail is granted prematurely [Para 15].

Directive for Speedy Trial – Material Witnesses – Directed prosecution to examine material witnesses first – Allowed appellant to reapply for bail post-examination of key witnesses – Ensured observations made do not prejudice trial outcome [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Special leave petition dismissed – Bail denied – Prosecution directed to expedite examination of material witnesses [Paras 15-17].

Evacuee Property – Settlement Agreement – Appellants, tenants of evacuee property, challenged the validity of a unilateral withdrawal from a settlement agreement by the Custodian – Settlement involved surrender of part of the land in exchange for continued possession of the remaining land – Supreme Court upheld the validity of the settlement agreement and set aside the unilateral withdrawal [Paras 1-38].

Applicability of Rule 13-C – Non-Vacant Land – Supreme Court ruled that Rule 13-C of the 2008 Rules did not apply as the land was not vacant – Settlement terms, including surrender of possession, did not violate Rule 13-C requirements [Paras 32-37].

Lawfulness of Settlement – Public Policy – Settlement deemed lawful and not contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act – Agreement validly executed and acted upon by parties – Custodian's withdrawal from the agreement was not justified [Paras 28-37].

Judicial Review – Administrative Fair Play – Declaration of land as evacuee property without hearing tenants violated principles of natural justice – Notification under Section 6 of the 2006 Act vitiated for lack of procedural fairness [Para 34].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Settlement agreement upheld – High Court directed to proceed with acceptance of the settlement and adjustment of rights accordingly [Paras 37-39].

Representing Advocates:

Bhaskar Gupta, Zaffar Ahmad Shah, and Purnima Bhat for the Appellant

Sunil Fernandes, Vernika Tomar, Astha Sharma, and Insha Mir for the Respondent.

Insurance Liability – Goods Vehicle – Appellant insurance company challenged liability to pay compensation for injuries to claimant traveling in goods vehicle – Claimant employed as driver in another vehicle, traveling as spare driver – Supreme Court ruled insurance policy did not cover spare driver in goods vehicle, only primary driver and cleaner were covered [Paras 3-18].

Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act – Section 147 Interpretation – Pre-1994 amendment, insurance not required to cover owner’s representative in goods vehicle – Claimant not covered under policy as he was not engaged in driving vehicle at the time of accident [Paras 11-16].

Article 142 – Equitable Relief – In special circumstances, Supreme Court directed insurance company to pay compensation first and recover from vehicle owner later – Considered claimant’s prolonged suffering and disability [Paras 19-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Insurance company directed to pay compensation to claimant and recover from vehicle owner as per prescribed procedure [Para 25].

Lokayukta Appointment – Consultation Process – Appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta challenged – Appellant contended that Governor acted without aid and advice of Council of Ministers – Supreme Court held that the Governor's actions were in accordance with statutory requirements – Emphasized importance of consultation with Chief Justice, who holds primacy in appointment process [Paras 3-16, 18-21].

Governor's Discretion – Statutory Authority – Court noted that the Governor, while acting as a statutory authority, is not bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers – Differentiated between roles under constitutional and statutory functions – Affirmed Governor's decision based on Chief Justice's recommendation [Paras 17, 23-25, 29-30].

Primacy of Chief Justice's Opinion – Interpretation of "Consultation" – Court upheld that Chief Justice’s recommendation holds primacy in Lokayukta appointments – Clarified that "consultation" means concurrence when statutory provisions grant primacy to Chief Justice – Validated Justice Mehta's appointment [Paras 20-21, 28].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Appointment of Justice R.A. Mehta as Lokayukta upheld – Governor acted within legal framework, following required consultation process [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Conviction Overturning Acquittal - Appellants, acquitted of charges under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, challenged their conviction by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC - High Court convicted appellants, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines - Supreme Court held High Court's actions unsustainable, as revisional powers do not extend to converting acquittals to convictions [Paras 5-8].

Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act, Section 5 - Delay in filing revision applications before High Court - High Court condoned delays without proper justification - Supreme Court found condonation application lacked sufficient cause - High Court's decision to condone delay deemed inappropriate [Paras 6-7].

Evidentiary Matters - Pledged Gold Ornaments - Prosecution's failure to produce register of gold articles pledged - No identification chits on exhibited gold articles - Trial court's acquittal based on lack of evidence to prove pledged articles were fake upheld [Para 7].

Decision: Appeals allowed - High Court's judgments and orders dated 16/11/2010 and 22/3/2011 set aside - Convictions and sentences imposed by High Court annulled.