Premature Release - Life Imprisonment - Petitioner seeks release after serving over 26 years in custody - State government's repeated rejection of release - Constitutional rights enforcement - Evaluation of state's remission policy. [Para 1-8]

Constitutional Rights - Right to Consideration for Remission - Legal entitlement to be considered for remission after serving 25 years - Challenge to state's policy excluding certain crimes from remission - Violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 9]

Statutory Provisions and Rules - Applicability of Prison Laws and Rules - Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and rules - The judgment discusses the applicability of the Travancore-Cochin Prison Act, the 1958 Rules, and the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 in the context of the petitioner's case. It also references Section 433-A of the CrPC. [Para 17]

Premature Release - Eligibility for Premature Release - Criteria for considering premature release of convicts - The judgment explains the statutory provisions and rules governing premature release, including Section 77 of the 2010 Act and Rule 462 to 468 of the 2014 Rules. It emphasizes that convicts completing 14 years of actual imprisonment become eligible for consideration. [Para 18]

Application of Remission Policy - Determining the applicable remission policy - The judgment clarifies the principle that the remission policy prevailing on the date of conviction is to be applied in a case, and if a more liberal policy exists on the day of consideration, then the latter would apply. [Para 19]

Retroactive Effect of Conviction - Retroactive effect of appellate conviction - The judgment cites the Maru Ram case to explain that when a person is convicted in appeal, the appellate conviction must relate back to the date of the trial court's verdict, and the remission system prevailing prior to certain amendments applies. [Para 20]

Deemed Sentence for Life Imprisonment - Calculation of deemed sentence for life imprisonment - The judgment discusses how the 1958 Rules and the 2014 Rules fix 20 years as the deemed sentence for a convict sentenced to life imprisonment. [Para 22]

Statutory Discretion and Fair Exercise - Exercise of statutory discretion by the state government - The judgment underscores the importance of exercising discretion fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrarily when it comes to matters of premature release and remission. [Para 26]

Guidelines and Executive Instructions - The judgment critiques the government's guidelines and executive instructions related to premature release and highlights the need for flexibility and individual consideration in such matters. It expresses concern that rigid guidelines may overlook the reformative potential of each convict. [Para 28-33]

Release of the Petitioner - The judgment orders the immediate release of the petitioner, considering his good conduct and positive recommendations from the Jail Advisory Board. It concludes the writ petition in this regard. [Para 35]

Succession and Will - Validity of Will - Requirements under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Execution of Will - Proof of execution under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Principles for proving the validity and execution of a Will - Compliance with statutory provisions - Examination of attesting witnesses - Removal of suspicions - Role of the propounder - Allegations of fraud, fabrication, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances - Test of judicial conscience - Factors to consider in evaluating the execution of a Will. [Para 7-11]

Validity of Will - Application of principles for proving the validity and execution of the Will - Testimony of attesting witnesses - Compliance with statutory requirements - Lack of evidence to conclude mental instability or suspicious circumstances - No undue influence detected - No interference warranted - Allegations of bigamy and second marriage not relevant to the main issue. [Para 12-16]

Disposition of Appeal - Lack of merit in the appeal - Dismissal of the appeal - Consequential benefits to be disbursed in accordance with the law. [Para 16]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Appellant's challenge to the judgment of the High Court – Appellant convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act – Appeal against the judgment and order of the Trial Court – Appellant sentenced to imprisonment and fined – Appellant's wife permitted to proceed with the Appeal after his demise. [Para 1-2]

Factual Background – Allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification – Appellant, a Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies, accused of accepting money as a bribe – Chargesheet laid by the Investigating Officer – Complainant and another accused deceased – Trial against the appellant alone – Prosecution's case based on demand of money as a bribe for official favor – Evidence presented by prosecution, including witnesses and documentary evidence. [Para 4-5]

Defendant's Defense – Appellant denies allegations, claims false implication – Appellant's explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. – Examination of defense witness – Accused's defense rests on denial of demand for illegal gratification. [Para 6]

Legal Considerations – Death of complainant and non-availability at trial – Prosecution's duty to prove case despite absence of complainant – Reliance on the decision in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh – Prosecution's ability to prove demand of illegal gratification by other means – Constitutional Bench ruling in Neeraj Dutta vs. State clarifies the issue. [Para 9]

Statutory Presumption – Section 20 of PC Act – Presumption where public servant accepts undue advantage – Rebuttable presumption – Accused's burden to dispel presumption by reasonable and probable explanation – Evidence of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings – Shift of burden on appellant – Appellant fails to dispel statutory presumption. [Para 10-12]

