Murder – Conviction Under Section 302/149 IPC – Appellants challenged their conviction, arguing lack of specific overt acts and suggesting private defence – Supreme Court upholds the conviction, finding that the prosecution's evidence, including the presence of armed appellants and the nature of injuries inflicted, sufficiently established the common object of the unlawful assembly to commit murder [Paras 8-21].

Common Object – Unlawful Assembly – Supreme Court reaffirms that individual liability under Section 149 IPC does not require specific overt acts by each member – Participation with a common object to commit the crime is sufficient – The common object in this case was demonstrated by the armed assault resulting in the death of Amarjit Singh and injuries to others [Paras 9-14].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Sufficiency – Supreme Court emphasizes that not all witnesses need to be examined – Key witnesses who unfold the prosecution narrative are sufficient – Rejects defence argument regarding non-examination of some witnesses as immaterial to the case's core [Paras 12-13].

Self-Defence – Rejection of Plea – Defence of private defence dismissed – Supreme Court notes the absence of injuries on the accused party and the presence of premeditated armed aggression – Upholds findings of lower courts that the accused were the aggressors, negating any claim of self-defence [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Supreme Court upholds the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, finding no merit in the arguments for reducing the offence to culpable homicide or individualising the guilt under lesser sections of the IPC [Paras 21].

Juvenility – Determination and Recognition – Supreme Court elaborates on the procedure to recognize claims of juvenility raised at various stages, emphasizing that such claims can be made even after final disposal of cases – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the Rules of 2007 mandate an inquiry when such claims are prima facie credible [Paras 7, 19, 35-36].

Inquiry into Age – Evidence and Procedure – Courts must follow Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules for determining age, prioritizing documentary evidence like school certificates and birth records; in their absence, medical opinions are to be considered – Physical appearance and affidavits alone are not usually sufficient to trigger an inquiry unless compelling reasons are presented [Paras 20, 38-44].

Retroactive Application – Beneficial Legislation – Section 7A of the 2000 Act has retrospective application – Claims of juvenility must be addressed even if raised post-conviction or in appeal stages – Courts must ensure beneficial provisions are not defeated by procedural technicalities [Paras 24, 25, 27, 35-36].

Standard of Proof – Initial Burden and Prima Facie Case – While initiating an inquiry, the burden is on the claimant to provide prima facie evidence – The court must balance the need for a thorough examination with the need to prevent abuse of the process by frivolous claims [Paras 30-31, 36].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – Supreme Court directs the concerned lower courts to reconsider the claims of juvenility following the guidelines set forth, ensuring adherence to Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules and the principles of the 2000 Act – Prior orders not in conformity with these principles are set aside [Paras 37, 46].

Murder – Reclassification to Culpable Homicide – Appellants argued for reclassification of the offence from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC – Supreme Court examines applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, requiring the act to be committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner [Paras 5-6].

Sudden Quarrel – Absence of Threat – Evidence indicated that the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel, but the Appellant No. 1, after being given a knife by Appellant No. 2, stabbed the unarmed deceased – Court holds that the Appellants took undue advantage and acted in a cruel manner, disqualifying the case from Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – Supreme Court finds that the nature of the attack and the circumstances did not warrant reclassification to culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Para 9].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Rights Under Madras City Tenants Protection Act – Appellant Tamil Nadu Wakf Board sought possession of property claiming it as Wakf property – Respondents (legal representatives of the original defendant) claimed protection under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – Supreme Court examines the applicability of Section 3 of the Madras City Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994, which extinguished tenants' rights in religious properties [Paras 3-6].

Abatement of Proceedings – Impact of Amended Legislation – Supreme Court notes that Section 3 of the 1994 Amendment Act mandated the abatement of all pending proceedings by tenants under Section 9 of the 1921 Act if the land belonged to a religious institution – Finds the application under Section 9 had abated, rendering the High Court's remand order legally unsustainable [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Oversight – Non-Consideration of Relevant Legislation – Criticizes the High Court for failing to consider the 1994 Amendment Act during the second appeal and review petition – Asserts that the abatement provision extinguished all tenant rights and privileges immediately upon the Act's enforcement [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Supreme Court sets aside the impugned judgment dated September 23, 1998, and the review order dated April 28, 1999 – Remands the second appeal to the Madras High Court for fresh hearing and disposal in light of the 1994 Amendment Act, with a directive for expeditious resolution within six months [Paras 16-17].

Illegal Construction – Demolition and Regularisation – Appellant sought demolition of unauthorised construction by Respondent No. 7 – Supreme Court highlights the increasing menace of illegal constructions and the need for stringent enforcement of municipal laws – Emphasizes that public authorities must demolish illegal constructions and impose penalties on wrongdoers [Paras 8-9, 27-28].

Municipal Authority – Compliance with Law – Supreme Court critiques the High Court's direction to consider the regularisation application filed by Respondent No. 7 – Notes that Respondent No. 7 continued construction despite stop-work notice and violated the sanctioned plan – Asserts that illegal construction cannot be regularised under Rule 25 of the Building Rules [Paras 12, 21, 26].

