Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Validity – Review petition challenging the summoning order issued by the Magistrate – Summons issued to Nupur Talwar and her husband for the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj – Allegations of improper evaluation of evidence by the Magistrate [Paras 1-24].

Review Petition – Grounds – Petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to consider alternative inferences and overlooked material facts – Supreme Court evaluated whether the Magistrate's order was based on sufficient grounds for proceeding [Paras 15-17].

Procedure – Recording Reasons – Supreme Court upheld the necessity for the Magistrate to record reasons for issuing summons – Magistrate's detailed reasoning, though lengthy, justified in the context of rejecting the CBI's closure report and summoning the complainant as an accused [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Summoning order upheld – Supreme Court found no error in the Magistrate’s reasoning and detailed order – The matter to proceed to trial based on the material collected during investigation [Para 24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder and Attempted Rape – Appellant Jugendra Singh convicted for attempting to rape and subsequently murdering a nine-year-old girl – Trial court acquitted the appellant due to perceived inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence – High Court reversed acquittal, emphasizing the strength of prosecution evidence and logical inferences – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, confirming the conviction [Paras 1-40].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Trial court noted discrepancies in witness statements and medical evidence, leading to acquittal – High Court and Supreme Court found the trial court's focus on minor inconsistencies misplaced – Emphasized the overall credibility of witnesses and the logical coherence of their accounts [Paras 11-33].

Medical Evidence – Consistency with Prosecution Case – Medical report confirmed cause of death as asphyxia due to throttling, supporting witness testimonies – Supreme Court criticized trial court for misinterpreting medical evidence and ignoring logical conclusions drawn by the High Court [Paras 28-31].

Appellate Review – Reversing Acquittal – Supreme Court discussed principles for reversing acquittals, emphasizing appellate court's power to re-evaluate evidence and correct perverse findings – Highlighted need for comprehensive analysis and logical conclusions in cases of serious crimes [Paras 17-26].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Supreme Court recognized the societal impact of the crime and supported the High Court’s decision to impose a stringent sentence, underscoring the need to address heinous crimes against children decisively [Paras 38-40].

Constitutional Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Competence of Authority – Charge memo issued to respondent by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority – Tribunal and High Court quashed the charge memo on the ground of incompetence – Supreme Court upheld quashing due to lack of proper delegation and passage of time, leaving the legal question open [Paras 1-18].

Article 311 – Initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court reaffirmed that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority, provided proper authorization exists – Emphasized that dismissal or removal must be by the appointing authority or an authority not below it [Paras 4-8].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Supreme Court noted significant delay in the case, with over two decades passing since the alleged misconduct – Recognized practical difficulties in proceeding with the inquiry after such a long period, including potential unavailability of evidence [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal disposed of – Supreme Court declined to proceed on merits due to the lapse of time and absence of necessary authorization for the charge memo – No costs awarded [Para 18].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellant convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Trial court and High Court found the appellant guilty based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-18].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellant’s explanations were found insufficient [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Discretion under Article 142 – Supreme Court declined to exercise discretion under Article 142 to reduce the sentence – Noted that reducing the sentence would contradict the legislative intent of imposing minimum sentences for corruption offenses – Emphasized the need for stringent measures to curb corruption [Paras 19-23].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court affirmed the minimum sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court – Declined to reduce the sentence despite mitigating factors [Paras 23-24].

Criminal Law – Rape Conviction – Appellant convicted for rape – Trial court and High Court heavily relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix – Supreme Court found material contradictions and embellishments in prosecutrix’s testimony – Noted failure to consider defense evidence properly – Conviction set aside due to benefit of doubt [Paras 1-25].

Witness Testimony – Credibility and Inconsistencies – Supreme Court noted significant contradictions in the prosecutrix's testimony, including discrepancies between her statements to police and in court – Highlighted the importance of consistent and reliable witness testimony in criminal cases [Paras 7-15].

