Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellants convicted for murder based on oral dying declaration – Deceased named assailants to relatives before succumbing to injuries – Trial court and High Court upheld conviction – Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the dying declaration reliable and trustworthy [Paras 1-22].

Oral Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability – Deceased identified assailants in presence of relatives – Testimonies of witnesses found credible – No contradiction or discrepancy in evidence – Medical evidence supported that deceased could speak before death – Court held oral dying declaration valid and credible [Paras 12-20].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Explained – Immediate report (ezahar) lodged at police station by deceased’s father-in-law – FIR registered promptly after death – Court found no fault in delay considering circumstances [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld [Para 22].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for murder based on eyewitness accounts – Altercation over property ridge led to fatal attack – Trial court and High Court upheld conviction – Supreme Court affirmed conviction, finding eyewitness testimonies reliable and discrepancies insignificant [Paras 1-21].

Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability – Eyewitnesses, brother and sister of deceased, provided consistent and credible accounts – Court dismissed argument that their location at the time prevented witnessing the attack – Medical evidence supported the use of described weapons [Paras 14-17].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Explained – Immediate steps taken by relatives and hospital authorities – No undue delay in FIR registration – Court found no fault in delay considering circumstances [Paras 18-19].

Semi-Digested Food – Time of Death – Appellant argued time of death inconsistent with food in stomach – Court referenced medical principles, concluding digestion time varies and does not undermine prosecution’s case [Paras 20-21].

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

Clarification/Modification Applications – Grounds of Review – Applications filed for clarification/modification of judgment – Alleged suppression of documents by the State of Madhya Pradesh – Court held such applications tantamount to seeking review – Properly constituted review petitions are the remedy [Paras 1-4].

Circumventing Review Process – Practice Deprecated – Attempt to bypass review procedure by filing applications for clarification/modification/recall – Registrar’s decision to lodge applications upheld – Review should follow proper procedural rules under Order XL of Supreme Court Rules [Paras 5-9].

Relevant Case Law – Reference to previous decisions – Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban – Practice of avoiding circulation procedure by filing applications for hearing – Court’s reiteration on proper review process [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Applications dismissed – Clarification/modification requests to follow proper review petition procedures [Para 9].

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.