Probationary Service – Termination Simpliciter – Supreme Court upheld the termination of the appellant as a probationary Munsif, affirming that probationary appointments are subject to scrutiny for performance and conduct – Found that the decision to terminate was based on overall unsatisfactory performance and not on disciplinary grounds [Paras 10-12].

No Stigma or Punitive Action – Differentiated between termination simpliciter and removal for misconduct – Clarified that termination based on overall assessment during probation does not require formal inquiry or opportunity to defend, provided it is not punitive or stigmatic in nature [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Officer's Suitability – Emphasized the importance of maintaining high standards of integrity and performance in judicial service – Referenced prior decisions supporting the need for rigorous assessment before confirming judicial appointments [Para 11].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's claim of procedural violations – Upheld the High Court's order affirming the termination as valid and justified [Paras 13].

Judicial Restraint in Summoning Officials – High Court summoned Principal Secretary Finance and Principal Secretary Medical & Health for non-compliance with earlier judgment – Supreme Court emphasized that summoning senior officials should be done only in rare and exceptional cases with compelling reasons – Frequent summoning of high officials is counterproductive and an improper use of judicial power [Paras 5-14].

Mutual Respect Between Judiciary and Executive – Supreme Court underscored the importance of mutual respect between the judiciary and the executive – Judiciary should exercise humility and modesty in using its powers, while the executive must respect judicial orders and comply with them promptly – Summoning officials should be a last resort when there is clear defiance of court orders [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order summoning senior officials set aside – High Court directed to decide the Contempt Petition on merits expeditiously – Copy of the order to be circulated to all High Courts and Chief Secretaries for compliance [Paras 13-16].

Custodial Violence and Death – High Court convicted appellants for custodial death, reversing the trial court's acquittal – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that custodial torture, especially resulting in death, violates Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the principles established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal – Appellants subjected Mathura to electric shocks to extort a confession, leading to his death from intracranial hemorrhage [Paras 23-32].

Judicial Scrutiny of Acquittal Reversals – Supreme Court reiterated that appellate courts should interfere with trial court acquittals only if findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – High Court correctly reversed the trial court's acquittal based on compelling evidence of illegal detention and custodial torture [Paras 9-21].

Medical Evidence and Witness Testimony – Testimonies of Dr. C.M. Tripathi and Dr. L.D. Vaswani confirmed injuries consistent with electric shocks – PW6 Kamal Singh's evidence, despite initial fear, corroborated illegal detention and torture – High Court's reliance on medical evidence and PW6's testimony was upheld [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment convicting appellants for offences under Sections 304 Part II and 330 IPC upheld – Custodial violence condemned, affirming the need for strict adherence to human rights protections [Para 33].

Voice Identification Evidence – Reliability and Admissibility – Supreme Court held voice identification evidence as suspect and unreliable if not corroborated by other evidence – Highlighted the need for stringent safeguards for voice identification, emphasizing it should only be used as corroborative evidence, not as substantive evidence alone [Paras 24-42].

Acquittal of Co-accused – Impact on Appellant – High Court disbelieved prosecution version for co-accused but upheld conviction of appellant based on voice identification – Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, emphasizing consistent application of standards for evidence assessment [Paras 25-28].

Custody and Procedural Lapses – Supreme Court noted serious procedural lapses in handling and presenting evidence, including delay in producing the recorded tape – Emphasized the need for proper handling and custody of evidence to maintain its integrity [Paras 38-41].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 43].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Contractors' Employees – Full Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed that persons employed through contractors in industries under the BIR Act are considered employees under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act – Held complaints by such employees maintainable even without direct employer-employee relationship with the principal employer [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Interpretation – Conflicting Judgments – Supreme Court noted conflicting views in prior judgments on similar issues, including decisions in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, and Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. – Emphasized need for larger bench to provide authoritative resolution [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Matter referred to a larger bench – Highlighted the importance and impact of the controversy, particularly in Maharashtra – Directed Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench for deciding the issues involved [Paras 11-12].

Judicial Restraint in Summoning Officials – High Court summoned Principal Secretary Finance and Principal Secretary Medical & Health for non-compliance with earlier judgment – Supreme Court emphasized that summoning senior officials should be done only in rare and exceptional cases with compelling reasons – Frequent summoning of high officials is counterproductive and an improper use of judicial power [Paras 5-14].

Mutual Respect Between Judiciary and Executive – Supreme Court underscored the importance of mutual respect between the judiciary and the executive – Judiciary should exercise humility and modesty in using its powers, while the executive must respect judicial orders and comply with them promptly – Summoning officials should be a last resort when there is clear defiance of court orders [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order summoning senior officials set aside – High Court directed to decide the Contempt Petition on merits expeditiously – Copy of the order to be circulated to all High Courts and Chief Secretaries for compliance [Paras 13-16].

Custodial Violence and Death – High Court convicted appellants for custodial death, reversing the trial court's acquittal – Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that custodial torture, especially resulting in death, violates Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the principles established in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal – Appellants subjected Mathura to electric shocks to extort a confession, leading to his death from intracranial hemorrhage [Paras 23-32].

Judicial Scrutiny of Acquittal Reversals – Supreme Court reiterated that appellate courts should interfere with trial court acquittals only if findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – High Court correctly reversed the trial court's acquittal based on compelling evidence of illegal detention and custodial torture [Paras 9-21].

Medical Evidence and Witness Testimony – Testimonies of Dr. C.M. Tripathi and Dr. L.D. Vaswani confirmed injuries consistent with electric shocks – PW6 Kamal Singh's evidence, despite initial fear, corroborated illegal detention and torture – High Court's reliance on medical evidence and PW6's testimony was upheld [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment convicting appellants for offences under Sections 304 Part II and 330 IPC upheld – Custodial violence condemned, affirming the need for strict adherence to human rights protections [Para 33].

Voice Identification Evidence – Reliability and Admissibility – Supreme Court held voice identification evidence as suspect and unreliable if not corroborated by other evidence – Highlighted the need for stringent safeguards for voice identification, emphasizing it should only be used as corroborative evidence, not as substantive evidence alone [Paras 24-42].

Acquittal of Co-accused – Impact on Appellant – High Court disbelieved prosecution version for co-accused but upheld conviction of appellant based on voice identification – Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, emphasizing consistent application of standards for evidence assessment [Paras 25-28].

Custody and Procedural Lapses – Supreme Court noted serious procedural lapses in handling and presenting evidence, including delay in producing the recorded tape – Emphasized the need for proper handling and custody of evidence to maintain its integrity [Paras 38-41].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case [Paras 43].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Contractors' Employees – Full Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed that persons employed through contractors in industries under the BIR Act are considered employees under Section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act – Held complaints by such employees maintainable even without direct employer-employee relationship with the principal employer [Paras 6-8].

Judicial Interpretation – Conflicting Judgments – Supreme Court noted conflicting views in prior judgments on similar issues, including decisions in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, and Sarva Shramik Sangh v. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. – Emphasized need for larger bench to provide authoritative resolution [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Matter referred to a larger bench – Highlighted the importance and impact of the controversy, particularly in Maharashtra – Directed Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench for deciding the issues involved [Paras 11-12].