Revenue Law – Adverse Possession – The respondents claimed continuous cultivation and possession of land for over 20 years, seeking Bhumidar rights under Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The SDM dismissed the suit, finding no proof of adverse possession, and stated that non-Tharu tribes could not claim Bhumidar rights on Tharu tribe land [Paras 4-5]​​.

Appeal and Revisional Jurisdiction – The Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue also dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the finding that the land belonged to the Tharu tribe and adverse possession was not established. However, the Board of Revenue allowed the respondents' appeals based on the Lekhpal's admission of possession and overturned the SDM and Additional Commissioner's decisions [Paras 6-8]​​.

Substantial Question of Law – Section 331(4) U.P. Act – The Supreme Court examined whether the Board of Revenue correctly exercised its power under Section 331(4) of the U.P. Act, which requires framing substantial questions of law as per Section 100 CPC. The Board of Revenue failed to frame such questions, making its order legally unsustainable [Paras 12-17]​​.

Legislation by Incorporation vs. Reference – The Court differentiated between legislation by incorporation and reference, stating that Section 331(4) incorporates the unamended Section 100 CPC. Subsequent amendments to Section 100 CPC do not apply, and the Board of Revenue must adhere to the original grounds for second appeals [Paras 17-26]​​.

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The appeals were allowed, and the orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration, directing it to frame and address substantial questions of law as required under the original Section 100 CPC [Paras 27-28]​​.

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Orders of the High Court and Board of Revenue set aside. The matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing the Board to frame substantial questions of law as per the original Section 100 CPC and decide within three months [Paras 28]​​.

Death Reference – Duty of High Court – The High Court must undertake a thorough examination in death reference cases. It is mandated to independently scrutinize the nature and circumstances of the crime, the mens rea, the impact on the victim, and societal repercussions. Merely relying on concessions from counsel or showing undue leniency undermines justice [Paras 8-12]​​.

Conviction and Sentencing – Review Standards – The High Court’s role in reviewing death sentences under Section 366 CrPC involves a detailed analysis, ensuring the ultimate decision reflects the gravity of the offense and serves as a deterrent. The High Court's casual commutation of the death sentence based on the counsel's request for leniency and lack of opposition from the Public Prosecutor was inappropriate [Paras 13-15]​​.

Medical Evidence and Eyewitness Testimonies – The trial court had relied on extensive medical evidence and testimonies indicating severe injuries, consistent with strangulation and attempted sexual assault. These findings were crucial in establishing the guilt and intent of the appellant [Paras 5-7]​​.

Remand for Proper Consideration – The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive review and set aside the High Court’s decision. The case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing it to address all relevant factors and ensure a decision that upholds judicial integrity and public confidence [Paras 17-19]​​.

Decision:

Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment was set aside. The matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on the reference under Section 366 CrPC, ensuring a thorough and lawful examination. The High Court was directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude within three months from receipt of the records [Paras 19]​​.

Eyewitness and Medical Evidence – Consistency – The conviction of the appellant was based on the consistent and credible testimonies of eyewitnesses, corroborated by medical evidence. The post-mortem report confirmed the nature and location of injuries consistent with the assault described by witnesses [Paras 5-7, 11]​​.

Inconsistency Between Evidence Types – The court held that unless oral evidence is entirely irreconcilable with medical evidence, the former holds primacy. Only when medical evidence entirely rules out the possibility of the oral testimony being true should the latter be disbelieved [Para 5]​​.

Prosecution's Narrative – The court upheld the prosecution's narrative that the appellant, along with co-accused, inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased following a verbal altercation. The assault resulted in injuries leading to death from hemorrhage and shock due to damage to vital organs [Paras 2, 6-7]​​.

Motive and Direct Evidence – The absence of a clear motive does not diminish the credibility of direct eyewitness testimony. The court reiterated that direct evidence outweighs the absence of a motive, especially when the testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical findings [Para 9-11]​​.

