Civil Law – Decree Obtained by Fraud – Appellant claimed that the decree in question was obtained through fraud – The Supreme Court found that the lower courts failed to properly scrutinize the circumstances under which the decree was passed, highlighting procedural lapses and lack of proper examination of evidence – Emphasized that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law [Paras 1-26].

Family Settlement – Validity and Bona Fides – The Court scrutinized the so-called family settlement, determining it to be non-bona fide – The settlement was deemed illogical as it purported to divest the appellant of her entire property without any consideration – The Court highlighted the necessity of a genuine family arrangement for it to be considered valid [Paras 13-18].

Procedural Irregularities – Examination of Parties – The Court noted that the written statement was filed, and statements were recorded on the same day the suit was instituted, raising serious doubts about the procedural propriety – Cited the requirement of ascertaining allegations in pleadings during the first hearing as per Order X Rule 1 CPC, which was not adhered to [Paras 12-13].

Fraud in Legal Proceedings – The Court underscored the principle that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and that a decree obtained by fraud can be challenged at any stage, even in collateral proceedings – Referred to multiple precedents affirming that judgments and decrees based on fraud are nullities [Paras 19-24].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the High Court and the lower courts set aside – Decree dated 27.11.1973 declared null and void – No order as to costs [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Appellant convicted under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC for the dowry death of his wife – High Court overturned trial court's acquittal – Supreme Court reversed High Court's decision, citing insufficient evidence of dowry demand and material inconsistencies in witness testimonies – The prosecution failed to establish a clear nexus between the demand for money and the marriage, rendering the dowry demand unproven [Paras 1-16].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – Reliability questioned due to significant discrepancies – Key witness testimonies (PW.1, PW.2, PW.3) regarding dowry demand not corroborated by their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC – Supreme Court criticized the High Court for overlooking these inconsistencies and for not properly assessing the credibility of the witnesses [Paras 6-12].

Medical Evidence – Forensic Analysis – Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report contradicted the prosecution's claim of death by poison ingestion – No common metallic poison detected in the collected ashes and bones – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering forensic evidence, which supported the defense’s claim of natural death [Paras 14-16].

Section 304-B IPC – Application and Scope – Court analyzed the application of Section 304-B IPC and found it inapplicable due to lack of substantive evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment immediately before death – Highlighted the necessity of proving all elements of Section 304-B beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges due to benefit of doubt and lack of conclusive evidence – Supreme Court stressed the presumption of innocence and the need for compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Appellant initially acquitted by trial court for rape and murder of a minor girl – High Court reversed acquittal, convicting appellant under Sections 302 and 376 IPC based on last seen evidence, extra-judicial confession, and forensic reports – Supreme Court upheld High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of separating credible evidence from minor discrepancies [Paras 1-27].

Last Seen Evidence – Reliability – High Court relied on testimonies placing the appellant as last seen with the victim – Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in defense witnesses and affirmed that proximity in time between the appellant being last seen with the victim and the discovery of the crime was critical [Paras 15-17].

Forensic Evidence – Support for Conviction – Post-mortem and forensic reports corroborated the prosecution’s case of sexual assault and murder – Blood and semen found on recovered items linked to the appellant – Supreme Court stressed the significance of scientific evidence in confirming the appellant’s involvement [Paras 6-18].

Hostile Witnesses – Evaluating Testimony – Supreme Court reiterated that the testimony of hostile witnesses should not be entirely disregarded – Relevant and credible portions of their statements can still be considered, aligning with previous rulings on the admissibility of such evidence [Paras 18-19].

Minor Discrepancies – Impact on Verdict – Supreme Court cautioned against giving undue importance to minor discrepancies which do not undermine the core prosecution case – Emphasized the duty of courts to extract truth despite minor contradictions in witness testimonies [Paras 20-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentences for both charges affirmed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s acquittal, citing comprehensive re-evaluation of evidence and legal principles [Paras 27].

Administrative Law – Rule Making Power – The Supreme Court scrutinized the rule-making power of the Central Government under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, emphasizing that rules must conform to the enabling Act and not expand beyond its scope – Declared the first and second proviso to Rule 5 of the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange Rules, 2000 as ultra vires the Act [Paras 8-13].

Judicial Appointments – Qualifications and Tenure – Section 21 of the Act requires Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal to have specific qualifications – Supreme Court reiterated that qualifications for judicial positions must align with constitutional provisions and statutory requirements, rejecting the concept of part-time members introduced by the impugned rule [Paras 9-11, 27-28].

Ultra Vires Doctrine – Consistency with Parent Statute – The introduction of part-time members through subordinate legislation was found inconsistent with the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Supreme Court underscored that any rule inconsistent with the parent statute is void [Paras 14-17, 28-29].

Appointment Validity – Actions of De Facto Officers – Supreme Court clarified that orders and judgments passed by the Appellate Tribunal, despite being chaired by unqualified individuals, remain valid – This decision aimed to uphold the larger interest of justice and avoid administrative chaos [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Provisions introducing part-time members declared ultra vires – Appointments of Respondents quashed – Orders and judgments previously passed by unqualified Chairpersons or Members upheld as valid to maintain judicial consistency and avoid nullification of past decisions [Paras 21, 28-36].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal by High Court – The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the respondent for the murder of Kaku Singh – The evidence provided by the deaf and dumb wife of the deceased was deemed unreliable due to procedural issues and the interested nature of the interpreter, her father [Paras 1-25].

