Criminal Law – Sexual Abuse of Children – The appellants were convicted under various sections of the IPC and the Juvenile Justice Act for sexually abusing and physically assaulting children at the Anchorage Shelters – The Trial Court's conviction was overturned by the High Court, which acquitted the accused – Supreme Court reinstates the conviction and sentences of the accused, highlighting the reliability of the victim testimonies and corroborative evidence presented by social activists and medical professionals – Reiterates the need for stringent action against sexual offences, particularly involving vulnerable children [Paras 1-88]​​ .

Evidence – Witness Testimony – The testimonies of victimized children were found to be credible and consistent despite minor discrepancies – Supreme Court underscores the importance of believing child victims in cases of sexual abuse and dismisses the High Court’s skepticism of the victim testimonies – Emphasizes that the evidence provided by the victims was corroborated by social activists and medical reports [Paras 14-20]​​ .

Legal Principles – Constitutional Provisions for Child Protection – The Court references several constitutional provisions ensuring the protection and welfare of children, stressing the obligation of the state to safeguard children from exploitation and abuse – Highlights the importance of Articles 15(3), 21, 21A, 23, 24, 39, and 45 in providing a framework for child protection [Paras 24-30] .

Decision – Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment and restores the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court – Orders the remaining imprisonment of the accused to be served and directs the payment of compensation as previously decreed [Para 31] .

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – The respondents were initially convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Chatra, but acquitted by the High Court – Supreme Court reinstates the convictions, emphasizing the reliability of the child witness (Rannu Bai, PW.1) and the corroborative medical evidence – The Court held that the High Court had erred in its appreciation of evidence and showed undue sympathy towards the accused [Paras 1-88]​​ .

Evidence – Child Witness Testimony – The testimony of the child witness (Rannu Bai) was found to be credible and consistent, despite minor discrepancies – Supreme Court stresses that the testimony of child witnesses must be evaluated carefully but not disregarded solely on the potential for tutoring – Highlights that the child's evidence was supported by other witness testimonies and medical findings [Paras 6-13]​​ .

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – The post-mortem report and medical evidence indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling, contradicting the defence's claim of death by accidental fall – Supreme Court affirms the Trial Court's reliance on medical evidence to support the prosecution's case [Paras 15-16]​​ .

Legal Principles – Appeal Against Acquittal – Supreme Court reiterates that while appellate courts should be cautious in overturning acquittals, they must do so when the lower court's findings are perverse or against the weight of evidence – Emphasizes the need for the appellate courts to consider the entirety of evidence and not show unwarranted leniency [Paras 14, 31]​​ .

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's judgment and restores the convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court – Orders the immediate custody of the respondents to serve the remaining part of their sentences [Para 32]​​ .

Insurance Claim – Validity of Driving License – Appellant’s bus was involved in an accident and severely damaged – Initial claim amount assessed by surveyors was disputed by the appellant – National Commission set aside lower fora's orders on the ground that the driver did not possess a valid driving license – Supreme Court held the driver possessed a valid license as verified by the licensing authority and upheld the compensation awarded by the State Commission – Interest awarded at 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment​​.

Consumer Protection – Assessment of Compensation – Appellant provided evidence of actual repair costs, which exceeded surveyors' assessments – State Commission’s award of ₹2,72,517 upheld by Supreme Court with interest for delayed payment – Emphasizes that revisional powers should not overturn concurrent findings without jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice​​.

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limits and Exercise – Supreme Court reiterates that National Commission's revisional powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act should be exercised only for jurisdictional errors – Criticizes National Commission for substituting its interpretation of facts without basis​​.

Decision – Appeal allowed – Supreme Court sets aside National Commission’s order, reinstating State Commission's award of ₹2,72,517 with 9% interest per annum from the complaint filing date – Respondent to bear litigation costs of ₹10,000​​.

Employment Law – Concealment of Criminal Case – Respondent’s candidature for Head Constable cancelled due to non-disclosure of involvement in a criminal case, later acquitted – Delhi High Court quashed the cancellation, Supreme Court upheld the decision – Court emphasized youthful indiscretions should not permanently brand individuals as criminals, highlighting reformation over punishment [Paras 1-20].

Principles of Natural Justice – False Statement in Application – Respondent did not disclose previous criminal case fearing disqualification – Supreme Court noted the minor nature of the offence (Section 325/34 IPC) and the subsequent acquittal – Affirmed the need for a lenient approach in cases involving youthful indiscretions [Paras 13-19].

Comparative Jurisprudence – Reference to International and Historical Cases – Court referred to 'Les Miserables' character Jean Valjean and Lord Denning’s judgment in Morris v. Crown Office, emphasizing mercy and reformation [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Court found the cancellation of the respondent’s candidature illegal, advocating for a more lenient and reformative approach towards minor youthful indiscretions [Para 20].