Defective Investigation – The court noted that defects in the investigation, such as not producing certain statements, did not vitiate the trial as the overall evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The investigation's shortcomings did not create reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt [Para 18]​​.

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – The appellant's participation in the crime, along with co-accused, indicated a common intention to commit the murder, justifying the application of Section 34 IPC even if not explicitly charged. The lack of a specific charge under Section 34 did not prejudice the appellant's defense [Para 17]​​.

Procedural Irregularities – Section 464/465 CrPC – Procedural defects in framing charges do not automatically invalidate a conviction unless they cause real prejudice to the accused. The appellant was fully aware of the charges and had the opportunity to defend himself adequately [Para 14-15]​​.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding inconsistencies between medical and eyewitness evidence, procedural defects, or investigation flaws [Paras 19]​​.

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech vs. Fair Trial – The Supreme Court examines the necessity of postponement orders to balance the right to a free press with the right to a fair trial. The judgment underlines the court's inherent powers under Articles 129 and 215 to issue such orders to prevent substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice [Paras 1-47] .

Contempt of Court – Reporting Restrictions – The Court clarifies that while freedom of expression is a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to ensure the administration of justice is not perverted or prejudiced. The issuance of postponement orders does not violate Article 19(1)(a) but serves as a neutralizing device to balance conflicting rights [Paras 34-45] .

Guidelines for Media Reporting – The Court stresses that guidelines for media reporting on sub judice matters should be self-regulatory or advisory rather than coercive. The court restates the law under Article 141 on balancing Article 19(1)(a) rights vis-à-vis Article 21 and the scope of Article 19(2) in the context of the law regulating contempt of court [Paras 17-19, 45-47] .

Decision – The Supreme Court disposes of the IAs filed by Sahara and SEBI, providing clarity on the constitutional limitations on free speech in the context of Article 21. The Court does not express opinions on the merits of other IAs seeking relief based on excessive media publicity [Paras 15-16, 46-47] .

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the CrPC. The court must verify the averments in the complaint to determine if an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act is prima facie made out. If the complaint includes specific allegations of insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by mentioning caste, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. The petitioners in this case are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC [Paras 6-12].

Application of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act – The SC/ST Act's Section 18 explicitly prohibits the application of Section 438 of the CrPC in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The court must ensure that the complaint contains prima facie evidence of such offences before denying anticipatory bail [Paras 7-9].

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, stating that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is applicable, and the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. The trial court is free to decide the case on its merits [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Appreciation of Evidence – There is no legal bar on examining family members as witnesses. If their testimony is credible, reliable, trustworthy, and corroborated by other witnesses, the court cannot reject such evidence merely because the witness is a family member or known to the parties involved [Paras 13-15].

Reversal of Acquittal – The High Court is entitled to re-appreciate evidence and come to an independent conclusion in appeals against acquittal. The appellate court should interfere only if the trial court’s decision is perverse or unreasonable, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court correctly reversed the trial court’s acquittal in this case [Paras 8-10].

Delayed Disposal of Appeal – The appellant argued for exoneration due to the High Court’s delay in disposing of the appeal. The Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that the Limitation Act does not apply to criminal proceedings unless explicitly stated. The delay does not negate the gravity of the crime or the evidence against the appellant [Paras 17-18].

Evidentiary Value of Related Witnesses – The Supreme Court upheld the reliability of the testimonies of related witnesses in this case. Despite their relationships with the deceased, their statements were found credible and consistent under cross-examination [Paras 13-15].

Common Object – Sections 302/149 IPC – The incident involved a coordinated attack resulting in the deaths of five persons and injuries to one. The evidence supported the finding that the accused shared a common object, justifying their convictions under Section 149 IPC [Paras 2-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed. The High Court’s judgment was upheld, and the appellant’s conviction was found to be supported by credible evidence and lawful procedures [Para 19].