Public Interest – Rights of Citizens – Supreme Court underscores that illegal constructions violate the rights of other citizens and create hardships – Criticizes the leniency often shown to economically affluent offenders while laws are strictly enforced against the poor – Advocates for equitable enforcement of planning laws [Paras 8, 24-25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Supreme Court sets aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and directs the Kolkata Municipal Corporation to demolish the illegal construction – Orders Respondent No. 7 to compensate purchasers of the illegal flats and pay costs for violation of the sanctioned plan [Paras 28-29].

Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Appellant convicted for murder (Section 302 IPC) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) – Supreme Court examines the circumstantial evidence and confirms that the chain of circumstances, including the recovery of the deceased's body based on the appellant's disclosure, forms a complete and unbroken chain pointing to the appellant's guilt – Conviction upheld [Paras 8-10].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Admissibility and Corroboration – Supreme Court holds that extra-judicial confession can be relied upon if corroborated by other material evidence and if it is voluntary and truthful – In this case, the appellant's confession was supported by the recovery of the body and other corroborative evidence [Paras 6, 10].

Delay in FIR – Explanation and Acceptance – The appellant argued that there was a delay of 52 days in lodging the FIR, making the prosecution's story doubtful – Supreme Court rejects this contention, noting that the delay was explained by the appellant's deception, leading the family to believe the deceased was entangled in a legal case and would return [Paras 11-12].

Postmortem Report – Cause of Death – Appellant contended that the postmortem report did not specify the cause of death – Supreme Court finds that despite the decomposed state of the body, the circumstances and evidence pointed conclusively to murder, supporting the conviction [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld – Appellant ordered to surrender and serve the remaining sentence [Paras 17-18].

NDPS Act – Sentence and Default Imprisonment – Appellants convicted under Sections 8(c), 21, and 29 of the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of brown sugar (500 grams) – Trial court imposed 15 years RI and Rs. 1.5 lakh fine, with 3 years RI in default – High Court affirmed conviction and sentence – Supreme Court confirms conviction but modifies sentence to 10 years RI (minimum prescribed) and reduces default imprisonment to 6 months considering the appellants' poverty and first-time offense [Paras 8-15].

Nature of Imprisonment in Default of Fine – Supreme Court clarifies that default imprisonment is not a sentence but a penalty for non-payment of fine – Emphasizes courts must consider offender's financial capacity, nature of the offense, and circumstances before imposing harsh default terms – References past rulings to highlight need for proportionate fines and penalties [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction confirmed – Sentence reduced to 10 years RI – Default imprisonment reduced to 6 months – Appellants ordered to be released forthwith if no other offenses are pending [Paras 15-16].

Murder – Reclassification to Culpable Homicide – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his son – Supreme Court finds the absence of premeditation and concludes that the act was committed in the heat of passion due to the son's misbehavior under the influence of liquor – Reclassifies the offense under Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone [Paras 8-10].

Circumstantial Evidence – Witness Testimony – Incident witnessed by the mother of the deceased, who testified that the appellant inflicted a single stab injury on the deceased – Appellant's actions driven by the son's habitual drunken misbehavior – Court notes the single blow was inflicted without cruelty and in a moment of anger [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence modified to period already undergone – Appellant ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 9-10].

Interest on Decretal Amount – Execution of Decree – Interpretation of Order XXI Rules 1, 4, and 5 of CPC: The appellant challenged the computation of interest on the decretal amount following partial payments made towards the award. The court examined the implications of partial payments on the cessation of interest, as prescribed under Order XXI Rules 1(4) and (5). The court upheld that interest ceases to accrue on the amount paid under a decree from the date of payment notification to the decree-holder. The decision also affirmed the application of the general rule of appropriation, directing adjustments first towards interest, then towards costs, and lastly towards the principal amount [Paras 1-29]​​.

Calculation of Interest – Role of Arbitrator's Award – Rule of Court Approval: The court analyzed the award issued by the arbitrator and its subsequent approval as the rule of the court. It clarified that the award amount and the interest are distinct components and must be treated separately in the calculation of amounts due. The interest was calculated from a specific date till the decree's payment or the date of the decree, whichever was earlier. The future interest was awarded at 12% per annum from the decree date till realization, if not paid within two months [Paras 12-18]​​.

Application of Section 34 of CPC and Section 3(3)(c) of Interest Act: The court addressed the contention that Section 34 CPC and Section 3(3)(c) of the Interest Act prohibit the award of interest upon interest. The court found no merit in this argument, concluding that the interest calculation adhered to the decree's terms and did not contravene these statutory provisions [Paras 29]​​.

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court affirmed the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Single Judge's order on the calculation and cessation of interest following partial payments. The appellant's objections were dismissed, and the original calculation of interest as per the decree was upheld [Paras 1-29]​​.