Decision – Appellant found guilty under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act – Well-considered findings by Trial Court and High Court – No valid grounds for interference – Criminal appeal devoid of merits and dismissed. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Appeal – Murder Conviction – Multiple appellants convicted for the brutal murder of a 15-year-old boy – Appeals filed challenging their conviction – Prosecution's case primarily rests on circumstantial evidence – Significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case – Ambiguities regarding the time of the boy's disappearance – Variability in ransom amounts mentioned by the alleged kidnappers – Contradictory statements by the victim's mother regarding the recognition of the kidnapper's voice – Questions raised about the use of sniffer dogs during the investigation – Arrests of the appellants not consistent with the recorded confessions – Violation of legal procedure with regard to confessions – Failure to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt – Chain of events not convincingly established – Appeal allowed, and appellants acquitted. [Para 1-22]

Arrest – Legal sanctity of procedure adopted by the police – Value of seizures made on the strength of so-called confessions – Section 26 and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Requirement of the accused being in custody – Absence of legal basis for confessions and subsequent actions by the police. [Para 21-22]

Theft – Allegation of stolen mobile phones – Prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence – Failure to establish a clear link between the accused and the theft – Insufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt given to the accused. [Para 23-28]

Evidence – Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of doubt – Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence – Yawning infirmities and gaps in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Acquittal of appellants – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentences of all appellants set aside – Appeals allowed. [Para 39]

Police Investigation – Poor standards of police investigation – Need for improvement in investigation procedures and adherence to essential norms – Gloomy insights from past reports about police investigations in India – Call for a consistent and dependable code of investigation to ensure the guilty are brought to justice and technicalities do not result in acquittals. [Para 38]

Police Investigation – Lapses and slipshod investigation – Suppression of new information and twist in the case – Failure to establish crucial links and follow leads – Indifference to essential norms – Tailoring of investigation to suit a preconceived story – Ineffectiveness in gathering evidence and presenting a cogent case – Benefit of doubt extended to appellants due to circumstantial evidence and absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 37]

DNA Evidence – Weakness in DNA evidence – Doubt over source and origin of DNA evidence – Inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the narrative – Possibility of evidence being tampered with – DNA evidence not serving the purpose of corroborating the prosecution’s case. [Para 33]

Postmortem Examination – Inconsistencies in postmortem findings – Contradictions in claims about semi-digested food and alcohol consumption before death – Weakening of prosecution's claim about whiskey consumption by the victim. [Para 36]

Witness Testimony – Contradictory testimony of witness – New story introduced during cross-examination – Suppression of this twist in the tale by the prosecution – Lack of alignment with the prosecution's version of events. [Para 35]

Call Data Records – Inadequate investigation into call data records – Failure to establish links between mobile numbers and accused – Lack of tangible evidence connecting mobile numbers to the appellants. [Para 34]

Mobile Phone Seizure – Inconsistent findings regarding the seizure of mobile phones – Lack of narrative by witnesses about how the phones were discovered – Suppression of information about why phones were not found during the first search – Ineffectiveness in gathering evidence. [Para 32]

Panchnamas and Seizure Memos – Suppression of witness narratives in panchnamas and seizure memos – Witnesses acting as mere attestors to documents – Lack of detailed accounts of how objects were discovered – Ineffectiveness in recording crucial evidence. [Para 31]

Search and Seizure Procedures – Violation of search and seizure procedures – Lack of transparency and accountability – Failure to follow mandatory conditions for a valid panchnama – Importance of recording procedures accurately and clearly – Consequences of procedural violations. [Para 28]

Police Investigation – Poor standards of police investigation noted in official reports – Inefficiency, unscientific methods, and malpractices – Need for improvement and coordination in police investigations. [Para 37]

Standards of Police Investigation – Disappointing standards of police investigation – Indifference to essential norms and procedures – Failure to gather evidence effectively – Lack of coordination and adherence to a consistent code of investigation – Necessity to protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice. [Para 38]

Conviction and sentences of appellants set aside – Benefit of doubt extended – Appellants to be set at liberty unless validly required in connection with any other case – Refund of fine amounts paid. [Para 39]

Civil Appeal – Challenge to a common judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court – Appointment to the higher judicial service of the State under direct recruitment quota – Appellant's non-appointment challenged – Appellant qualified in the selection process but was not appointed – Allegation of arbitrary approach in keeping the 14th post vacant – Application of the principle laid down in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 – State's discretion not to fill all vacancies but subject to bona fide reasons – No arbitrary action found in appointments. [Para 8-17]