Medical Evidence – Limited Support – Medical evidence indicated the possibility of rape but was inconclusive – Supreme Court emphasized that medical evidence must corroborate the prosecutrix’s testimony to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 9-10].

Defense Evidence – Ignored by Lower Courts – Supreme Court criticized the trial court and High Court for ignoring the defense’s evidence and arguments – Emphasized that all evidence must be considered to ensure a fair trial [Paras 6, 12-14].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to the appellant – Directed that bail bonds be discharged [Paras 24-25].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Appellants convicted for demanding and accepting bribe – Concurrent findings by trial court and High Court based on witness testimony and recovery of tainted money – Supreme Court upheld conviction, confirming the demand and acceptance of bribe were proven beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-15].

Section 20 Presumption – Rebuttal of Presumption – Appellants failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act – Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption is obligatory and can be rebutted only by direct or circumstantial evidence – Appellants’ explanations were found insufficient [Paras 8-9].

Necessity of Shadow Witness – Supreme Court noted that while the presence of a shadow witness is desirable, its absence does not vitiate the trap proceedings – Emphasized the reliability of witness testimonies and absence of contradictions [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Convictions upheld – However, considering the long duration since the incident and the appellants’ severe ailments, Supreme Court reduced the sentence to one year [Para 15].

Service Law – Retrospective Seniority and Consequential Benefits – Appellants sought benefits similar to those granted to similarly placed candidates – Tribunal and High Court denied relief due to delay and laches – Supreme Court upheld the decisions, noting the appellants' delayed approach and the principle that seniority claims must be made promptly [Paras 1-31].

Doctrine of Parity – Appellants argued for parity with peers granted retrospective benefits – Supreme Court emphasized that claims must be raised timely and cannot be based on others' outcomes without similar legal actions – Delay and laches were significant factors against the appellants [Paras 17-23].

Necessary Parties – Absence of similarly placed candidates from the proceedings – Supreme Court noted that affected parties must be impleaded to ensure fair adjudication – Non-impleadment of peers who were granted benefits hindered the appellants' claim [Paras 28-30].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' claims for retrospective seniority and benefits – Emphasized timely pursuit of claims and the necessity of including affected parties in the proceedings [Para 31].

Contract Law – Liability of Guarantor – Appellants' predecessor stood guarantor for a loan – Liability of guarantor co-extensive with that of principal debtor – Guarantor’s heirs liable for unpaid amount – Sections 128 and 146 of the Indian Contract Act explained and applied [Paras 5-7].

Auction Sale – Legality and Procedure – Property sold to recover unpaid loan – Supreme Court emphasized the need for proper valuation and fixing of reserve price – Sale of part of the property should suffice to meet the demand – Found material irregularity in auction process where whole property was sold for an amount exceeding the debt [Paras 13-19].

Confirmation of Sale – Setting Aside Auction – Auction sale cannot be set aside unless fundamental procedural error or fraud is demonstrated – Confirmed sale can be challenged if it causes substantial injury or involves misrepresentation [Paras 20-23].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upheld auction due to lack of fundamental procedural errors and delay in raising objections – Allowed appellants to seek recovery of excess amount if not already paid by auctioning authority [Paras 24-30].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Respondent’s application for compassionate appointment rejected as family received terminal benefits exceeding Rs. 3 lakhs – Supreme Court held that appointment on compassionate grounds must adhere to the scheme's terms, which consider the family's financial condition including terminal benefits [Paras 1-16].

Legal Framework – Applicability of Scheme – Office of Comptroller and Auditor General’s Circular stipulates limits on terminal benefits for compassionate appointment eligibility – For Group 'C' posts, if benefits exceed Rs. 3 lakhs, the dependent is ineligible [Para 13].

Case Law – Terminal Benefits Consideration – Supreme Court distinguished between relevant precedents, emphasizing adherence to specific scheme terms over general principles regarding terminal benefits in compassionate appointments [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court set aside High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal orders directing reconsideration of the application – Confirmed rejection of respondent’s application based on the scheme's criteria [Para 16].