Competent Witness – Deaf and Dumb Persons – The Supreme Court elaborated on the admissibility and credibility of testimony given by deaf and dumb persons – Emphasized that such witnesses can be competent if their testimony is properly recorded through writing or with the aid of a non-interested interpreter – Highlighted the necessity of following proper procedures to ensure the reliability of such evidence [Paras 16-21].

Oaths and Affirmations – Importance in Credibility – Although the absence of an oath does not invalidate evidence, it affects its credibility – In the present case, neither the witness nor the interpreter was administered an oath, impacting the trustworthiness of their testimonies [Paras 16-23].

Evaluation of Evidence – Major Contradictions – The Court noted significant discrepancies between the medical evidence and the statements of key witnesses – Highlighted that the medical reports did not support claims of intoxication and that the forensic evidence did not link the murder weapon to the crime, leading to the acquittal [Paras 15-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision to acquit the respondent affirmed – Supreme Court found no compelling reason to overturn the acquittal, citing procedural inadequacies and the unreliability of evidence provided by the sole eyewitness [Paras 23-25].

Criminal Law – Reduction of Sentences – High Court reduced sentences of the respondent convicted of rape and conspiracy to commit rape from seven years to five years and eleven months, respectively – Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to provide adequate and special reasons for such reduction, as required under Section 376 IPC – Restored original sentences imposed by the trial court [Paras 1-23].

Mandatory Minimum Sentences – Requirement of Adequate and Special Reasons – Supreme Court emphasized the statutory requirement to record adequate and special reasons when imposing a sentence lesser than the minimum prescribed – Highlighted the importance of maintaining the legislative intent behind mandatory minimum sentences in cases of serious offenses like rape [Paras 7-20].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise and Limits – Supreme Court reiterated that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine or casual manner – Exceptional reasons must be explicitly stated to justify any deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence [Paras 8-9, 15-19].

Conduct and Gravity of Offense – Considerations for Sentencing – Supreme Court underscored the necessity to consider the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the impact on the victim when determining the appropriate sentence – Rejected socio-economic factors as irrelevant in deciding the quantum of punishment [Paras 13-14, 18-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Sentences reduced by the High Court were set aside – Original sentences of seven years rigorous imprisonment for both accused restored – Respondents directed to surrender to custody to serve the remaining part of their sentences [Paras 21-23].

Preventive Detention – Legality and Justification – Supreme Court emphasized that preventive detention of a person already in custody requires compelling reasons and cogent material indicating a real possibility of release on bail and subsequent engagement in prejudicial activities – The Court found the detention order of the appellant’s son lacked such material, rendering it unsustainable [Paras 9-14].

Personal Liberty – Fundamental Rights – The Court reiterated the sacrosanct nature of personal liberty under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, cautioning against its infringement without due process – Highlighted the necessity for state authorities to strictly adhere to legal procedures in cases of preventive detention [Paras 4-5].

Bail and Detention Orders – Requirement for Specificity – Merely citing the possibility of bail without evidence of a co-accused being granted bail in the same case is insufficient – The Court criticized the detaining authority for relying on general instances of bail in similar cases, emphasizing the need for concrete and specific grounds [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Detention order dated June 30, 2011, quashed – Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court, highlighting procedural inadequacies and lack of specific grounds for detention [Paras 14-15].

Judicial Conduct – Use of Temperate Language – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of restraint, sobriety, and judicial decorum when making observations about the conduct of subordinate judicial officers – The remarks made by the High Court were deemed unwarranted and were expunged to maintain the dignity and credibility of the judicial system [Paras 9-21].

Subordinate Judiciary – Protection and Guidance – The Court reiterated that the High Court, under Article 235 of the Constitution, has a constitutional obligation to protect and guide subordinate judicial officers, ensuring their actions are corrected without damaging their reputation or the public’s faith in the judicial system [Paras 11-19].

Corrective Measures – Administrative vs. Judicial – The decision highlighted the need for superior courts to take corrective measures on the administrative side rather than through harsh judicial comments, which can cause irreparable harm to a judicial officer’s career and public perception of the judiciary [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Remarks and directions made by the High Court against the appellant were expunged – If the remarks had been entered into the judicial officer's confidential records, they were ordered to be removed – The decision aimed to uphold the respect and credibility of the judicial system while correcting procedural errors [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 324, 326, 34, and 452 IPC, emphasizing that the common intention of the accused persons was proved through consistent witness testimonies and corroborative evidence – The appellant’s active participation and the coordinated attack with co-accused demonstrated shared common intention [Paras 32-37].

Evidence – Witness Testimony – The Court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible and reliable, noting that minor discrepancies did not undermine the core prosecution case – Eyewitnesses were deemed natural witnesses, and their consistent accounts were supported by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 19-30].

Explanation of Injuries – The Court rejected the defense argument regarding unexplained injuries on the accused, stating that the injuries were superficial and did not affect the prosecution’s overall case, which was based on substantial and credible evidence [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences for the appellant under the relevant sections of IPC affirmed – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and supported the trial and High Court’s findings [Paras 38].