Recruitment – Vacancy due to resignation of selected candidate – Fresh vacancy arises – Necessity to follow a proper advertisement and selection process – Division Bench's handling of the issue in accordance with legal precedents – No error in this regard. [Para 18]

Timeliness – Lengthy duration of the selection process – Initiation in 2007, judgment in 2023 – Prudence in not directing appointments at this stage – Upholding the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. [Para 19]

Dismissal of the appeal – No merit found – Costs not awarded. [Para 20]

Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC - Challenge to the judgment of the High Court - Dismissal of certain appeals while acquitting one co-accused - Detailed examination of the case facts and circumstances - Evaluation of witness testimonies - Examination of self-defense plea - Indiscriminate firing leading to casualties - Presence of appellants on the roof during the incident - Alleged exhortation of Babu Ram to fire shots - Issue of common intention - Conviction and sentencing of appellants under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC - Benefit of doubt to co-accused Vijay – Appeal to Supreme Court. [Para 1-15]

Conviction under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC - Lack of evidence establishing a common intention to commit the murder - Two deceased individuals, Anil and Vijay, were not related to the accused party, and there was no animosity between them - Prosecution's case relied on the appellants' general exhortation to Babu Ram not to spare Satpal's supporters - Inconsistent testimony regarding the sequence of events and whether the two deceased supported Satpal - Insufficient evidence to conclusively show that the appellants exhorted Babu Ram to fire shots at the two deceased - Babu Ram's individual act cannot be attributed to the appellants without clear and cogent evidence of a common intention - Conviction under Section 34 IPC for murder of the two deceased not sustainable. [Para 27-31]

Criminal Offense - Liability for Offense Punishable under Section 307 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Evaluation of whether appellants could escape liability for the offense of Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC - Determination dependent on whether appellants committed acts specified in Section 300 IPC in furtherance of common intention - Appellants' knowledge of the imminently dangerous act leading to the death or bodily injury of individuals - Nature of indiscriminate firing, number of injured persons, and appellants' involvement - Appellants held liable for the offense of Section 307 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC. [Para 32-33]

Effect of Non-disclosure of Incriminating Circumstance - Examination of whether appellants' conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC stood vitiated due to the failure to disclose the incriminating circumstance of exhortation during the recording of statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) - Common charge framing order charging appellants with offenses - Questions put to appellants under Section 313 CrPC - Appellants' denial of involvement and claims of false implication - Prejudice and failure of justice - Legal principles on the effect of non-disclosure of incriminating circumstances during Section 313 CrPC examination - Failure to raise objections during the trial - Absence of prejudice to the accused - Conviction not vitiated. [Para 34-45]

Disposition of Appeals - Acquittal of appellants for the offense of Section 302 IPC with Section 34 IPC - Upholding of conviction and sentence for the offense of Section 307 IPC with Section 34 IPC - Cancellation of bail bonds and order to surrender to serve the remaining sentence, if any, under Section 307/34 IPC - Disposition of all three appeals. [Para 46-47]

Civil Appeal – Second Appeal – Violation of Procedure in Framing Substantial Questions of Law – Lack of Adequate Opportunity for Parties to Address the Questions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings of Fact – Matter Remanded to High Court for Reconsideration.

Framing of Substantial Questions of Law in Second Appeal: The present case involves a violation of the procedural aspects of framing substantial questions of law in second appeal. The High Court framed substantial questions of law at the time of the second appeal hearing, without providing the parties with adequate time to prepare and address these questions. [Para 20]

Concurrent Findings of Fact: The High Court's judgment overturned concurrent findings of fact without clearly demonstrating exceptional circumstances or perversity in the lower courts' conclusions. The established principle is that in second appeals, the High Court should not interfere with findings of fact unless there are compelling reasons to do so, and these reasons should be based on a careful analysis of the trial court's records. [Para 25-27.2]

Remand for Reconsideration: Due to the procedural irregularities and the need for proper adherence to the law, the matter has been remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal procedure. The judgment and order of the High Court have been set aside, and the case is restored to the High Court's file for a fresh examination. [Para 28-30]

Fair Hearing and Procedural Compliance: This case underscores the importance of ensuring a fair hearing and procedural compliance, particularly in the framing of substantial questions of law and the review of concurrent findings of fact in second appeals. The proper procedure should be followed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness. [Para 20, 27.1]