Central Excise – Classification of Goods – The issue in this appeal is whether the components manufactured by the appellant should be taxed as 'Parts of Television Receivers' (Tariff Entry 8529) or as 'Television Receivers' (Tariff Entry 8528). The Court held that goods temporarily assembled and fully functional as television sets before disassembly should be classified as 'Television Receivers' under Tariff Entry 8528 [Paras 2-4, 24-25].

Rules for Interpretation – Application – The Court emphasized that for legal purposes, classification should be determined according to the terms of the headings and relevant Section or Chapter Notes. Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation applies to goods presented unassembled or disassembled, and the goods of the appellant had the essential character of complete television receivers [Paras 8, 19-20, 30].

Section Notes vs. Interpretative Rules – The Court noted that the Section Notes and Chapter Notes take precedence over the Interpretative Rules. Section Note 2 to Section XVI specifies that parts of goods should be classified in their respective headings, but the appellant’s goods were not considered parts due to their identifiable nature as complete television sets before disassembly [Paras 21-23, 27-28].

Decision – The appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal did not err in classifying the appellant’s goods as 'Television Receivers' under Tariff Entry 8528, even though they were transported in a disassembled state. The Court rejected the appellant's claim of double taxation, stating that input tax credit could be availed at the satellite units [Paras 31-32].

Civil Procedure – Order 2 Rule 2 – Bar on Subsequent Suits – The provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC are intended to prevent multiple suits based on the same cause of action. When a plaintiff omits to claim a relief that could have been claimed in an earlier suit, they cannot subsequently claim that relief without having obtained leave of the court [Paras 9-10].

Cause of Action – Identity in Subsequent Suits – For Order 2 Rule 2(2) and (3) to apply, the cause of action in the subsequent suit must be the same as in the first suit. The cause of action includes every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to succeed in the suit. In this case, the foundation for both the reliefs of injunction and specific performance was based on the agreements dated 27.07.2005 [Paras 11-12].

Premature Suits – A suit claiming relief to which the plaintiff may become entitled at a subsequent point in time cannot per se be dismissed as premature. The plaintiff is not required to wait until the expiry of the due date for performance if the defendant has made their intentions clear through overt acts [Paras 15].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature – The learned Single Judge of the High Court was bound by the earlier Division Bench decision of the same court. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the view that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC applies only when the first suit is disposed of. The rule seeks to avoid multiplicity of litigation on the same cause of action, applying even when the second suit is filed during the pendency of the first suit [Paras 16].

Decision – The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order dated 6.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Madras were set aside. The plaints in O.S. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2007 were struck off [Para 17].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – The appellant, facing allegations of forgery and cheating, sought anticipatory bail, which was rejected by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to uncover all material information and documents related to the alleged offences [Paras 5-6, 12].

Forgery and Cheating – Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC – The appellant was accused of forging documents and submitting false information to obtain permissions from educational authorities. The Court highlighted the seriousness of these allegations and the necessity of custodial interrogation for a thorough investigation [Paras 8-9].

Custodial Interrogation – Justification – The Court reasoned that custodial interrogation was essential to secure possession of potentially forged documents and to investigate the appellant's alleged false representations to public authorities [Paras 12-13].

Interim Protection – Misuse Allegations – The respondents alleged that the appellant misused interim protection granted by the Court, hindering the investigation and intimidating witnesses. This further justified the need for custodial interrogation [Para 13].

Decision – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, vacated the interim protection, and granted the appellant two weeks to surrender and seek regular bail. The trial court was directed to decide on the regular bail application independently of the observations made regarding the anticipatory bail [Paras 14-15].

Representing Advocates:

For Appellant: Mukul Rohtagi, Ranjit Kumar, Krishnan Venugopal, V. Prakash, Vineet Naik, Sukand Kulkarni, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Brij Kishor Sah, Anish R. Shah

For Respondents: Chinmoy Khaldkar, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair, Prashant Bhushan