Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare – Appellant convicted of murder, attempted murder, rape, robbery, and assault – Incident involved brutal murder of an elderly woman and rape of a pregnant woman – High Court confirmed death penalty considering brutality and disregard for life – Supreme Court considered mitigating factors such as appellant’s young age, influence of alcohol, and lack of premeditation – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment​​.

Doctrine of Rehabilitation – Mental State – Appellant’s intoxicated state indicated lack of control over actions – Possibility of reform and rehabilitation considered – Emphasis on judicial discretion and individual case circumstances for determining appropriateness of death penalty​​.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Sentences to run consecutively – Emphasis on the appellant's potential for rehabilitation and lack of similar criminal history​​.

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Sudden and Grave Provocation – Appellant accused of killing his brother with a tobru (small axe) – Incident arose from a quarrel where the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, abused and assaulted their father – High Court upheld conviction under Section 302 IPC – Supreme Court re-evaluated the circumstances, emphasizing the sudden and grave provocation faced by the appellant​​.

Intention to Kill – Provocation – Examination of whether the appellant intended to kill the deceased or acted under provocation – The court found no premeditation or intent to kill – The act was a reaction to the immediate provocation​​.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed​​.

Service Law – Pension – Commutation of Pension – State Government prescribed a new table for the calculation of commutation of pension effective from 31st July 2003 – Respondents, who retired between 31st July 2003 and 30th October 2006, challenged the circular on grounds of discrimination – High Court quashed the circular, restoring the pension in accordance with the revised table issued on 31st October 2006​​.

Classification and Rational Basis – High Court found no rational basis for distinguishing between employees who retired during the specific period and others – Circular dated 29th July 2003 lacked justifiable grounds for adverse classification​​.

Financial Constraints – State Government argued financial constraints and higher rate of interest necessitated the new table – Supreme Court acknowledged financial constraints but emphasized the need for rational and justifiable basis for differential treatment​​.

Remand for Fresh Decision – Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration – Directed High Court to consider additional affidavits and arguments presented​​.

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh decision – High Court directed to consider all arguments, affidavits, and contentions raised by the parties​​.

Kidnapping and Rape – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Appellant accused of luring a minor girl and committing rape – Conviction challenged on grounds of conflict between medical and ocular evidence – Supreme Court held no material contradiction existed – Absence of physical injuries on the victim did not negate the act of rape or the appellant’s culpability – Presence of semen on victim’s and accused’s clothes corroborated the prosecution’s case​​.

Appreciation of Evidence – Testimony of Prosecutrix – Court emphasized the reliability of the prosecutrix’s testimony – Statement corroborated by independent witnesses (PW1 and PW3) – Absence of injuries explained by victim’s lack of resistance due to fear and threat from the accused​​.

Penetration and Rape – Legal Interpretation – Court reiterated that even slight penetration constitutes rape under Section 375 IPC – Hymen’s intactness not conclusive against rape – Tenderness in private parts indicated an attempt to rape​​.

High Court’s Interference with Acquittal – Appellate Review – High Court justified in overturning the Trial Court’s acquittal due to improper appreciation of evidence and failure to consider cumulative effect of evidence – Judgment of acquittal not sustainable​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 363 and 376(2)(f) IPC upheld – High Court’s judgment affirmed​​.

Service Law – Temporary Employment – Lien – Respondent appointed temporarily as Project Director for Child Labour Elimination & Rehabilitation Society without proper advertisement – Appointment and subsequent salary increment were in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution – Respondent joined another post on deputation and was repatriated but not permitted to rejoin the Society – High Court quashed advertisement for new appointment, restoring respondent’s claim​​.

Lien and Abandonment of Service – Legal Definition – Lien connotes the civil right to hold the post substantively – Requires appointment in accordance with law, confirmation, and permanent status – Respondent had no lien as initial appointment was temporary and not in accordance with law – Voluntarily abandoned post by joining another department without permission – No legal right to challenge new advertisement or reclaim the position​​.