Contract Law – Tender Dispute – Appeal by THDC India Ltd. against the stay order of the High Court of Uttarakhand in a dispute between Voith Hydro GmbH and Alstom over the tender for the Tehri Pump Storage Plant project – Supreme Court emphasized the national interest and the need for a fair and transparent tendering process – Set aside the High Court’s interim order and directed completion of the tendering process [Paras 1-27].

National Interest – Priority Over Contractual Disputes – Court reiterated the importance of the Tehri Pump Storage Plant project for electricity generation and national development – Stressed that national interest outweighs contractual rights and disputes between the companies involved [Paras 2-4, 24].

Fair and Transparent Process – Supreme Court reviewed the tendering process, highlighting the need for transparency and fairness – Directed both parties to comply with the tender conditions and submit fresh price bids – Ensured that the process would not be stalled by legal disputes [Paras 20-24, 26-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Set aside the interim stay order of the High Court – Directed the submission of fresh price bids within three weeks and decision on the contract within three weeks thereafter – Emphasized the need for a transparent and fair process in the national interest [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law – Transfer of Case – Petition by deceased's father seeking transfer of trial from Dehradun due to alleged undue influence by police officials involved in the case – Supreme Court transferred the case to Delhi to ensure fair trial and witness safety – Highlighted the need for impartiality in sensitive cases involving law enforcement officials [Paras 1-7].

Fake Encounter – Allegations of Misconduct – Deceased, an MBA student, allegedly killed in a fake encounter by police, with claims of planted evidence – Respondents included police officials accused of firing multiple bullets at the deceased – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of transferring the case to prevent undue influence and ensure justice [Paras 1-3].

Witness Protection – Ensuring Fair Prosecution – Court noted serious grievances about the prosecution’s conduct and the need for witnesses to testify without fear – Transfer aimed at mitigating the influence of accused police officers on the local judicial process [Para 6].

Decision: Case transferred from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Dehradun to the Court of Special Judge, CBI Delhi – Ensured trial in a neutral environment to maintain justice and fairness in the judicial process [Para 7].

Criminal Law – Bail Reversal – Appeal against the High Court’s orders granting bail to police officials accused of killing Ranbir Singh in a fake encounter – Supreme Court noted the serious nature of allegations and the risk of undue influence on witnesses – Bail orders were set aside to ensure justice and prevent intimidation [Paras 1-11].

Fake Encounter – Allegations Against Police – The deceased, an MBA student, allegedly killed by police officers who fired 29 bullets at him – The case involved charges of conspiracy, kidnapping, murder, and destruction of evidence – Supreme Court stressed the gravity of the charges and the need for witness protection [Paras 3-5, 10].

Witness Protection – Preventing Influence – The court acknowledged the complainant's fear of undue influence on prosecution witnesses – Emphasized the necessity of a fair trial free from intimidation by the accused police officers [Para 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court set aside the bail orders granted by the High Court – Highlighted the serious nature of the allegations and the potential influence on witnesses by the accused [Paras 10-11].

Land Acquisition – Execution of Compensation Awards – Appeals against the High Court's decision allowing civil revision petitions by the Land Acquisition Officer – High Court's judgment interfered with the Executing Court’s orders accepting the appellants' calculations for compensation – Supreme Court found that APSRTC had previously failed to challenge these calculations, making the subsequent revisions by the Land Acquisition Officer impermissible [Paras 2-15].

Res Judicata – Finality of Execution Orders – Supreme Court highlighted that the execution orders had become final and binding through prior rounds of litigation involving APSRTC – The Land Acquisition Officer's attempt to re-litigate the same issue was barred by principles of res judicata and finality of judgments [Paras 12-15].

Calculations of Interest – Supreme Court upheld the Executing Court's calculations, rejecting the respondent’s argument that excessive interest was claimed – Noted that the issue had been conclusively settled in earlier proceedings and could not be reopened [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – The High Court’s order was set aside and the Executing Court's order was restored – Reaffirmed the finality of the earlier judgments and the correctness of the compensation calculations [Para 17].

Development Control Regulations – Additional TDR – Appeal by MCGB against the High Court’s decision directing the grant of additional TDR for courtyard development – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment, emphasizing compliance with Regulation 34 and Appendix VII – Circular issued by MCGB restricting TDR was deemed non-applicable retroactively [Paras 2-24].

Amenity – Definition and Entitlement – Respondents developed an export office and asphalted courtyard, claiming additional TDR as an amenity under the Development Control Regulations – Supreme Court confirmed that asphalting the courtyard qualifies as an amenity, entitling respondents to 100% TDR [Paras 10-17].

Finality of Agreement – Consent Terms and Regulations – Agreement between MCGB and respondents outlined TDR entitlements – Supreme Court noted that subsequent circular could not override prior agreement or regulations – Consent terms under Regulation 34 must be honored [Paras 8-20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision granting 100% TDR for courtyard development – Emphasized the statutory force of the Development Control Regulations and invalidated the MCGB’s restrictive circular [Para 24].