Decision: The Civil Appeal is accepted, and the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal procedure. Proper adherence to the law, including the framing of substantial questions of law and a fair hearing, is essential to ensure justice in second appeals. [Para 28-30]

Property Dispute – Title and Possession – Appeal against the Madras High Court’s judgment – Appellant’s claim to the title and possession of the entire suit property challenged – Suit for declaration of property ownership and permanent injunction – Appellant’s historical ownership and acquisition of the property outlined – Defendants contest ownership and allege ulterior motives – Trial court decrees suit in favor of appellant – First Appellate Court upholds the judgment – Second Appeal filed by defendants – High Court reverses concurrent judgments – Key questions of law framed and answered in favor of defendants – Appellant challenges the High Court’s judgment – Examination of substantial questions of law and applicability of legal principles under Section 100, CPC and the Evidence Act – High Court’s reliance on R. Nainar Pillai’s case questioned – Permissibility of certified copies as secondary evidence – Presumption of genuineness of certified copies discussed under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. [Para 1-22]

Evidence Act – Certified copy of a sale deed – Admissibility – Ext.A1 is a certified copy of a sale deed, the execution of which is not disputed – The objection regarding its admissibility was raised but is legally unsustainable – Sections 65(e), 74(2), 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, along with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, make the certified copy of the sale deed admissible in evidence for proving its contents. [Para 29-30]

Title of Property – Ext.A5 sale deed legally establishes the contents of the original sale deed No.1209/1928 of SRO Andipatti, conferring the right over the entire property covered by Exts.A1 and A5 to the appellant/plaintiff – No valid reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the lower courts – The judgment and decree of the trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, are restored. [Para 33-34]

Appeal allowed with no order as to cost. [Para 35]

Based on the information provided, it appears that this is a multi-faceted case involving issues like service termination, regularization, and screening processes. Here are the headnotes of the judgement, categorized according to the relevant paragraphs.

Civil Appeal – Teacher's Employment in Railway School 

Appeal by Samir Kumar Majumder, a school teacher, against High Court judgment denying him absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section and rejecting his claim for continuity in service. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Service Termination and Re-Engagement 

The appellant, initially appointed as a Substitute Teacher, claims that artificial breaks were created in his service by way of termination and reappointment around school vacations. [Para 2]

Tribunal Proceedings – Initial Relief Denied 

The appellant sought relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) in Guwahati, which passed an interim order but ultimately dismissed his application for regularization. [Para 3-5]

High Court Rulings – Circular Provisions 

The Tribunal’s decision was influenced by other cases and circulars, emphasizing that Railway Recruitment Board selection is essential for regular appointment. [Para 6]

Supreme Court Directions – Age Relaxation and Screening Process 

Appellant’s case was considered by the Supreme Court, which directed relaxation in the age bar and allowed for a screening process for regular absorption. [Para 7-8]

Post-Screening Appointment – Grievances 

The appellant was appointed as Primary Teacher after the screening but filed another Original Application expressing dissatisfaction with his post and pay-scale. [Para 9-11]

Continuity of Service – Discriminatory Treatment 

Appellant denied continuity in service while others were granted the same, solely because the Court had not made any specific order about him in this regard. [Para 12-13]

Central Administrative Tribunal's Decision – Calcutta Bench 

The Central Administrative Tribunal in Calcutta upheld the respondent-authorities' stand, relying on the appellant's original appointment as a primary teacher. [Para 15]

Based on the provided parts of the judgment, the headnotes can be crafted as follows:

Absorption as Assistant Teacher – Higher Secondary Section: Court holds appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section untenable; claim not raised in previous litigation and based on appointment as substitute primary teacher. [Para 29-32]

Law on Constructive Res Judicata: Court elaborates on the doctrine of constructive res judicata; appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section barred by the same. [Para 33-34]

Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium: Court emphasizes the need for an end to litigation for the same cause based on public policy. [Para 35]

Claim for Continuity of Service: Court acknowledges appellant’s right to continuity of service based on Master Circular dated 29.01.1991 and prior Court orders; authorities’ denial of the same termed incorrect. [Para 37-38]

Rights under Master Circular: Court elucidates rights flowing from the Master Circular, including acquisition of temporary status and provisions for screening; appellant’s service should count from the date of acquiring temporary status. [Para 39-41]

Decision: Court dismisses appellant’s claim for absorption as Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Section but affirms his right to continuity of service as a primary teacher in line with the Master Circular and prior Court orders. [Para 28-41]

Please note that the ‘Decision’ part is synthesized based on the content you provided. Feel free to modify as needed.