Judicial Review – Appellate Intervention – High Court misdirected in addressing irrelevant issues – Decision based on flawed understanding of service law and respondent’s status – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Single Judge orders, allowing the appeal​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court and Single Judge orders set aside – Respondent’s claim to rejoin the post invalidated – No costs​​.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation vs. Reinvestigation – Scope – The Trial Court has jurisdiction to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, but not fresh or de novo investigation once a report under Section 173(2) has been filed – Higher courts can order a fresh investigation if necessary to ensure fair investigation and justice​​.

Legal Framework – Investigating Agencies – Investigating agencies can conduct further investigations even after filing a charge sheet if new evidence emerges – Such further investigation must be filed as a supplementary report and treated in continuation with the initial report – Courts must examine all reports and decide based on cumulative evidence​​.

Judicial Review – Superior Courts – Superior courts can exercise powers under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution to direct further investigation, fresh investigation, or reinvestigation in exceptional cases to ensure a fair process and justice – Such orders should explicitly mention the status of previous investigations and reports​​.

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court's order set aside – Case remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge to proceed based on the CBI's closure report and in accordance with law – Directions provided for the fair evaluation of all investigative reports​​.

Criminal Law – FIR – Multiple FIRs for Same Incident – The court held that there cannot be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or occurrence – Investigating agency has no right to re-examine by registering another FIR for the same offence – A subsequent FIR is permissible only if it relates to distinct and separate incidents, even if the offences are similar or different – Second FIR not permissible for the same incident under Section 154 of the Code​​.

Judicial Review – Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court’s power to set aside Magistrate’s order – High Court’s order directing the registration of FIR and investigation was beyond its revisional jurisdiction – The Magistrate had not committed any jurisdictional error in refusing to register a second FIR​​.

Right to Hearing – Accused’s Rights Pre-registration of FIR – Suspects do not have the right to a pre-registration hearing of an FIR – The principles of natural justice do not require a hearing at the stage of FIR registration – Legislative intent excludes such a right to ensure proper and fair investigation without the interference of suspects at the initial stage​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Chief Judicial Magistrate’s order restored – No second FIR to be registered for the same incident – Directions for fair investigation to proceed based on the existing FIR​​.

Criminal Law – Acquittal of Co-Accused – Acquittal of a co-accused per se does not result in acquittal of the other accused – Court must screen the entire evidence and does not extend the threat of falsity to universal acquittal – Court must examine prosecution evidence to decide the effect of acquittal of one accused on another​​.

FIR – Multiple FIRs – There cannot be more than one FIR for the same incident – Ex. 1/3 was treated as the FIR and not Ex. 7 (G.D. Entry), which was a cryptic telephone message and not detailed enough to be an FIR under Section 154 CrPC – Second FIR not permissible for the same incident​​.

Delay in FIR – Explanation – Delay in lodging the FIR explained by the distance and effort required to inform the police – Telephonic information did not provide details sufficient for an FIR – Written complaint given upon police arrival treated as the FIR​​.

Witness Testimony – Quantity vs. Quality – The quality of evidence is more important than the quantity – Reliable and cogent evidence from key witnesses (PW1, PW5, PW6) supported by medical and investigative reports established the case beyond reasonable doubt – Non-examination of certain witnesses did not prejudice the case of the prosecution​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Explosives Act upheld – Prosecution evidence found reliable and consistent​​.

Dying Declaration – Sole Basis for Conviction – Court held that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if it is true, reliable, and recorded in accordance with law – In this case, the dying declaration made by Rani, the deceased, was found to be credible and was recorded by the SDJM in the presence of a doctor who certified her fitness to make the statement – The declaration clearly implicated the appellant in pouring kerosene and setting her on fire​​.

Hostile Witnesses – Credibility – Testimony of hostile witnesses cannot be completely disregarded – Portions of their statements that support the prosecution case can still be considered – In this case, although key witnesses (PW1, PW3, PW4) were declared hostile, their statements partially corroborated the dying declaration and other evidence​​.

Evidence Evaluation – Injuries on Accused – The defense argued that the appellant sustained injuries while attempting to save the deceased, suggesting his non-involvement in the crime – However, the court found this explanation unconvincing as the dying declaration and other evidence consistently implicated the appellant​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 302, 498A IPC upheld – The dying declaration was found to be truthful and reliable, providing sufficient basis for the conviction​​.